Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

Fate of Wikipedia:France-related topics notice board?

I brought over some material from the Wikipedia:France-related topics notice board to this project, but I see that the project also has created subpages for new article announcements, attention needed and article requests... which leads me to wonder what the ultimate fate or use of the Wikipedia:France-related topics notice board should be... any comments? -- NYArtsnWords 18:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

We could either integrate it as in WP:Germany the new articles with the Portal or as in WP:India as a sub page in the project. STTW (talk)

{{WikiProject France}}

Is it possible to add the above template to talk pages of all France related articles? STTW (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made a request for Bot assisted addition at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#WikiProject_France_Bot STTW (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The bot adding this template is adding them to many articles it shouldn't. Please see discussion at User talk:ST47. It has tagged articles like St. Martinville, Louisiana & Navarre national football team (a Spanish football team). I suggest this project's members review all the tagged articles, ensure they are ones that they actual want tagged, and clean-up the ones that are improperly tagged. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

STTWbot has been approved and will be tagging the Cat:France articles under my guidance. The current tagging in progress can be seen on the STTWbot page. STTW (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

New stub templates

I have proposed new stub templates at WP:WSS/P to further sort the france stubs STTW (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

DYK section

I wonder if it would be better if the DYK section -- which features new articles -- should be removed from the main project page and placed with the New Article Announcement subpage? It certainly doesn't demand the same amout of attention as the other sections on the main page. --NYArtsnWords 05:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Soup au Cochon Incident

I can't seem to find an article on this topic, by which I mean the incident in which French charities associated with the National Front began serving "pork soup" in their soup kitchens in order to prevent muslims from accepting their charity. It has supposedly caused serious debate in France and has recently been banned by the Conseil d'État. [1]--Jersey Devil 16:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD notice

Possible expansion?

I note that there is currently no specific project dealing with either Andorra or Monaco. Would the members of this project object if the scope of the project were expanded to include articles related to Andorra and Monaco? Badbilltucker 15:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to rip into me, but, being bold, I just expanded the scope of the project to include the two microstates above. Badbilltucker 17:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that all the ripping-into is being done on the topic above. You might want to steer clear of it :) --Aquarelle 18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Andorra might be better placed within the WikiProject Spain, that, or it become common between the two? --Bob 23:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more logical to put Andorra in the WikiProject Spain cause this country is geograficaly and culturaly more closely related to spain than to France. And don't think it's a spanish nationalist point of view, I'm french.--Kimdime69 05:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Only added them both here because it's a more recently formed project. Would clearly have no objections to realigning Andorra at request. Badbilltucker 16:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Andorra would be best dealt with by a WikiProject Catalonia, which has yet to be created! Until then, I can see no problems with it being looked after here. Physchim62 (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I just hope we get a decision soon. As of now, the entire Category:Andorra has all of two articles at B-Class assessment, the highest grade any of them have. Those articles clearly need a lot of work. Badbilltucker 21:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I favour Andorra, being at a WikiProject Catalonia as well. If not there, then WikiProject France. Why France? The President of France is also the Co-Prince of Andorra (PS- if 'Madame Royal becomes President of France, will she be listed as Co-Princess of Andorra?). GoodDay 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
It would make sense for a putative WikiProject Catalonia to deal with Andorra, but until any such project exists I don't foresee any problem with including it here. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
For someone how had been in France, in Spain and in Andorra its obvious that Andorra has more to do with Spain than with France geographicaly and culturaly but do as you want--Kimdime69 11:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Kimdime69 is right, Andorra is much closer to Spain than it is to France geographically and culturally speaking. Spanish is the most widely spoken language, followed by Catalan (the sole official language and another language mainly used and favoured in Spain) and Spaniards form the bulk of the citizens, Andorrans being a minority. Maybe Wikiproject Spain isn't mature enough to actually help Andorra related articles as much the French one can't, I don't know, but geographically and culturally it is much more in the Spanish side. --Taraborn 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Stevage's two cents

Ok someone asked me to comment and I don't really have time to read the discussion but:

  • Using "department" as a translation for département is bad. Using "region" as a translation for région is worse. The French riviera is a "region" of France. Britanny is a "region" of France. Languedoc is probably a "region" of France. Centre is a région of France.
  • So if you don't like "département" (etc), and "department" (etc) is a bad translation, what do you use? State? Administrative division (vomit)? Maybe someone can propose something better. Stevage 01:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Stevage, as you know, many words include multiple meanings in their definitions. The context of a well-written piece will make apparent which meaning applies. Maybe you should read over the discussion, and you might take a gander in a good English dictionary (Hey, wait--gander?--is that a goose or a glance?). -Eric (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the French use the words département and région for many different things other than the administrative divisions... something over looked here. --Bob 07:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Certain editor's can't get beyond the fact that the two words look alike. English and French have gone their seperate ways to a certain extent, and a number of very similar words have developed very different meanings in the two languges. I'm still shocked that I have to explain this to a group of people who supposedly speak French and English. BTW, the argument that we can't use foreign terms because this is English Wikipedia is absurd and lacking. Is that all that the anti-French side has left to offer ? Strawman arguments and BS ? I guess I need to repeat that the French government uses these terms when they write in English (to be fair, they use the English cognates as well at other times. They evidently have no official policy on the issue) as well as many publishers (pick up any Eyewitness travel guide, or many others for that matter). Eric, what is your point in pointing out all the cognates ? It's obvious that English has taken thousands of words from French, but this argument is far too vague for our debate. --Aquarelle 06:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No strawman arguments. Simple fact based research. The French government uses the English terms in English papers. INSEE uses the English terms in English language publications. Local governments use the English terms. The English terms are found in the OED, Websters, and other dictionaries with the defintion one of the large districts into which certain countries, as France, are divided for administrative purposes. or similar. You are stating that if the reader possibly does not know every meaning of a word then we should not use it. Now, lets see about publishers... a quick check on the BBC website and we observe the overwhelming use of the English terms. Ditto for CNN and other major news outlets. Even the CIA uses the English terms not the French ones. What is shocking here, Aquarelle, is that you are apparently ignorant of the usage of the term department in both the English and French languages. Either that or you are blatantly cherry picking definitions to fit a skewed POV. It is not that the French and English words are similar, but that they have the same definition for this use. Sure, we use department in English when we would use service in French. In this instance we shouldn't even begin to think about using the word service in English, but that is not the case here. Department and region are fully transposable with their French equivalents. --Bob 07:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Such a self-righteous, contemptuous, one-sided man you are, Bob. Save the personal attacks : you know full well that I speak French, so why even make a point of questioning it ? You want to regurgitate simple facts out of context ? Okay here we go : INSEE uses the French terms in English publications. FACT. English dictionaries describe a very different usage of the term department and region than French ones. FACT. Anglophones don't use the words department and region the same way francophones do. FACT. Anglophone authors commonly use the French terms to describe régions and départements to their readers. FACT. Now, shall we take this discussion to the next intellectual level or would you prefer to stick with the basic brutalities ? I'm assuming you're more comfortable with the latter. --Aquarelle 08:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks were made. However, the first and last sentences you used above could be deemed as such. WP:DICK may be called in yet again, but I will refrain for the time being. Now, lets see about a nice rebuttal:

INSEE uses the English terms in English publications. FACT. English dictionaries describe many usages of the term department and region including those that the French ones do. FACT. Anglophones use the words department and region the same way francophones do. FACT. Anglophone authors commonly use the English terms to describe regions and departments to their readers. FACT.

Quite simple really. --Bob 08:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It must be nice to see the world in black and white. For now, I'm just going to wait and hope that the good judgement of other editors overcomes your intransigence. --Aquarelle 08:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
On your end, Bob, no subjective arguments please - it is not very useful to discussion to select only arguments for, and especially provide only selective examples of, an already-decided point of view. I (for one) am doing my best to look at this from all sides of the issue, so please do your best to do the same; you are totally ignoring many points in answering arguments in your effort to promote your own. Perhaps I should make the same critique of Aquarelle's arguments. Hell: subjective arguments just go in endless circles and p*ss "opposing" arguments off, okay?  : )
Stevage puts it rather bluntly, but it is true that both "department" and "region" are simply bad translations: today both words in English do not have the same signification and - most importantly - use as their native-language counterparts. It is a bad practice to take a word that describes a precise thing (or in this case, is a proper name (noun) of a certain type of subdivision) in its own language and to substitute it with another whose applications can be many in the language it is written in. Worse still, one reading a word in his own language will hesitate even less at word if he doesn't know its exact signification: since he recognises the word as one of his own language, he is most likely to just "assume" a meaning most convenient to him and move on - and might I add that this convenience is the very purpose of most translations! Yet a foreign word left as such, and italicised to boot, practically screams that its English counterpart, should it exist, does not have the same use and meaning.
I won't even try to theorise on why news programs and other publications having the same context as Wiki articles (articles not on the subject of the translated word itself) would make this sort of "translation", but since the translated result has a level of ambiguity that the original doesn't have, this makes this practice a worst sort of "dumbing down". I do understand that the "Anglisisation" effort has good intentions at heart, but it is unfortunately a misguided one. THEPROMENADER 09:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Let me just note that I was purposely using subjective arguments to show how useless they are. I said outright that the following was a simple regurgitation of facts taken out of context. Like ThePromenader said, these arguments go nowhere. --Aquarelle 09:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Stevage and ThePromenader. I'd always use département and région when talking about the terms with specific French meaning, partly because they gel the concept as "not quite the same as the English terms" in the reader's mind. A region isn't the same as a région. I quite strongly oppose the current trend to Anglicisation of French terms. Sure, calling Henry IV of France Henry rather than Henri makes sense in an English-language publication, but I think that Anglicising terms that have quite specific meanings in French into more generic terms in English is a really bad idea. — OwenBlacker 10:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
To the people who apparently cannot grasp the concept of multiple, flexible word definitions: Will you please consult an English dictionary before your next repetition of incorrect statements? It may help you to break the cycle of incomprehension. -Eric (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty audacious to say that we would all agree with you if we would just look in the dictionary. Is that really what you wanted to say ? Maybe I misunderstood. --Aquarelle 15:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd call it more hopeful than audacious. -Eric (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyhow, when you look in a dictionary, you already know what word you're looking for. A wiki article does not have this context, and each of its words do not come with explanations and definitions. Best use precision where able - just call things by their proper name when they have one. THEPROMENADER 15:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The context point is addressed several times above. -Eric (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If that is your answer, then you've obviously ignored every single one of them. I suggest you read them again. THEPROMENADER 16:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Promenader, I really shouldn't take the time to, but in good faith, I just went to every instance of the word "context" above. I see nothing there that weakens the pro-English term arguments. If necessary, a writer establishes the use of a given term in a piece, knowing that any head-scratchers need only consult a good English dictionary to confirm this particular connotation. To insist on the French term when the English term's validity is firmly established in multiple sources is to cater to a presumed ignorance on the part of the reader, and further to assume an inability on the part of the reader to broaden his or her understanding of a term's meaning. We should not write out of fear that readers might gain a more nuanced understanding of the language. The English language is vast and rich, having--by the more conservative counts--a couple hundred thousand more words than the nearest contender. I say let's use 'em. -Eric (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The OED has a very inclusive policy of taking every word, technical term, spelling variant and slang employed since the beginning of Middle English to bloat their statistics - this makes for a very poor reflexion of the English language's actual size and scope. What does that have to do with this issue anyways ? --Aquarelle 17:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Aquarelle, if you don't see the relevance to the issue, it is beyond my power to light your way. I didn't mention the OED. I mainly use the AHD--it is an excellent, current reference for modern use of the English language (including British). I doubt many people would agree with you that the editors of the OED are motivated by a desire to "bloat statistics." Thanks for the chuckle, though. -Eric (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised you aren't familiar with the controversey. It's not a matter of counting words but of defining them, which is inherently biased. Do you know the difference between words and word families ? I take the OED as an example, but many English dictionaries have similar policies. I don't see what's funny about it. Try doing some research. --Aquarelle 17:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Eric, why shouldn't you take the time to explain? Would you suggest that some here are not worthy? Anyhow, In fact the only argument for Anglicisation of proper names I've seen thus far is "other people do it". As for the eventual head-scratchers: not that anyone should have to consult a dictionary, but at least with the French version of the word, they will go there if they don't know what a "département" is, as presented in its French version it is obviously a special something in particular. Yet what of the word "department"? What of the word "region"? To the English reader, is this something special and particular? Most often: Not. Stevage is right in his Riviera example - why ignore this argument? Right on the dot. All one would be doing by transforming French proper names into English common nouns is introducing ambiguity and possibilities for error. THEPROMENADER 17:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Explain? It's been done many ways by several people above, but apparently without effect (maybe without having been read?)
Not sure what you mean by "proper names."
So, readers of the English Wikipedia should have a French dictionary handy to keep them from having to be aware of English definitions? I am aware of multiple meanings for the word "region." Stevage's point does not invalidate the use of the word region (for the millionth time, once it's been defined in context).
I'm also aware of mulitple meanings for the word "exhaust." I can tell you--in one sentence without any side explanation--that you are exhausting me, and that I have to get the exhaust on my car fixed; you will not stumble for an instant in understanding what I'm saying. I also know that in German, there is a word for car exhaust--Auspuff--that does not include in its meanings "to tire." Do you want me to replace the second instance of "exhaust" above with "Auspuff"? -Eric (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
That's really neither here nor there. You're comparing two very different things. --Aquarelle 19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This is a neutral opinon. Personally, I'd prefer ONLY English words being used on English Wikipedia. Why? Less confusion, less bickering, less linguistic wars. However with countless editors visting English Wikipedia, my views would never be accepted. Too bad this isn't the Canadian Wikipedia, English words would get english treatment & French words would get french treatment (that's how it's done on CBC & Canadian publications). Hope you guys/gals can come up with a compromise. PS, this agrument is similar to the 'Diacritics' debate on Ice Hockey Biography articles. GoodDay 18:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
We're not just reading the simple evening news on CBC. As ThePromenader said, we aren't translating "dog" to "chien." We're talking about a name for a certain thing that exists in France and not in anglophone countries. --Aquarelle 19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee could help end this disagreement. I wish you all good luck. GoodDay 19:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not talking about a certain thing that exists just in France and not in anglophone countries. Department is used in the English language to describe département in French, departamento in Spanish and departament in Polish amongst others. It is clearly used in English so I see no reason not to use it in an English language article, especially as it is a word which appears in English dictionaries with exactly the description of the equivalent words in the other languages. --Bob 19:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the context will be confusing and the French word is more precise when used in English. Please read the above arguments again ; ThePromenader has already addressed this issue several times. --Aquarelle 20:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that argument assumes the reader will be stupid and ignorant. --Bob 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it considers that the reader will appreciate the most accurate description of what he is researching. You've changed your argument : first you rationalised your "anglicisation" by saying that it would make things more simple and avoid confusing the reader, and now that you realise that the French terms are more specific and precise, you claim that the reader will be able to handle the complexity of the obscure English definition. --Aquarelle 20:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reading comprehension skills seem to be lacking. I have not changed my argument. My argument from the beginning is that these terms are used in English, appear in the English language with the same specifc definition as the French terms. I have now added to that that we shouldn't assume stupidity of the end user, however, this in no way compromises my original position. Where, exactly, have I changed my position? --Bob 21:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll to forgo the personal attacks (WP:No_personal_attacks) and just refer you to my previous post which you will find to be very specific. --Aquarelle 21:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Take a third-person's (NPOV) advice. Seek a resolution at the Mediation Committee. Why? 'Bob' will never convince 'Aquarelle' & 'Aquarelle' will never convince 'Bob'. Trust me guys, you're too entrenched to compromise. GoodDay 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Aquarelle- Not complexity. Simplicity. They are the same word. If the English language sees something it can use, it takes it and makes it its own. You cannot stop that--in the case of the terms we've been discussing, it's already way too late anyway. You want French words where English has already adopted terms for them. Many published sources, among them highly respected reference works, disagree with you and will continue using the English terms regardless of what Wikipedians do in our little online universe. You are standing on the bank of a big river and telling it that it's flowing in the wrong direction. We xenophobes are standing on the other bank, rooting for the river. The river--if it takes any notice of us--thinks we're all crazy. -Eric (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Your posts make me smile ; you are definately the most figurative fellow around here. However I still don't agree with you, especially the part where you play-down the importance of Wikipedia. I don't see what you mean by saying that complexity and simplicity are the same thing, either. It's not that I have some sort of hidden desire to infuse French terms into English (that job's already been done anyways :) but that I want to use the most precise and direct term possible. I'll say again, the French terms are commonly used in English. Just take a look at any publication about France. --Aquarelle 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Any publication? Lets look at the stats report of 2004 by INSEE. Oh look, department is in English. --Bob 21:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We've already established that the INSEE has no official policy on this issue as they use both the French and English terms. The French guys at INSEE probably don't appreciate the English sense of the word anyways. --Aquarelle 21:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And you have proof of that I suppose? --Bob 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Of what ? --Aquarelle 21:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
MEDIATION COMMITTEE, give it a try. Before you guys wear yourself out. GoodDay 22:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Aquarelle, I meant to counter your "complexity of the obscure English definition" with what I see as "simplicity of the clear..." -Eric (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, will you stop ignoring each other's arguments? Of course the meaning of "department" in the INSEE site is clear - its sole concern is demographics and administrative areas, and the explanation for each term is provided everywhere in each article. Wiki articles are not and do not do the same. THEPROMENADER 05:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

An article on Martinique from the BBC. [2] It is written in the same style as a wiki article would and yet it uses English language terms. So much for English terminology not being used in English language texts. Also the Columbia encylopaedia uses the english term in its articles (for example). Encarta also uses English terms (an example). Therefore, all arguments that state that department is rarely, if ever used in English are absolutely incorrect. Sure, Britannica uses the French form, but that in no way detracts from the fact that the English form is in common everyday use elsewhere. Even this project states The most general rule of the Wikipedia is that editors should use the most common form of the name or expression used in English. Department and region are both in common usage in English as I, and others have shown. .--Bob 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Who said that the English cognates were never employed ? Strawman argument. --Aquarelle 06:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be good if you could read ALL edits before making such a statement. If you look below you will see this phrase: 'Department is rarely, if ever, used in English to describe a geographical subdivision, so département is the word to use. --Ishu 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

--Bob 07:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

He didn't say that they were never used, he just questioned the frequency. And it's true, "department" in the sense of a political subdevision is rare and unfamiliar to most Anglophones. --Aquarelle 07:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And Is suppose you have a poll that backs that statement up? --Bob 15:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A poll would be just as non-consequential as a Google search result, since most of the results are from non-notable sources unworthy of being referred too. If you don't like a poll, don't offer a random Google search which shows results which are WP:NOR from non-notable sources. If you do want to take your earlier Google search results for source, then Aquarelle's comments are just as notable. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
By all means, please open one! THEPROMENADER 15:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

that would be WP:NOR --Bob 20:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What? Open a vote then. THEPROMENADER 17:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
to comment on one of Bob's previous comments, the English version of the INSEE website keeps the accents. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

More context

Nobody is suggesting that we move Prime Minister of France to Premier ministre français. Prime minister and Premier ministre have comparable meanings. Department and département do not in the contexts we are discussing. I don't think anyone's objecting to translating when they are in fact equivalent. In any case, we definitely should not translate when they aren't comparable. Department is rarely, if ever, used in English to describe a geographical subdivision, so département is the word to use. --Ishu 22:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you are wrong on so many levels regarding this one. --Bob 22:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
This isn't much of a discussion when you post responses like that. --Ishu 22:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I know, but when statements like that are posted, which basically refuse to acknowledge any of the facts and websites previously posted which refute everything you just stated, then what more is there to say? It feels as though I am banging my head off a brick wall here. --Bob 22:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ishu, have you looked up "department" in an English dictionary? -Eric (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
How about a look at Department (subnational entity). Just looking for a compromise. GoodDay 23:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's decide who's the majority and miniority in this issue before proposing compromises. Keep in mind also that this is the first time, since practically years of French article contributions, that Anglicisation of French proper names has been proposed. THEPROMENADER 05:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And no, selective examples are not "proof" of anything, especially if they do not support objective arguments! This only amounts to "other people do it" - but without any mention of (already-known word dictionary, topic specific organisations) context! It is very clear that inexact translation of French proper names into multi-meaning'd common English terms is a step in the opposite direction of exactitude. Keep it simple. THEPROMENADER 06:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

When the word already exists in the English language and is used in many different contexts, including wiki-article type contexts, then maybe we could use the exact translation which exists already... --Bob 07:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Because it's ambiguous. This has already been covered. --Aquarelle 07:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
As Stevage indicated earlier, the English "translation" is not precise - it is vague and conveys an "easy" message that is open to erronous interpretation. There is no risk of error when the original proper name is used. THEPROMENADER 10:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

and that is exactly where Stevage's argument falls flat, as it rests on a false premise. --Bob 15:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Bob, yours is the false allegation! Both points - real English meaning and resulting inaccuracies - have been lain down quite clearly several times in this thread. THEPROMENADER 15:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been done without any factual basis. Please cite me a source which states unequivocably that the term department is not the same as the term département. Unless you can give me a source that states this with 100% clarity (and a reputable source of course) then any statement in this thread that states that the real English meaning does not include the French administrative department and that using the English word results in inaccuracies has to be discounted as original research. I have already provided sources which define the use the English terms, one being the OED. --Bob 15:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Stevage's argument was based on common sense above anything else, but if you must find the "facts" to back up what should be simple reasoning, he already provided you with one: The Riviera region is not a région... but what English speaker is to say whether it is or it isn't if it's written "Riviera region"? Who's to say that to the layman reader that the "Alsace region" is not just an area around Alsace? Do you see the same ambiguity in "Alsace région"? I don't see how this could be put any simpler. THEPROMENADER 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, still waiting on that reference for departments. Now on to Regions. In French, the term région is used to describe more than the admin. regions, one only has to look at the Région Parisienne to see this. There is no ambiguity. Again, in English, the term region has different definitions. Please provide me with a reference that states that the end user will be confused and that the term region in English does not apply to an administrative area of a country. --Bob 15:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, Promenader, what do you mean by "proper names"? You're not talking about proper nouns are you?
Now, for this puzzling "precision" concern, using "department" as an example: EN department and FR département are different versions of THE SAME WORD! The two versions express the same concept. I don't know Latin, but I imagine the essence of the word's meaning is something like 'the breaking up into parts'. There is no imprecision, there is no possibility of confusion. Why do you refuse to acknowledge this? The day in 1790 when France split up its territory into parts that it decided to call "départements," the English version of the French word took on this new meaning as well.
As Aquarelle alluded to above, these two very closely related languages have gone their separate ways since 1066, and do share other cognates whose use has diverged considerably, an example being "eventuel" and "eventual." If you look up the EN term in the AHD, it still lists the meaning as it is used today in French, but it's marked archaic. Not the case with department. When the French decided to use the word "département" for their country's subdivisions, there was no confusion for us--we got it! Know why? Because we have that word in our language, too. -Eric (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Again to cite Stevage, if translating "départment" to "department" is a bad idea, "translating" "région" to "region" is even worse. English "department" has its origins in French "département", but its modern use differs greatly than it's native-language ancestor. Yet why mention the origins of words - what does it matter in all this? All that counts is the native-native lanugage use and meaning of that word; if they don't match up, "translation" is a bad idea. "Région" is even worse, and its English use is much vaguer, as mentioned dozens of times already.
Yes, I'm speaking about proper nouns - a "région", although rarely capitalised in its native language, is exactly this within the context it is used - it is a definite administrative entity and appelation. So is "département", so is "canton". Presenting them in their native form - and better still, italicised - leaves no room for doubt about this to those who don't already know the "English version" word's use in its native language. THEPROMENADER 17:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Another question for Promenader and others: Do you think that French people use "département" and région exclusively to describe their country's subdivisions, and never in any other context? Oh--and one more thing--you might want to stop citing Stevage as a source to back up your point--he is wrong. -Eric (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
(Grinning at the realisation that Eric is just having a ball taking the piss.)
Do you think that French people use "département" and région exclusively to describe their country's subdivisions
Actually, yes. I don't think you know what you are talking about - do you realise that I live here? No, Stevage is not "wrong" if his point of view differs from yours. Where he is unargueably right is where he states that using "region" only introduces ambiguity. THEPROMENADER 19:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Possibly you could take a gander at fr:Département as an example. It IS used in other senses, most notably in schools and universities when referring to, for example, the English department. --Bob 20:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Erm... The word exists in English and has the identical definition so vagueness is not really a valid argument... Again, I, and possibly others, are patiently waiting references that will dispell my assumption of original research on your part. ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grcampbell (talk • contribs) 17:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
I'm not sure I understand this claim. In the first place, we should not be talking about French people, but about French-speaking people. The word "région" obviously existed prior to the creation of the formal regions, which was quite recent. It certainly isn't only used in the French language to only refer to the first order administrative subdivisions of France. It is also used, for instance, to refer to the first order administrative subdivisions of France's northern neighbor, the Kingdom of Belgium. A search of French language pages for région turns up pages for the Région de Bruxelles and the Région Wallone. I also note a reference to la région de Québec, which appears to refer to the area around the city of Québec, and not to any formal administrative subdivision. There's also a page about the Lausanne-région and another about the Région Nord Vaudois in Switzerland. There's a Canadian page about the Région de l'Atlantique. I see another page about the Région des grands lacs africains. There's a page about the Région Boeny in Madagascar. So, in fact, you are entirely wrong. Even in France you're wrong. I found a page for the Union des Églises Réformées de France dans la Région Est. There is no official administrative "Région Est", so the term is obviously being used in a different way. The word région in French means exactly the same thing that "region" means in English. That word was, fairly recently, applied as an official term for a particular level of administrative subdivision in France, and this tends to be, so far as I can tell, how the word is currently mostly used in France. But it is not what the word means in French, which is an entirely different question. In French, the word means "region," and so we can translate the administrative term "region," as well. One would also note Regions of Italy. Are people proposing that we call these regioni? Or that calling Tuscany or Lombardy "regions" causes some confusion? This applies all the more strongly to the word "department," where there's no real possibility of confusion, and where the term "department" has been used for this for hundreds of years now. When there's not an exact equivalent, I'm all for using untranslated terms, but in this case there is an exact equivalent. john k 20:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Promenader, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying then with the proper noun thing--the words we've been discussing are not proper nouns.

  • Regurgitating Stevage's unsupported assertions from this same "debate," even if you blindly accept them as objective fact, does not constitute a valid support of your arguments.
  • Forgive my French dictionary--it no longer lives in France, so it might not have the authority it once enjoyed--but how do you account for its no. 2 definition of département given below?
Secteur administratif dont s'occupe un ministre. Département de l'Intérieur, des Affaires étrangères.
  • (Silly Micro Robert en Poche, what does it know? Promenader lives in France, making him an authority on the French language! Hmmm, George Bush lives in the United States--that must make him an authority on English...
  • Silly Eric, what does he know? He has only lived in a few European countries, including France, and is merely a professional translator who at this moment is finishing up revising the English translation of a 380-page German book about the architectural history of Burgundy--oops, Bourgogne--in which the italicized words département and arrondissement originally appeared throughout, and which--recognizing these appearances to be an unnecessary distraction to the reader--he replaced with their un-italicized English counterparts. Egads--this is going to be published in a book! Quick, avert your eyes and save the children!
  • Silly translation agent for whom Eric works and who thought it was a great idea to put the terms in English, what does she know? She's only worked in the translation publishing industry in multiple countries for a couple decades!)

I think I'm done here, kids. I can demonstrate reason, but I can't force people to use it. Hope someone will drop me a line if it comes to some arbitration vote. -Eric (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Silliness aside, the answer to your question, in spite of all that, is still "yes". The only variation in the French language is that, between those not foreigners, one need not even mention the administrative division, as it is understood automatically - take those speaking of "l'Ardèche for example - they know it is a département and not anything else. If they want to speak of a larger région, or the (vague) area around a city, they will use the precise name of that locale with "région" beforehand. Yet do we expect the layman (to French terms and practices) to understand this? Of course all this could be presented as an argument for "authenticity" - but all that is of concern to the contributor what the (even layman) reader comprehends in what he reads. The "Anglicisation" proposed here is really just dumbing things down - by assuming that the reader is not able to comprehend precise naming conventions in their native form. THEPROMENADER 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I can't help myself one more time.
  • To what question are you answering "yes"?
  • I think you will find that Ardèche is also the name of the river from which the department takes its name.
  • You're almost there, Promenader. By the Rove-Cheney principle, I think if you repeat your unsubstantiated assertions a few more times, all the while failing to respond--other than gainsaying--to the diverse array of well-supported arguments put forth above that invalidate your assertions, your assertions will magically become the truth, at least in the eyes of the American media and voters. -Eric (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL - Eric, you're using every technique to argue but an argument itself, and your technique is rather "Rovian": ignore and denouce points, even valid ones, opposing your own; declare your own to be valid even if they are not. The only coherent argument forwarded thus far in favour of Anglicisation is "others do it" - yet the examples provided "proving" this have a context that Wiki doesn't. This is rather non sequitur. You can't refer to valid arguments that were never made.

The "yes" was the answer to Do you think that French people use "département" and région exclusively to describe their country's subdivisions - but now that I've seen that I'd misread that, you'll find my answer to that in my summary below. I don't see the point of your second point. THEPROMENADER 17:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Eric, you're using every technique to argue but an argument itself... This statement confirms my suspicion that you have either not read or not understood any of the many substantiated arguments I and others have made in vain attempts to get you to re-think the distracting affectation of using foreign terms when English ones exist. -Eric (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The non-French cases

Many Spanish-speaking countries have departamentos as administrative divisions, and yet the word "department" is used in the corresponding articles. Take a look at those cases:

Is there any confusion or inexactitude derived from the use of "department" instead of departamento, is any meaning lost ? Are our readers worse off because the term was translated ? Or should all those articles switch to departamento ?

The same can be said about the Spanish región, the Hungarian régió, the Italian regione:

In my humble opinion, if "department" and "region" work well for the Spanish (and other) cases, then there shouldn't be any problem with the French ones... Best regards, Evv 15:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, all those lists have context - you'll be damn sure to find the definition for "department", whatever it should be, within the article. Excuse the stress, but I have repeated myself several times thus far: This will not be the case for words appearing within the flow of a text on another or more general subject. And please: "others do it or similar things" is not a justification (insert "friends jumping off a cliff" parable here) for switching French proper names into English common nouns, and neither is it an answer to the points brought up earlier in the discussion about the ambiguities this practice would introduce were it widespread. THEPROMENADER 15:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
lol It's not about blindly following others' example :-) but about proving that English readers can understand this specific meaning of the word "department", which refutes the points brought up earlier in the discussion about the ambiguities.
And I'm not referring to the lists themselves, but about all the specific articles mentioned in those lists.
It is true that mentioning the French word département brings attention to the specific meaning the word takes in this context, but so does the wikilink "department" [[Departments of France|department]].
The botom line is, readers are not dumb. They are able to figure the context and apply the appropiate meaning to the word even if that word happens to be a common English noun. - Best regards, Evv 15:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Heh - sorry to jump on you but "examples" tend to be used as "proof of what others are doing" ; )
I'm glad that you see the clarity provided by the italicised term, but there are many wikilinked words we never click on - especially if the reader already thinks he (may) already know what they are/mean. So what Anglicisation of proper names really does, expecially in cases like these, is make room for doubt for those readers not already in the know about the "real" definition of the term. THEPROMENADER 15:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, examples are used to compare different approaches, analyse what others are doing, and thus improve one's work by imitating some choices and avoiding others :-)
Personally, for any of these cases, I use the word departamento in Spanish, "department" in English and département in both French and German. So, yes, for me département is as clear as it gets. But I do believe that the simple English word "department" is clearer in the English Wikipedia. And just having the wikilink there, even if you don't click on it, has the same effect of informing that the word should not be understood as a common English noun, but given a specific meaning instead. That's usually the only reason for which a common noun gets piped in WP. - Best regards, Evv 15:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
In any case, those are only extreme cases for some readers who might get confused. All these words share not only the same characters, but the exact same meanings too, and almost any person who knows one of them can easily contextualize the other ones (I won't indulge in naming the exceptions that merit the "almost" caveat... let's just say that I'm watching the news). - Best regards, Evv 16:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that there is little place for confusion in the use of English "department" for French "départment", but it does add a degree of "lazy ambiguity" as the uninformed reader will more often or not "assume" the meaning of a word he recognizes and move on. No big deal, right. But "region" for "région", on the other hand, as a "translation", is a complete screw-up.
But why translate some proper names (nouns) and others not? What is to decide what appelation can be translated or not? Talk about adding an extra level of complication to something that is already quite understandable and simple, and that until present is the result of a natural contributions that are based on both a desire to clearly inform and basic common sense.
The "need" to Anglicise, on the other hand, seems an over-zealous "interpretation" of the rule that "all in English Wiki should be English". The principle is fine, but the interpretation of what "English" is is plain wrong: the only rules drafted thus far along these lines concern non-roman characters. With reason too.
Actually the very motivation for doing this is vague and undefined - a "like us" syndrome? Shall we go through all the articles changing all the "Michel"s to "Michael" and "Josef"s to "Joseph"? The proposal of Anglicisation presented here is basically the equivilent of this - it is both complicating, slightly insulting to the native language and often plain wrong.


Readers are intelligent, yes: there is no reason that they should not understand a "local" official appellation presented in its native form. THEPROMENADER 17:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Michel and Josef are proper nouns, région and département are not. -Eric (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Region exists in the English language with many different definitions, as it does in the French language. Using the English form is no more vague than the French. The only way for there not to be any ambiguity is to say something like administrative region or administrative région, but that is not the question here. why use the French term when the English term is more than adequate and has exactly the same definition? --Bob 17:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I noticed that the Eng Wiki pages for Germany use the word "state" (see States of Germany) to translate "land/länder", (which seems to me to be an even more radical Anglicisation than region/région), and yet they also use the German word "landtag" (representative assembly in a land) in other articles (see Landtag of Bavaria)!-- NYArtsnWords 18:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

They use the translation almost uniquely in the title, (which current opinion tends towards; although the choice of translated term sometimes uses province instead of state). Elsewhere they use Länder, (possibly?) because it exists in the English language as the plural for Land, which is defined in the OED as a German or Austrian province. Although I am unclear as to the precise reasoning behind why they do this, the fact that they do conforms to English usage and definitions. Département does not appear, but department and region do. --Bob 18:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Region exists in the English language with many different definitions, as it does in the French language.
But as I've said several times already, the common English use of the word "region" is nothing like the French use of "région" as it is used as an administrative proper name for a territory. Aren't the "Alsace" and "Riviera" enough as examples above more than enough to prove this ambiguity? Don't ignore arguments please.
I mean, really. If the original appelation used in its original form until now by most all contributors until present to denote precisely that very proper name use and particularity has posed no problem until now, what exactly is the problem with that practice? Where are all the complaints about it? THEPROMENADER 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the common usage of Region in English is almost identical to that in French. Please refer to your closest Harrap's and OED. Or better yet, look at Region and fr:Région. Are you aware that England is currently divided into nine administrative regions and Scotland was subdivided into 12 regions between 1975 and 1996? Just because no-one has looked at or commented on somehing until now doesn't mean that it shouldn't. --Bob 19:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no commonly-known English equivilent to the French "région" adminsitrative entity. All the same, I don't understand the motivation to use a term "almost" when it is easy to covey "exact". Wiki articles are not dictionaries, and every mention of the "Alpes-Maritime region" need not indicate that it is in fact an administrative entity we are speaking of, and not an "area around" aforementioned proper noun that a reader need not necessarily know." THEPROMENADER 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

How can you possibly state that???? It does begger belief that you simply refuse to acknowledge the existence of administrative regions in England and Scotland!!!! region = région in this context. There is no invalidity of the term, nor is it a loose translation. It is an EXACT translation. Good grief! If we take a look at the French article on these regions (which you don't seem to want to believe to exist) we see that they use the french word, not the english word as it is an exact translation! (fr:Régions d'Angleterre. --Bob 23:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What other country has régions containing départements, and an English-speaking one to boot? No, it is not an exact translation because the English common signification is not that of its use - especially for "region" - this makes it a loose, voir inexact, translation. THEPROMENADER 10:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving toward consensus

The arguments on both sides of the issue seem pretty well put forward above. Is there anyway to move toward some kind of common ground or consensus? Perhaps a vote on the use of the English terms "region" and "department" in article titles? -- NYArtsnWords 20:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I second this motion: but I would think it most useful to centre the vote on "allowing proper names to remain in their native language unless they have an exact translation". THEPROMENADER 21:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I third this motion: Everyone here knows, I've been calling for a settlement. GoodDay 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my aching head! Région and département are not proper nouns! Will someone else please help him with this? -Eric (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, they are not proper nouns. Here's the dictionary definitions of "proper noun" at dictionary.com:
  1. a noun that is not normally preceded by an article or other limiting modifier, as any or some, and that is arbitrarily used to denote a particular person, place, or thing without regard to any descriptive meaning the word or phrase may have, as Lincoln, Beth, Pittsburgh. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary)
  2. A noun belonging to the class of words used as names for unique individuals, events, or places. Also called proper name. (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language)
"département" isn't capitalized, and isn't a proper noun. It doesn't refer to a specific thing, but to a whole class of things. john k 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(According to the AP stylebook, "department", by itself, is not a proper name, but a common noun. In the form "Departments of France" the whole thing becomes a proper name and should be capitalised like that. However, when inversed, ie. "French departments", it reverts to being a common noun again. Therefore, only "Department of XXX" is a proper name. --Bob 00:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

If we are to base a vote on allowing common nouns to remain in their native language unless they have an "exact" translation, then there is no need to vote as both département and région fall into this category. Fact. No need to discuss or put forward a POV, because anything stated to the contrary would be false and original research unless a reliable reference can be provided that states the opposite. I await the production of this reference with impatience. --Bob 23:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
They do not fall into this category as their English/French translation/usage is not even near the "common" same -especially without definition. How can one assume a knowledge of others that ... forget it, as christ we're digging now. Can someone please indicate the reason for wanting to "dig" for english translations? I really get the impression that we're into draw-the-line ideals now. THEPROMENADER 00:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Provide a reference stating that, if not, then it falls under WP:NOR and fails WP:V. I, and others, have provided many examples of the usage of both department and region in this context. Please provide a reference stating that they are wrong. You seem unable to accept the definition provided for the common nouns department and region as given by multiple dictionaries and other reference works. Scholarly articles also use department (such as PMID 16128792 and PMID 15964525), why are you unable to accept this usage? Why? --Bob 01:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
To tell you the truth, I don't understand what you are asking. How can any of this be WP:OR? If we were to use "state", this I can understand. The above seems Wikilawyering and nothing reason.
If you would like to provide the same context dictionaries and topics the same as the concerned word have so that its correct meaning can be understood, then there would be no problem. I've said before that some words have less ambiguity than others - "department" is one of these. Again, "others do it" is not an argument; every publication has its methods and practices. Wiki already has its own as far as this is concerned, so if one would like to change it, he is going to have to argue, not through selective examples, but through reason. THEPROMENADER 12:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Here from the RfC. I read a great deal of this debate, but stopped a few paragraphs up. I must say that although I understand the issue (I'm pretty sure), I'm uneasy about my understanding of the positions presented. It was a rather confusing read. And I don't speak any french what so ever and so would not even comprehend the differences in the terms mentioned. If I saw département, I'd automatically hear department in my head and keep going. Here's how I see it...

From reading above and doing my own 5 minutes of research, I understand the terms as such

  • department (en) is generally used to describe a part of something larger. Such as the hardware department in a store, or the accounting department in a company. Rarely (if ever) used in english to describe geographical boundaries.
    • Except when it is used to refer to French and other administrative subdivisions, which are called departments in English, and have been since 1790. This definition is to be found in most dictionaries.john k 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • département (fr) is a defined geographical division. Much like, say, a county or township might be in the U.S.
    • Except that it also means the same thing as the English word. john k 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • region (en) is generally used to describe an area or locale, being purposefully vauge but still conveying basic information. Such as the northwest region or the abdominal region.
    • True, except that it's also used for administrative regions whose name in the local language is a cognate of "region." john k 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • région (fr) is just like département, but to my eyes it's use is larger in scope. Not like a county or township, but a state.
    • No, région is not just like département. It means exactly the same thing as the English word "region". The French administrative subdivisions called regions only came into existence in 1955. When discussing the word outside of France, at least, it retains its previous meaning, as I demonstrated above. john k 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if I'm off, it certainly seems to me that the terms are a) NOT proper nouns; and b) NOT identical in definition. Again, I don't speak a lick of french. If I was reading something and I saw département (fr), I'd just continue motoring along having understood it as the definition I gave above for department. Depending on the context, I may even become confused.

They are not identical in definition, but they are close enough and have always been used as translations of each other. The issue isn't that région in French and "region" in English mean different things. The issue is that the meaning of région in France has been circumscribed more narrowly than its conventional meaning. In terms of department, it's not even that. john k 16:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Close enough?? Ooof. Can't say I'm set as ease with phrases like that. If I come here to Wikipedia to learn something (and I often do), it's rather unsettling to know that editors are shooting for "close enough". Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My layman’s opinion on the issue at hand is this

  • When using non-english words in english Wikipedia they should be italicized.
  • Proper nouns should be the ONLY non-english words used in english Wikipedia (the terms in dispute are not proper nouns).
  • English alternatives should be found for département and région, NOT department and region. If no single word translates adequately, use a description rather than a word. As an unrelated example, a city could be called an urban center. Surely there is a string of a few english words that can be put together to adequately convey the correct idea. Yeah?

I'm an english speaker. That's why I'm on english Wikipedia. Should it not be written in such a fashion so as to make it most easily understandable to the most english speakers? Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 00:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why bother using many words when the english ones are more than sufficient and are used extensively in both scholarly and encylopaedic works already using a definition that is found in every english dictionary that I have looked at so far. --Bob 01:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Because it would seem that some would use the french versions of the word intending a certain meaning when the english interpretation would not convey the authors intent. Thus there is potential confusion for non-french speaking readers. I guess it's a question of context, in which case it might just as well be left to editor descretion on a case by case basis.
But that's sort of moot to me. English Wikipedia. Only proper nouns should be left in their native language. Not proper noun, translate to english in a way that will convey the correct meaning. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Thernlund and thanks for the input. The English words in question are not merely interpretations; as demonstrated above, they are well-established terms that clearly represent the same concept as their French cognates, and, especially when properly introduced in the context of an article, will convey the author's meaning perfectly. As Bob mentioned, English dictionaries will confirm this. -Eric (talk) 05:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
For my part, it is about interpretation rather than definition. The arrearance of the words are so close that I likely wouldn't pause to consider the usage, having taken the english meaning. But I digress... "...especially when properly introduced in the context of an article...". That seems to be the key. Used correctly, with the context made painfully clear, I think I would understand. But that just brings the debate to case by case, and not really one way or the other. Editor descretion appears like a good outcome. <heh heh> Wikipedia was sort of built on that, eh? Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The usage of the French terms in English is well-established. Here there is an entry for "département" in an English dictionary. Région and département can both be proper nouns, but not all of the time. --Aquarelle 06:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
True when you're talking about terms like C'est la vie. But I can tell you that I had no idea that department was also french. I don't sit and read the dictionary. I only use it when I must. The difference in département and department wouldn't likely prompt me to get a dictionary. I'd assume department (depneding on the context of course).Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

From that link one must go to the English term to find the definitions.... --Bob 07:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the formatting is bizarre, isn't it ? But see how it refers only to the 7th definition ? That's the precision we're talking about. --Aquarelle 08:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary Take

  1. "Département" and "région" may not be proper nouns, but in their use in French administration, they describe a precise administrative entity. I don't know what to call them precisely, but they are label, or a classification, for a precise thing and should remain recognisable as such.
  2. Both English and French have other uses for both words, but these "other common uses" don't always coincide for the layman. Again, "region" - its common English definition means "in the area". English "department" describes a heirarchical or subject division before it describes any actual physical bordered administrative entity. French people can easily recognise French administrative labels - Most English speakers can't.
  3. Most Wiki articles do not have the context dictionaries and specific-topic articles have: Most Wiki articles are on the subject of area itself (or its classification type, or the entity that created the classification) that is a definition of sorts for the use of the word in the article. Nor is it possible to include a description at every use of the word. Nor is Wiki a dictionary. Most Wiki articles are on "topic" where we need to describe the area where topic is or happened.
  4. It is probably for all reasons above that the vast majority of French-topic article contributions have used the native-language italicised format until now. I don't understand the motivation to overturn this, nor do I understand how this widespred trend, and the reasoning behind it, can be completely ignored by only a few.

English speaker: Which is the administrative region: "Centre region" or "Centre région"? Go figure. THEPROMENADER 11:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. "Precision" misconception has been addressed thoroughly above.
  2. Again, the meaning is easily established in the context (addressed thoroughly above).
  3. There are three assertions of "most wiki articles" here. To the 2nd one: these articles have an infobox that makes everything clear. To the 3rd: use a wikilink and/or brief note at first occurrence of term.
  4. Yes, it's been done that way, so why change? On the same note, 8-cylinder cars, women not being able to vote, slavery, and the Earth-centered universe model were all working fine, too.
I again cite the Rove-Cheney principle from above. -Eric (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. You must be speaking of only those in favour of your own point of view. How did you manage to ignore the phrase just above ?
  2. Again, not all subjects treated will lend the proper context to a word. Especially "region".
  3. This shows a lack of understanding of the Wiki media. So to get the "correct" meaning of a word, one is going to have to read the whole of every Wiki article - from the beginning? We might as well get rid of the TOC in that case.
  4. My question was "why have most contributors used this method until now" - I would not be one to use a "it's done already so leave it" argument. So am I to assume that Anglicisation is "progress"? In what way is it this? THEPROMENADER 17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Eric - come on. You are comparing us to sexists and slave-owners ? Are you next going to say that we are Nazis and Satan-worshippers ? You get pretty excited about the Rove-Cheney principle (and rightly so ! those guys drive me crazy) yet you employ other equally false arguments. --Aquarelle 18:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I would call the anglicisation more "repair" or "restoration."
Certainly not comparing anyone to anything. Just another attempt to introduce perspective and draw attention to the flawed reasoning. Not getting excited--more bored, really. -Eric (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Get off your horse. That would also mean that you think the majority of people who contributed the articles in question are "broken" - or an oft-erring idiots. Since most French-topic Wiki articles were written in this way, that means that most French-topic Wikipedians must be idiots. Hands up, you're surrounded! THEPROMENADER 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
?? -Eric (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, (and in the hope of coming to some sort of consensus), I am quite willing to accept English terms in the following two cases:

  1. In article titles and leads: I see no real problem with the titles Regions of France or Departments of France, or with the use of "region" or department" in article leads, as long as the French word is also parenthetically indicated and that the "administrative division" aspect of these words is explained (and that region is differenciated from "pays", "province" and historic Provinces of France).
  2. In the body of the article, when used in the formula "X departement" or "x region" (e.g. Indre department, Centre region) the English translations should be reasonably clear.

But I can see how, when used in the expression "French department" or "French region", or only as "department" or "region" in a French article, these words could lead to confusion for someone unacquainted with the Administrative divisions of France. It is this last case which seems to me to be the most contentious, but perhaps we could come to some begrudging acceptance on the first two cases? --NYArtsnWords 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions

For département, the case seems pretty clear. The word is used in English to mean exactly the same thing as the French word:

  1. At dictionary.com, its "unabridged dictionary" (based on Random House's) definition #7 for "department" is "
    one of the large districts into which certain countries, as France, are divided for administrative purposes.
  2. The American Heritage dictionary definition #4 is:
    An administrative district in France.
  3. Wordnet, definition #2:
    the territorial and administrative division of some countries (such as France)
  4. OED gives us definition 4a:
    One of the districts into which France is divided for administrative purposes, and which were substituted for the old provinces in 1790. Also applied to administrative divisions in some other countries. Freq. in French form.
  5. New Oxford American Dictionary 2 gives us def. 2:
    an administrative district in France and other countries.

For region, it's a bit more complicated, in that many of the dictionaries don't show something similar to the French regions as a possible definition. But OED has the following as definition 5b:

A relatively large subdivision of a country for economic, administrative, or cultural purposes that freq. implies an alternative system to centralized organization; spec. one of the nine local government areas into which the mainland of Scotland has been divided since 1975, when the former system of counties was abolished. standard (administrative) region: one of the eight (formerly nine) areas into which England is divided for industrial planning, demographic surveying, etc.
  1. New Oxford American Dictionary 2 gives us def. 2:
    an administrative district of a city or country.

One might also note, please, Regions of England, which uses "region" in precisely the sense of the French région, for the highest order administrative subdivisions of the country. Anyway, the basic point is, that "department" and "region" are most certainly used for these French divisions, and are clearly proper meanings of the English words. It is true that sometimes the French is used instead, but this seems like unwarranted Francocentrism (or possibly anglocentrism, since French is the language that English speakers, especially in the UK, have traditionally been most likely to know). As someone who doesn't speak Italian or Spanish, Having the article Regioni of Italy, or whatever, seems completely absurd to me. département and so forth don't sound nearly as silly to me, but that's just because I speak French. There are perfectly good English words available, and in context, there shouldn't ever be any serious ambiguity (and eliminating ambiguity in situations where there is no context seems like a fool's errand). john k 17:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to refer once again to a phrase using region - "Ardèche region" - for cases of ambiguity. Odd that I would never think to title an article "X regioni" - but in the title, isn't it pretty clear that "region" is not "the area around"? Like I've said before, it's all a question of context. If the article subject or words surrounding a like term make it easy to understand the intended meaning of that word, then no non-English language version should be needed. Yet when the surrounding text provides no context, it is useful to make it clear that, although it is similar, the most common meaning of the English version of the word is not the same. Yet here we're talking about chasing down every single accented word in English Wikipedia - a bit of a task, no? To what end? THEPROMENADER 17:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Both English and French have other uses for both words, but these "other common uses" don't always coincide for the layman and? How many laymen understand and speak French? How many laymen could be confused by the appearence of French words? You are stating that because the most common definition of a word isn't the intended meaning we should use the French term so as to not confuse the reader. Is this your statement in a nutshell? --Bob 17:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Another reference source--search on "department" and "region" on the CIA World Factbook France page -Eric (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Your reference - a geographical information page - again has an explanatory context that most Wiki articles don't have.
"You are stating that because the most common definition of a word isn't the intended meaning we should use the French term so as to not confuse the reader" - Yep, that's about it. But this of course isn't a danger for many words, but it is nice to have some concistency and respect for the original appellation. I wouldn't say "confuse" though - readers aren't that dumb : ) THEPROMENADER 18:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The common usage of these terms differs in English and in French. The French terms are more precise in the context of a Wikipedia article because they can have but one meaning for the English reader. Département does appear in English dictionaries. Whereas here, département has but one definition, here, department has 10 definitions, the proper one being the 7th and perhaps the least common. This is precision and exactitude. --Aquarelle 17:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. It may also mean a department within a larger organisation such as the CNRS. They don't translate many of their departmental names into English, and since are not often used, remain in their French forms in many publications in English. Such départements include Département des Sciences Chimiques or Le département des sciences du vivant, if we are to use their proper names. However, if an article were to be written about them here on the English wiki, you can bet your bottom dollar that they would be translated to the English form, which would be correct. You see, département can mean a multitude of things, just as the department does. --Bob 18:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really. So far we are at 2 possible definitions...still better than 10. Moreover, upon seeing the French cognate, the reader is going to pay extra attention to the special meaning of the term. --Aquarelle 18:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly! THEPROMENADER 18:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is totally absurd. We have an English word that means exactly what we want it to mean. In the case of "region" we can come up with English usages that are precisely identical to the formal French term. See again Regions of England. In the case of department, I'm not aware of any anglophone countries divided into departments, but the word has been used in this sense for two centuries now. If you want to make an argument that it is, for some reason, preferable to use the French terms, please do so, and I might even be somewhat sympathetic, but don't give us this bullshit that the translation is wrong or inappropriate. john k 18:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You speak French, right ? I think we've made pretty good arguments as to why the English translation is inappropriate, so I hardly think you have reason to call it bullshit. I would both argue that the English translations are too vague and abstruse, and that the original French terms are preferable. Am I getting any sympathy ? I could tell some jokes if that may help you change your mind :) --Aquarelle 18:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So you feel the French terms are more appropriate because to you they convey a more precise definition... However, the French term for department is also used in a number of different countries, each with its own specific and precise usage for things other than administratuve regions. Same with région. The English terms are not vague, but precise and have been used as such for over 2 centuries in English. Just because a definition of a word is unknown by some, doesn't invalidate the definition. For instance, should we cater the Wimbledon article to those that don't know the meaning of set in a tennis context? Should we remove the e from Senate ? Should we replace the usage of the word région in all countries that use this as an administrative region with something else? No. we shouldn't. We should use the most appropriate word in English when there is one available. Would I advocate the replacement of Laïcité with secularism or similar? No. Because there is not an appropriate translation in English. This isn't willy nilly anglicisation, it is common sense. --Bob 19:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I would both argue that the English translations are too vague and abstruse This is a POV statement, unless you can back it up with a reference that states that the English terms are vague, it is original research and any argument put forth using it as a basis discredited. --Bob 19:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob, with all due respect, that argument is lame. THEPROMENADER 20:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
(Sigh) Do I have to trot out the "Centre region" example yet again? There is nothing absurd in the English miscomprehension of the French use of the term where proper context is lacking - and this is indeed a fault. I have agreed and still agree that there is a lesser risk for the word "department".
The translation is not "wrong" or "inappropriate", but it certainly is less appropriate than leaving the word in its italicised original form. The words we are talking about here are not common and general-use nouns like "chien" - we are talking about a label that has a precise definition that is only common to those speaking its own language. Not only does leaving that term in its native form draw attention to its particularity, it also shows respect for the language we are borrowing the term from.
There are places where it is indeed ridiculous to leave the word in its native form, like john k's earlier "Regions of Italy" example - the italicised native-language wordform's most common use would be as a no-explanation-needed "pin term" in the flow of a text speaking about another subject than that of the word itself.
What exactly is wrong with leaving the word with a precision attained best through its own Roman-character language? How exactly is the "close enough" English translation "better"? Why have so many contributors left appellations and labels in their native language until today - and why is the logic behind this trend totally ignored in every argument here? Why this "Anglicisation crusade" that targets 'non-English' words without any thought to the comprehensibility of the text itself - and the reason it was written like that in the first place? THEPROMENADER 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Provide a reference stating that the two department and region are easily confused in English texts talking about French stuff. Again, WP:POV, WP:NOR and WP:V come into play. If you are unable to do so, just state that.

Just because it has been done like this for so long doesn't mean that it need continue like that. How often has the Main Page been changed in the life of wikipedia? --Bob 20:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only has it been done since long; it has been done by many. "Those who would Anglicise" are but only a few. I have yet to see a real reason why French labels should be Anglicised when they are perfectly identifiable for what they are - labels - in their native but italicised form. THEPROMENADER 21:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
(cough) Bob, enough with the Wikilawyering. How can POV apply here? With all due respect, that argument is lame : )
What "two"? Again, isn't it obvious "Ardèche region" means "Around Ardèche" to the average English speaker?
A few of us have clearly stated why it would be preferable that some words be left in their native form, but I have yet to hear the logic that is the motivation for the Anglicisation crusade. THEPROMENADER 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

No wikilawyering here... just assertation of the basic premise of no original research. Again, provide a reference for what you state. If you can't, just state that you can't. We won't abhor you for it. The reason I am so persistant in this is that you base your entire opposition on an assumption that is your (and Aquarelle's) POV, yet you are seemingly unable to confirm this POV using a secondary souce. Please provide one. Why do people want to use English terms? So that all articles follow a similar path. I am not one for compartmentalising wikipedia into factions, but would like to see uniformity across the whole. If French articles keep the French terms, then every single article on administrative divisions in every country across the entire wikipedia that uses English terms needs to be formatted differently. --Bob 22:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty weak reason. I think the "compartmentalising" you see is purely imaginary - or at least hypothetical - in this case. So you would like to singlehandedly decide the outcome of possibly thousands of contributions? And a few have already begun to do so without even attempting to discuss the issue? First you have to see what the majority of articles do, and if you would like to propose to use that trend for the remaining minority, the job and discussion is easier - but if the majority of articles use French terms for French labels, then you've got a lot of people to convince before you go about changing anything. I have yet to see any real argument showing the real merits of Anglicisation. "Similar path" and "uniformity" are fine in principle, but the method you are using to achieve this goal has to be a valid and widely accepted one. As far as Anglicisation of French labels goes, this doesn't seem to be the case. THEPROMENADER 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This argument could be widened to the rest of wikipedia. If the French articles keep the French names for everything, then why do articles on other country subdivisions get translated into the appropriate English terms when applicable? What is it about the French that they can keep their terms in English, yet vice versa they get translated? Why are the regions of Italy and Belgium translated to English and the departments of Argentina, Columbia and Poland translated? There doesn't seem to be much confusion outside of the French articles? Why is this do you imagine? If you have a reason, provide a reference. --Bob 22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Here some are shouting "t's broke, needs fixin' ", and others are shouting "t'aint broke!". Yet the "fixers" cannot define how things are "broken". As for the rest of Wiki, to tell you the truth, I haven't even thought about it - and why should I? The question thus far is here and here only for now. If it is the world you would like to change, you're going to have to get its attention and approval first - you can't go about it singlehandedly. THEPROMENADER 23:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I still don't get you. Reference to what? What "Original Research"? You want me to find an occasion of "region" being used in English? Don't be silly: that hasn't even happened yet, and the whole point of this discussion is to study the merits of Anglicisation! None to hear thus far, and I've asked several times already. THEPROMENADER 22:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide references for the following:

  1. the English translations are too vague and abstruse
  2. the only French definition of the word région is a very fixed administrative division
  3. Département is more than a noun - it is a proper name for a very particlular thing.
  4. it is true that both "department" and "region" are simply bad translations
  5. department does not mean département
  6. The French guys at INSEE probably don't appreciate the English sense of the word (department)
  7. Department is rarely, if ever, used in English to describe a geographical subdivision, so département is the word to use.
  8. the terms "département" and région are used exclusively to describe the subdivisions of France in French

Thank you. --Bob 22:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Come on. Fulfil this list of questions, otherwise you are wrong." All the same:

  1. Some English translations are vague and abtruse. (Cue already oft-mentioned "region" examples).
  2. I admitted my error to this one above - I misread you - yet I treated this one already several times.
  3. Département is a label for a very particular thing, yes.
  4. Unexplained, without context to the layman, yes. Is the same definition at the top of the list, in both languages, in every dictionary you read? The "most common" definition is not that of its French counterpart. I've treated this one several times already too.
  5. Sure it does, both have several meanings. The "top" meaning for each language is not the same - that creates a problem.
  6. Sure they do - no explanation about the "right" meaning needed, as their trade (statistics based on the French adminstrative map) gives it for them. Hell, you can't get more "context" than that. Now, use "department" in an article about... French department stores or businesses for example. LOL!
  7. There are very few (if any) English-speaking countries that use the term "Department" in their administrative map. Yet I did not say that this is why "département" should be used.
  8. Have you been reading me? What's more, you're repeating yourself - I already noted my error twice above. Both words have several meanings and uses, but "most common meaning is different between the languages. This is the problem.

Now, how about listing some of the merits of Anglicisation? THEPROMENADER 22:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We should use English when appropriate. It is appropriate here and has been discussed ad nauseum at WP:UE and WP:MOS as well as other country wikiprojects such as Mexico. My interpretation, and that of others, is that the English convention is not restricted to the title, especially when a more than appropriate translation exists. Now, I want secondary sources, not just your opinion. Please provide links to articles pertaining to yours (and others) statements which you have used to promote your opinion. Again, I am not requesting your opinion. I am requesting facts from secondary sources that confirm your opinion and statements. Please provide them. --Bob 23:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is your interpretation, and a loose interpretation it seems to be, and, what's more, you seem to be a minority so far. "Secondary sources" for what? What exactly do you want me to show you? An article where use of the native italicised form is common? Here - the first French page I thought to open - and I've never written anything there myself. What else do you want - more links? I would expect that you would already be familiar with French articles. The hope that I cannot provide examples of "proper use" of the italicised native-language nameform for precise labels does not take away from the logic of mine or other contributor's arguments for the heightened clarity and identifiability of the same. It is a practice based on common sense more than anything. THEPROMENADER 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Commune is an English word so that article no longer conforms to wiki guidelines. A reference would be citing me something from an academic journal, a respected translation expert, a reliable source. If you are still confused as to what a source/reference is, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Types_of_source_material. We have cited numerous sources/references such as the French government, OED, NOED, INSEE, British government etc. Please show me something from an external source that validates your statements. An external source is not an article on wikipedia, as that is the subject of the discussion. Again, if you are unable to do so, just state that you are unable to confirm and validate your statements. Thank you. --Bob 02:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've noted before that WP:UE refers specifically to article titles. WP:MOS appears to be pretty neutral on this particular issue (but I'd welcome a particular reference). MOS mainly refers to National varieties of English, and how to reference non-English terms.
The Guide to writing better articles/Use other languages sparingly is more on-point, noting:
It is fine to include foreign terms as extra information, but avoid writing articles that can only be understood if the reader understands the foreign terms. In the English-language Wikipedia, the English form does not always have to come first: sometimes the non-English word is better as the main text, with the English in parentheses or set off by commas after it, and sometimes not. For example, see perestroika.
Non-English words in the English-language Wikipedia should be written in italics. Non-English words should be used as titles for entries only as a last resort. Again, see perestroika.
I've got my take on this passage, but I'll just present it for discussion purposes. --Ishu 00:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am aware that WP:UE (and formerly WP:ANG) refers to the article titles, which is why about 350 articles/templates/categories were recently moved to respect this convention, something which the original authors didn't follow, but is now respected. Still more need to be moved to conform to WP:V as the current setup is inaccurate. In WP:MOS, it states per the guide to writing better Wikipedia articles, use foreign words sparingly. Perestroika has now been integrated into the English language, and if we are to follow current guidelines as stated in WP:BETTER, it should not be italicised. Finally, this is important as wikipedia is not a compartmentalised work, there must be uniformity amongst articles. If a it:Regioni d'Italia is translated as Regions of Italy, and subsequent articles follow that nomenclature, and landsvæði is translated as regions and fylker as counties etc etc etc for words not commonly found in English dictionaries, then why leave the French forms when the translation is found in dictionaries and is in common use in all forms of written English? If we are to use the French forms throughout wikipedia, then the same courtesy must be extended to every article using English translations in the place of local administrative subdivision foreign words not found in most dictionaries. I would love to read an article describing Icelandic landsvæði. --Bob 02:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

But all this is selective argument and examples and interpretations of rules to justify a decision already made - we have yet to hear reason through which we can conclude that Anglicisation is a plus. Why is it better? What more does it bring the reader? How is the native-language label wrong? Again, it would be nice if all articles are the same, but only a few cannot decide for all Wikipedia. Here on the French pages we may conclude something that may spread though. By the way, the landsvæði example is a bad one - it uses non-Latin characters. Let's not exaggerate : ) THEPROMENADER 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points. With respect to "regions" what is the operative difference between a Region of England and a French region, that requires us to use the French word région for the latter? Wikipedia is already, by necessity, using the word "region" to mean something almost exactly identical to the way région is used in French for administrative subdivisions. With respect to departments, any geographical use of the term "department" is for something similar to the French case - for an administrative subdivision. Although the word "department" has other meanings in English (just like the French département), it ought to just about always be clear from context if a geographical context is meant. Even so, to pretend that the history department (or whatever) of a French university can be translated as "department," but that the name for the department of the Gironde cannot be is absurd. In both cases the French word being used is département - it is completely arbitrary to insist that one is appropriate to translate, and that the other isn't. This whole thing appears to arise out of a desire to create a distinction between the French meanings of département and région and the English meanings of department and region, that doesn't really exist. And the whole thing is based on special pleading for the French language - and not just for the French language, but for the French language as used in France to refer to things in France. If région and département convey more specific things than "region" and "department," it is entirely artificial - it does not arise in the slightest out of their usage in French, but only out of the fact that in these particular administrative contexts writers in English are somewhat more likely to leave the words untranslated. So what it comes down to ought to be the extent to which these terms are actually left untranslated in English. From my experience, I would say that it is reasonably common, especially in academic works, but certainly not predominant, but I'd be interested to see evidence. The only argument I can see as halfway plausible is one that the terms are usually left untranslated in English. I don't believe this is true, but this is the only potentially valid case to be made on the other side. The arguments that the translation is inappropriate remain bullshit, and any argument made on that basis strikes me as absurd. The only thing insisting on the French terms does is confuse people about the meaning of the French term, and imply much more restricted meanings for the French words than they actually have. In English, département may only be used to refer to French administrative subdivisions. But this is most certainly not true for use of the word in French. The issue ought not be one of translation at all - the translation is clearly good. The issue ought to be, pure and simple, one of common usage. john k 08:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Second Summary

Look. A word in one context has one meaning, and the same without may have another - even in the same language. The italicised native-language version of a word is that context in some cases - it screams "I am not the word you think I am". It is the very similarity between some English and French words that can be both a cause confusion and a license to italicised usage - this is the "special French case".
To to "create" a context through use of the italicised native-word form, we could write "Aquitaine and other régions". Get it? But were we write in the English word-form, added clarity would be helpful: "Aquitaine and other administrative regions". It is even a question of style more than anything. There is no reason why the same article cannot use both methods, and many do.
Many articles have been written using the italicised method - call it a style here on if you will - even the article on Regions of France itself, for example. What a few are proposing here is to chase down every accented word in English Wikipedia to "save" it through translation to English, but a hunt for the word without paying any attention to the context it is written in is a recipe for confusion. This lack of attention to context is not negligible, and is most certainly not "bullshit".
I've said from the start that context is the issue here. The similarities between English and French provide an extra context-creating tool, and I see no reason why it should not be used. If we must examine what "others" do: some publications do use the italicised method, and others don't; this is a choice of style more than anything.
As far as we are concerned, if one really is for a "make it all the same" Anglicisation crusade - naively idealistic though it is - one must determine the method most-used in Wiki France-related articles: is the italicised method already widespread? If it is, you're going to have to address that majority and call for some sort of vote - widespread change before anything less than that would seem arrogant and unjustified. THEPROMENADER 11:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a couple of notes - Bob, you are misguided as far as the burden of proof is concerned, c'est à dire, who has to prove what and how. As ThePromenader told you, the France articles were written in a certain way ; we defend it and you contest it. It is you who has to show us why these articles should be anglicised. The argument "because others do it" is invalid because others do it both ways. Certain encyclopaedias use the French terms, and others use the English terms. Most guidebooks use the French terms. The INSEE uses both, so please stop pretending like their aleatory usage of English is concrete evidence that we should change all the Wikipedia France articles. The Wikipedia guidelines are quite neutral on the subject, giving lateral for foreign terms to be used when it is more precise. I tried to show this to you by pointing out that in the English dictionary the entry for the word department has 10 definitions and only one definition for the word département (please note that both are in the English dictionary). Does this make sense ? --Aquarelle 13:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Bob- You're wasting your time, I'm afraid. It isn't just that they don't get it--they don't want to get it. They are hopelessly enamored of the French terms. It's time to drink the Kool-Aid and join me in my new project on the French WikipÉdia: in articles about English-speaking countries, I'm replacing every instance of the word "état" with "state." "Le state de Texas" has a nice ring to it, n'est-ce pas? And so much more precise. -Eric (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's a rather silly and sardonic "no answer" reply; of course you don't "have" to think about the reasons that motivated so many to use italicised French words... just remain fixed on your mission of converting the English-language infidels - I'm sure it will be beaten into us "Frenchmen" should one day the Anglicisers hold Wiki sway. Good luck on your "state" crusade then, but remember: don't forget the context : ) THEPROMENADER 16:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I know Eric... and watercolour, the burden of proof argument is invalid. You are proposing arguments for a POV in a discussion on naming conventions. You are claiming these things exist. You, Steveage, promenader and Inshu should back up your arguments with valid sources. If you are unable to show proof for your arguments, then they ARE original research. You are claimimg things to be fact, we have shown our hand with references and fact, please do the courtesy of returning that gesture. If you don't, then your arguments really do become untenable. Show sources. --Bob 15:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, Bob, your asking for "proof" for nothing in particular has the sole goal of creating the illusion that the "opposing party" has no argument; this is low-tactic "lawyering" in the extreme. Say clearly what you want proof of ("your arguments" perhaps? "Proof" that the italicised form is common use in Wiki has been proven amply through links to French-topic articles), or don't bother asking - it's pointless. THEPROMENADER 16:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The dictionary is a pretty basic source. But like I said, the burden of proof isn't on me - it's on you. You are the one proposing the change. We're defending the original text.
I'm not really sure what you want me to show a source for. Britannica's use of the French terms ? Go look in Britannica. You mentioned yourself that they use the French terms. Guidebooks ? I don't have to prove to you that all guidebooks use the French terms, just some. Like the Eyewitness series. Go look at your local library. What do you want me to show a reference for ?
You and Eric must be losing your steam. So my burden of proof argument is invalid ? Au contraire ! I would say it's crucial, especially since you've been so bent on asking us to prove things lately. Besides, the burden of proof is an important part of wikilawyering, of which you've been doing a lot lately :) --Aquarelle 16:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've become unclear on what exactly we are arguing about. If the argument being made is that it's fine to use either the French or the English term, I can't bring myself to object all that much. Personally, I think "administrative region" is generally clearer than région, when additional context is needed, and that "department" is pretty much never going to be unclear when used in a geographical context, but I'm not going to object if people want to have some variety and to sometimes use the French. I had thought, though, that much stronger claims were being made - essentially, that the English terms are never appropriate, or almost never appropriate. This I strongly object to, and think is pretty clearly wrong. Anyway, whatever. I no longer am clear on what anybody is actually proposing. I think I'm going to sit this out for a while. john k 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

John - I hope I can clarify things a little bit, as well as recapitulate. The articles about France were written with the French terminology and existed as such for several years. I'm arguing that we should keep it that way. Bob wants to translate all those terms to English. Both fashions are used by the professionnals : Britannica uses the French terms, most guidebooks use the French terms (it's normal, they're trying to give you exposure to French), other encyclopaedias use the English terms, and the governmental statistics agency of France, the INSEE, uses both in their English texts. The mass media often use the English terms. Since all these articles were written with the French terms, and this is a completely acceptable if not preferable way to have it done, I believe we should not try to anglicise it. That's why I say that it's up to Bob to show us why we should make the change - although Bob thinks that I should have to prove why we shouldn't make the change. As a jurist, and someone who is familiar with the way the burden of proof works, I can't understand this argument. (I'm not trying to wikilawyer - the reason why I evoke the burden of proof is because Bob keeps telling me to prove such and such arguments to him.) --Aquarelle 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
John k: I was overzealous in my "English is bad" exposé, granted. It's only normal you took it at face value. THEPROMENADER 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Aquarelle, I think there's a case to be made for consistency with usage for other romance language terms, like those in Spanish and Italian. In those cases, we pretty much always use the translation, whereas in the French case, we tend towards the French. As someone who speaks French, but not Spanish or Italian, this seems perfectly natural to me, but seems harder to defend as a general maxim. To get to consistency, I'd prefer to turn the French terms to English than to turn them all to native language forms. But it's probably not such a big issue. I'm glad to see that both of you are backing away from the claim that the translations are not appropriate. john k 17:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Maybe our statements against the English usage were too strong before, but I still think that using the French terms is preferable. Like I said, both ways of doing it have been established in the professionel field. As far as the consistency arguments goes - I think we should work on a case-by-case basis. I don't know how the professionals describe the Spanish and Italian systems in English. We should work on what's best for describing France to the anglophone reader. Things should be consistent across the French articles, but I don't think we should necessarily have to conform to what other editors are doing with completely different countries. --Aquarelle 17:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide sources for the following:

  1. the English translations are too vague and abstruse
  2. the only French definition of the word région is a very fixed administrative division
  3. Département is more than a noun - it is a proper name for a very particlular thing.
  4. it is true that both "department" and "region" are simply bad translations
  5. department does not mean département
  6. The French guys at INSEE probably don't appreciate the English sense of the word (department)
  7. Department is rarely, if ever, used in English to describe a geographical subdivision, so département is the word to use.
  8. the terms "département" and région are used exclusively to describe the subdivisions of France in French
Please don't be silly. I answered you note-by-note the first time you asked. THEPROMENADER 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

These have been put forward as FACT. I would like references to back up these FACTS. If reliable references are shown to me and prove this position then I will back down regarding the usage of the French terms within the text. However, if y'all are unable to do this, then again, I say that this position is untenable. I would like to put this to a vote with real, referenced facts in the preamble to any vote so that those voting are aware of exactly what means what and why, and do not vote on any unsubstantiated POV based on someone else obfuscating the real definitions are terminology. The refusal to provide sources just leads me to suspect that there are no sources to back up your facts. --Bob 17:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob, your argument is lame. Those points aren't necessary for us to maintain our position ; it's simple just a list of things that we said in the past. ThePromenader already accepted that "département" isn't a proper name. We don't have to do anything. You have to show us why change is necessary. --Aquarelle 17:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you have put forward an argument of fact. I would like to see references to all those points. If there are compelling sourced arguments from reliable sources, then I will drop this. These facts have been accepted as read by those less informed. I would like to see sources for these facts. Provide them please. --Bob 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, Bob, your argument has become Lame2. How about we make a compromise - you show me a reference saying that I have to reference every single thing I say on the Wikiproject France discussion page, and I'll show you my references. Sounds good ? --Aquarelle 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you are unable to provide sources that back up your claims, just state that. --Bob 18:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL ! Just drop it, Bob. Do you really think I have a reference concerning the English knowledge of the French guys at the INSEE ? NON ! Just that I have been there and met a few of their "English" writers who actually don't write or speak that well at all. But of course, this is original research and thus not admissable, but I'm fine with that becuase I don't need to prove this point. Shall I make a list of all of your off the cuff comments from the past 2 or 3 days and expect you to cite sources ? We're not writing an article here, we're discussing style and terminology ! --Aquarelle 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The "this is the way it's been done in the past" argument does not hold.
  • Repetitious use of foreign terms, especially when long-established equivalents exist in the article's language, is distracting and comes across as an affectation.
  • The fact that editors have been using foreign words in this way should not be invoked as a precedent on which to base policy.
  • The efforts of Bob and others are not a crusade, but a housecleaning chore that could have been avoided by editors doing a little more homework researching terms.
-Eric (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah this post is full of your POV. Why don't you show a source supporting your claim that "Repetitious use of foreign terms, especially when long-established equivalents exist in the article's language, is distracting and comes across as an affectation." Both forms are in common use today. If not for my sake, do it for Bob - he's the one who always demands sources. --Aquarelle 19:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I will attempt to provide a reference for Eric. You see, he put forward an opinion and we try to back them up with sources.[3]. However, maybe Eric has access to better sources. Maybe you could do this for the statements listed below.--Bob 20:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL ! You cited "Writing a Scientific Paper" from 1970. Maybe you didn't notice but this isn't a scientific article. Anyways, the author says "If you use foreign words when a short English word will convey the meaning, you risk being accused of affectation." I don't think she's referring to specific terms, but rather those odd sort of latin transitions that people like to use when they want to confuse their reader. The author doesn't say anything about appellation of a specific foreign entity for the English reader. --Aquarelle 20:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No less valid...

  • Another reference from Rutgers
  • Another from LSU
  • Perhaps a dubious source, but what the hell... [4]
  • From a professor at the U. Tennessee

Just a few that debate the usefulness of foreign terms when the English is more than sufficient. --Bob 20:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That still leaves the question of whether the English form is sufficient...and there are still plenty of writers who love using foreign words.
You also might want to check out these helpful links :
--Aquarelle 20:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Aquarelle, my above comments reflect my point of view. It is based on logic and experience, and I think you will find it reflects the reality of the professional publishing world since long before we were born. Sorry that I can't cite sources for that here right now; I think my early posts were adequately supported, Bob has been tireless in providing sources, sources don't seem to carry weight with you anyway, and I am at work and should not be here. Besides, I long ago gave up trying to convince you and Promenader--your passion is too great. At this point I just like to inject a bit of reason here and there for dispassionate editors who may come later and brave reading this mess. -Eric (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Eric, you can't cite yourself, that's personal research. --Aquarelle 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, no Eric - as far as I can see, your point of view is based on your... own point of view. I can't know of your logic and experience, but I hope it wasn't that reflected in your selective and often non-sequitur arguments. Using the italicised form works, as does the English version if it has either the correct context or added explanation, but nowhere have you or anyone managed to say why the italicised form is wrong - you have simply declared that it is. As you have declared that you have made arguments where in fact you have made none. Wiki contributors in their majority (it seems thus far) have chosen the italicised native-language technique for some words, and authours of other publications have chosen other methods: citing examples of the latter, or examples of English-usage that do have context, will never prove the italicised version "wrong". This "wrongness" is your point of view on the matter - nothing more. THEPROMENADER 21:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The Advance of the "Translations" Crusade

I'd tried to remain fixed on the question of "what is the point of using the italicised native-language term, and why do so many do it" in trying to argue on the basis of simple common sense, and did not really look to see to what real exent the French italicised term is used in English wikipedia. I had a look just now, and was amazed to the extent that it is in use: 8,299 results for "département", and 3,847 results for région alone - and this is articles containing the term (many in the title - lord knows how many occurences when one considers the content of the same articles. Thus, fellows, it seems that the italicised form is indeed a major part of the Wiki landscape.

Then I find this. I have to say it is everthing I feared in my arguments above - an out-of-context translation of every French word in the "Regions of France" article, without any attention at all to the writing style or sentence meaning. Sorry Bob, but this is at once overzealous and lazy. You even translated "managed by a regional assembly (conseil régional)" to "managed by a regional assembly (General council)" - for lord's sake! This is just dumb!

In looking at the above article's talk page I see a short but inconclusive discussion to change article titles, but nothing substantial (or even less, conclusive) about content. Then Bob's lone one-line "Requested move, I translated the article" message, and this five days after discussion had ended - there was no discussion to that end, and certainly no conclusion to the same, and certainly not for anything widespread! This is really just unprecedented. How far has this gone already? How many articles have been "translated" in the same sloppy "French-word witch-hunt" way?! Really, I just don't know what to say. THEPROMENADER 17:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no witchhunt as you would put it, merely trying to use words that already exist and being more precise while at it. Please also note that I have been rewording towns/villages for commune (I italicise here even though it is an English word), also district for arrondissement (same deal). I made one mistake, big deal. I have corrected far more language and grammatical errors than I have made... Nobody is perfect. --Bob 17:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is quite obvious that you did not pay the least attention any sentence in its entirety. Just because I mention only one error doesn't meant that there's only one, but here's another one from even the same page: "There are also proposals to suppress the local government (conseil général) of the départements " becomes "There are also proposals to suppress the local government of the departments": you eliminated between-parentheses info about the proper name and type of "local government" - because it was French?
This is not a question of "perfect" - this is a question of having an idea, becoming fixed upon it as a principle, and applying it in for the principle in a very sloppy way - to (I don't know how) many articles at the bequest nor advice of none. This is downright wrong - you are not to decide the fate of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of contributions single-handedly. I hope you have brung a halt to this endeavour. THEPROMENADER 18:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup, he's impetuous. --Aquarelle 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, no name-call... is that name-calling? THEPROMENADER 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It's kind of like name-calling... or maybe just accurately describing another editor... --Aquarelle 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I had to look. Bob, you even eliminated inter-wiki links to very relevent French-topic articles. How many other edits like this and those above did you do? Will you look at this - and possibly a thousand pages before it. The first is possibly this one, and nowhere do i see any sign of any discussion about this anywhere. Ever. THEPROMENADER 20:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to admit Bob that all those moves are too major a change to undertake without previous discussion. --NYArtsnWords 20:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
No wonder he defends his position so obdurately. Look at all that he has invested in this alread ! It's too bad that he didn't seek broader input from other editors before he began, instead of doing it ex post facto (heheheh, Latin). --Aquarelle 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Usage of English and French terms from google.com searchs of English language pages

So as to avoid mirrors of wikipedia, lets look at a few searches (and these were random):

  1. .edu sites
  1. "department of France" - Results 1 - 10 of about 271 [5]
  2. "département of France" site: .edu - Results 1 - 10 of about 23 [6]
  1. .uk sites
  1. "department of France" - Results 1 - 10 of about 230 [7]
  2. "département of France" - Results 1 - 10 of about 67 [8]
  1. .gouv.fr sites
  1. "department of France" - Results 1 - 4 of about 5 [9]
  2. "département of France" - Your search - "département of France" site:.gouv.fr - did not match any documents[10]
  1. On any site (this will include mirrors of Wikipedia) we get more than 30% more hits on the English form than the French. This is mirrored in the plural form.
  1. "department of France" - Results 1 - 10 of about 57,100 [11]
  2. "département of France" - Results 1 - 10 of about 43,400 [12]

--Bob 18:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey cool, the English words are used slightly more than the French ones ! Wow ! This is a great argument ! All wikipedia articles MUST be changed in order to conform the the thin lead that the word department has over the word département ! This definately supports everything that Bob has been saying since the beginning.
(Is that the response you were looking for ?) --Aquarelle 18:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to provide a relevent search, do one within Wiki. Every publication has its own practices, and Wiki already has its own it seems. "What others do" is not an argument, but "why others do it" is. THEPROMENADER 18:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Wikipedia's practices are meant to be resolved on the basis of "most common usage in English," not "what Wikipedia usage already is." And it doesn't matter why others do what they do, but simply what they do. Or, at least, that's how it's supposed to work. john k 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I like how the results of Bob's google search were highly inconclusive yet he still posted them on this discussion page. Such things as "Architecture Department of France" bloated his English figures. --Aquarelle 19:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
The more information the better. Whatever it says, it is helpful to post any evidence, even if it doesn't very strongly support one's own case. john k 22:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

ok.

  1. en.wikipedia.org sites
  1. "department of France" - Results 1 - 10 of about 448 [13]
  2. "département of France" - Results 1 - 10 of 38 English pages [14]
  1. wikipedia.org sites
  1. "departments of France" - Results 1 - 10 of about 455 [15]
  2. "départements of France" - Results 1 - 10 of about 42 [16]
  1. wikipedia.org sites
  1. department France - Results 1 - 10 of 9,820 [17]
  2. département France - Results 1 - 10 of 5,750 [18]

This isn't slight preference for the English form, this is overwhelming usage of the English form. Those departments didn't bloat the figures to a 10 fold increase... --Bob 19:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The bloated figures were from your previous data set, not the new one. --Aquarelle 19:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder what those results would have been before your crusade. I guess we'll never know until all of your anglicisation has been reverted. --Aquarelle 19:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Bob, that also is an inconclusive search - how many articles use "départements of France"? Do a search for "département", rather, and look how many results you get. You'll see that I have done this when I discovered that the crusade was well on its way - too bad it's buried under all this cruft, but please find it here. Don't forget that your searches turn up only number of articles where the term is used, and not number of occurences of the term. THEPROMENADER 19:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The English form has twice the number again. Your point? [19][20] --Bob 19:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just taking the piss. I said départements only, and I did not compare English vs. French occurances of a term that could be skewed by many variables. By the way, did you know that searching with or without the accent in Google turns the same results? Do the same within wiki - and this will tell you the number of articles that use the term, no more. Even in that search I see you have moved dozens of articles already - perhaps hundreds? Sorry, but I feel the need to check now.
I have one important question: Do a majority of English-Wiki French-topic articles use the italicised native-wordform style - especially before all this nonsense began? If so, you've got a lot of fixing to do, and a helluva big discussion to open somewhere.
English-words-with extra explanation or context works ("administrative regions"), as does the native wordform italicised for context (régions), but you can't annhilate the dominant practice - especially in the name of "unification", where the lesser practice is eliminated by the dominant practice; not the contrary - just because you (and a few) don't like it. THEPROMENADER 19:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If one were to look at the word department by itself, the numbers would invariably come back with a higher usage due to its other definitions. Therefore, by including the terms France or French one reduces the liklihood of false results. To answer your question, many French terms are incorrectly italicised. Why? No idea, but probably because no-one took the time to look at WP:BETTER. Did a majority do this? I have no idea, as there were numerous pages that I didn't change as they were already using English terms. However, there is a lot of housekeeping to do before some form of consistency may be applied to French articles in en.wikipedia. --Bob 20:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to make a case for your "unification" campaign, you're going to have to somehow prove that English usage had already the majority - before your campaign began. Even then, seeing the quality of your edits and the lack of discussion beforehand, you've still got a lot of explaining and repairing to do. If you refuse to, you've made a lot of work for a lot of other Wikipedians. I don't think you're of that sort though. THEPROMENADER 20:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea of using a wikipedia search as the basis for what wikipedia usage should be is completely insane and circular, since any of us can change what wikipedia usage is. Sigh. That people on both sides appear to have at different points claimed that this is a useful measure is deeply disheartening. john k 22:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with that sentiment, which is why I didn't use it in my original posting. However, since it was specifically asked for, I saw no reason not to comply. --Bob 00:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
John. I clearly stated that even a Wiki-only search in the Wiki website (and this only for the Wiki search engine's ability to recognise accents) can only give an "idea" of how widespread the use of accented French words is - which is why I say "somehow prove that English usage has..." - you sometimes tend to be short in both conclusion and temper ; ) THEPROMENADER 23:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. A search in the wikipedia website doesn't indicate anything about how widespread the use of accented French words is in English. It is completely useless. If I overstated your claims, I apologize, but the measure you propose is just utterly worthless and provides no measure of anything. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a source for wikipedia, and certainly not for usage. john k 03:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't I who opened this thread! I too find it quite obvious that Google "evidence" to this end is almost useless. I said that it was even less than that because all searches with accented letters turns up results with words without - but at least the Wiki search engine doesn't do the same. I too apologise for my lack of clarity. THEPROMENADER 14:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, words have various meanings. A "county" isn't the same thing in the UK as a "county" in the United States. We are quite capable of handling the fact that the context, when that you are talking about a division of France, provides part of the meaning of those words. We know that not all governments are set up on one universal plan; we know it won't have the exact meaning in this context that it might have in other contexts. Gene Nygaard 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Speaking of words having different meanings, what in the world do you suppose the French Wikipedia uses for the United States Department of Commerce, for example? Take a wild guess, before you follow the link. I'd say that is a pretty good indication of what we should be using in the English Wikipedia: English words. Gene Nygaard 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, but there is context in both "Department of Commerce" and "Départment de Commerce". No extra description needed - "commerce" is never a place.
      Part of the problem is that thousands of French words were "translated" without any attempt to modify the phrase they were used in to replace the context - or meaning, if you will - conveyed by the italicised French term. Both are tools, and yes, one can argue that one should use English whenever possible, yet I find the italicised French word often the shortest and sweetest method of indicating the true and proper meaning of the word. It seems that most other French-article contributors have shared the same opinion until now. Personally, I am of the opinion that we should be free to use both writing methods - perhaps not in article titles, though, although I'm still divided on this. THEPROMENADER 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
<moved; said I was arguing with myself, but got in wrong section>
OTOH, the recognizable French words don't bother me all that much. I think we'd be better off going into battle against the editors of India-related articles, for example, who will probably claim that they are using "English" words, even though nobody outside of India, no matter what language they speak, has the foggiest idea what they are talking about in articles liberally sprinkled with references to tehsils and panchayats and the like. Gene Nygaard 21:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Can I move the Nestlé article to Nestle please, I'm astonished to see that an article with an accent was kept with its accent intact as we all know accents are the devil's worship in English. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Working toward consensus II

As per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, I think perhaps it is time to open up the discussion to a larger audience (perhaps via a RfC) and for all parties to take a pause:

Wikipedia works by building consensus. To develop a consensus on a disputed topic, you may need to expose the issue to a larger audience. Options for doing this include:

If you have not agreed to a truce before this point, you should do so now. This allows others to consider the issue fairly without the confusion of ongoing edits, which are likely to aggravate the dispute. If an edit war persists and parties refuse to stop, you may request that the page be protected to allow the process to move forward.
See also Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, and Wikipedia:Protection policy.

-- NYArtsnWords 19:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as this is going nowhere. All I ask is that all "Angicisation" cease if it is still in progress - which it shouldn't be. I am also inclined to ask that all concerned articles be returned to their pre-Anglicisation state (especially since it was done in a hasty in haphazard way) until this problem is clarified and resolved through wider discussion. THEPROMENADER 19:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: English vs. French terms department/département and region/région

This is a dispute about whether the English or French terms department/département and region/région should be used (a) in article titles, and/or (b) in article leads and/or (c) in the text of articles dealing with France and its administrative divisions. Please read the above discussion. Those in favor of the English terms cite the guidelines of WP:UE, WP:BETTER, WP:NCGN and WP:NAME and assert that the use of the English terms is appropriate, frequent, and not subject to unnecessary confusion. Those in favor of keeping the French terms in some or all of the above cases assert that the French terms define specific French administrative divisions, that their use on the English wikipedia has been longstanding, and that the use of English terms will create confusion for many readers unacquainted with their specific French usage. -- NYArtsnWords 20:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • The terms department and region are to be found in all major English dictionaries with the precise definition that the words apply to specific administrative divisions in some countries. Therefore it is a widely accepted term/translation. Proponents of English usage have stated that besides the definitions given in numerous dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary, Chambers Dictionary, New Oxford American Dictionary and Merriam-Webster, amongst others, the use of the English terms is found in both Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta and also the CIA Factbook. Moreover they are used by French governmental agencies overwhelmingly more so than the French terms in English documents (discount erroneous results found for other definitions of the English term department; [21]v[22]) and this is reflected in the usage by the British government and the US government. Although INSEE previously published English texts with the French terms, I have been unable to find any using this convention after 2004 (they now use the English terms in all documents after this date, at least in my research of the matter). The use of the English terms is predominantly used by the scientific community ([23]v[24] (discount erroneous results for hospital departments and the number is still significantly higher than for the French form) and by universities in both the USA and UK in English language texts.([25]v[26] and [27]v[28]). In major news sources, the results are yet again for the overwhelming usage of the English language terms. A quick search of the largest sources, bbc.co.uk, cnn.com, fox.com, france24.com and english.aljazeera.net show that département is rarely (and in the case of al jazeera and france24 never) used. I haven't looked at guidebooks as WP:NCGN states that they may not be good sources. Opponents have stated above that the English terms are rarely, if ever, used in English, are imprecise translations, that the French terms don't have other defitions outside of the administrative definition and are exclusively used in this field. All of this is clearly false and they have failed to provide sources to back up their claims despite numerous requests. - Statement by Bob
  • Addition: Childrens encyclopaedias also use the English version of the terms, as does the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, Time and the Getty Thesaurus... There doesn't seem to be any confusion on the part of the readers of these publications. Indeed, the claim that the terms department and region are ambiguous has yet to be referenced/sourced and as such is an unsubstantiated POV. Also, the arguments that no one has complained or that it has been like this since the start are both irrelevant. Articles can be improved upon, indeed, that is the aim of the project... I remember the arguments put forward by AIDS denialists in the AIDS article were very similar... Should we enlighten the reader or hide behind foreign nomenclature? --Bob 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • From my point of view, (and in the hope of coming to some sort of consensus), I am quite willing to accept English terms in article titles and leads. I see no real problem with the titles Regions of France or Departments of France, or with the use of "region" or department" in article leads, as long as the French word is also parenthetically indicated and that the "administrative division" aspect of these words is explained (and that region is differenciated from "pays", "province" and historic Provinces of France). I also am willing to accept the English terms in the body of the article when they are used in the formula X departement or x region (e.g. Indre department, Centre region) or when they are clearly wikilinked to the appropriate article: the English translations should be reasonably clear. But I can see how, when used in the expression French department or French region, or only as "department" or "region" in a French article, especially as unwikilinked words, these words could lead to confusion for someone unacquainted with the Administrative divisions of France. -- NYArtsnWords 22:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I too am of the opinion that article titles should be in English, but any change to even this should be discussed and planned beforehand. Yet there is no reason to instigate a widespread campaign to Anglicise article content. The very similarity between certain English and French words, but the difference between the same's "most common" definition, creates a need for added explanation or context: this can be achieved through extra description ("administrative region") or an italicised native-language format ("région") to indicate a difference in meaning. Both work for the reader, and either is suitable for reference-quality work.
    The "what other people do" argument is, again, silly, because every publication has its own context and/or style and methods. Wiki is not a single agency, organisation or publishing house; it is a compilation of articles submitted by thousands of contributors. Since it seems that a majority of Wiki contributors have opted for the italicised native-language method, this should be respected as, for as far as the particularities of its France-topic articles are concerned, this is a very widespread, and perhaps most common, method in use in French-article English-Wiki today.
    Should a partisan of one method wish to "unify" article methodology through the elimination of another, their job will be easiest if they can declare themselves the majority - yet even then they will have to convince those remaining through argument and consensus. There is absolutely no excuse for any minority to single-handedly eliminate a years-long trend appearing - and remaining in spite of the passage of time and hundreds of thousands of new edits and contributions - on their sole whim alone, and even less without any attempt at discussion at all.THEPROMENADER 00:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Summary: A few changing thousands of articles written by possibly just as many contributors for reasons little more than personal taste is really going over the top. If a few wish to overturn an existing and most-used method of providing context and proper meaning to ambiguous words, they either have to prove that a) the existing method doesn't work or b) convince a majority of contributors that it would be good to change it. THEPROMENADER 15:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Using the English words should be the most natural thing to do in the English version of Wikipedia, because it improves clarity. As Eric mentioned above, since 1790 the English word "department" has incorporated the meaning of "administrative district of certain countries". By the context, any English-speaking person with a bare minimum of familiarity with France would perfectly understand the word "department", especially when wikilinks [[Departments of France|department]] and mentions along the lines of "(Fr. département)" are available.
    Readers with no previous knowledge of France (including French) or this specific meaning of the word would be even more confused by being presented with "département" alone, with or without wikilinks. The same goes for "region / région".
    In the end, we shouldn't aim at the lowest common denominator (as the whole "street-level and advertisement-based popularity" idea seems to do in the case of desambiguations), but write for people able to contextualize words and ideas, and willing to use a dictionary (or follow wikilinks). If lack of context is problematic, the solution is providing the necessary context, not using French words :-) - Evv 10:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The website en.wikipedia.org is a reference work in English. It stands to reason that the articles in it should use English vocabulary whenever possible. A major portion of English vocabulary comes directly from French, so many of our words naturally have the same meaning as their French cognates.
Such is the case with "department" and "region." These two words are the English versions of the French words "département" and "région," respectively; they are just spelled and pronounced differently. They meant the same as their French counterparts before France decided to use the terms to classify their territorial subdivisions, and they continued to mean the same thing afterwards. The French implementation of these terms for this purpose did not in any way constitute a unique concept that could no longer be expressed by the English cognate.
Readers familiar with the territorial subdivisions of France, for example, are not going to flounder in the middle of an article when they encounter the word "department" being used for "département." If they're not already familiar with that English use of the term, they will pick it up instantly from the context of a well-written piece.
If readers unfamiliar with the territorial subdivisions of France encounter one of these terms and want an explanation beyond what the context provides, they will inquire further, regardless of whether the term was presented in normal-text English or italicised French. This will be simple on Wikipedia, because the first instance of the term will likely be wiki-linked. If the article happens to be about one of these territorial subdivisions, there will be an infobox on the right of the page detailing the country’s system.
If multiple, long-established and well-respected reference sources document and support the use of the English version of a term--as has been demonstrated above for these terms--there should be no question that English is preferable. The argument that editors have for some time been using foreign words instead of their well-established English equivalents should not be invoked as a precedent on which to base policy. I can’t quote en.wikipedia policy here and now, but I imagine that for both article bodies and titles, it prefers normal-text English vocabulary, and discourages unnecessary use of foreign terminology and formatted text. -Eric (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Declaration points and omissions addressed below. THEPROMENADER 14:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • I cannot see why French should be an exception. As for Spain geography in the English wikipedia, we say Seville (province) not Provincia de Sevilla. Go for the English terminology, please. --Asteriontalk 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We also use comarca in Spanish articles, where there is no obvious English alternative. ~~
  • I largely agree with Bob's comments here. Obviously, in English we can find both the French and English terms in use, but this seems to be a fair amount of evidence that the English terms are more commonly used. I would suggest that a) all article titles use the translated English term; and b) that article text should allow either, so long as what is meant is clear. john k 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Bob, sorry to borrow John's "bullshit," but it is quite fitting for your statement's claims about "clearly false", "failed to provide sources to back up their claims" and the general lack of validity in opposing argument: I have twice pointed out the error in both mine and your interpretations of the opposing arguments you mention.
    There are several methods to provide context and understanding, but for some reason you find one of these methods distasteful - this doesn't make it wrong. There are tons of examples of "other people's use" of the italicised-French word technique should you care to look for them, but you won't see me making that sort of "argument" because it doesn't prove which method is used here at Wiki, which method is used more, and even less, which method is "right" or "wrong" - because they both can be "right" when used properly. Selective "examples" may convince some, but this method is not what you can call "proof" or objective argument. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 00:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been anglicising articles for a while now (see here), initially because the page Départements of France was moved to Departments of France, and subsequently largely because of arguments set out by Bob. I also agree with what NYArtsnWords says above. In fact, I am quite certain that all the articles I have edited do have wikilinks from terms like "region", "department", "arrondissement", "canton" and "commune" to their respective French administrative subdivision articles. This makes it abundantly clear that, when used, these terms do have specific meanings. Kiwipete 02:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You too have single-handedly modified hundreds of articles without any prior discussion. What's more, your moves and translations seem also "done for the word" without any thought at all: moving "Cantons of the Guyane départment" to "Cantons of the Guyane department"; one can wonder what the layman thinks "the Guyane department" means. If it were myself deciding (which it can never be the case on Wiki) I would opt for a much shorter and contextual "Cantons of Guyane (department)". Guyane in its definition is a French department before anything else, so it is even arguable that the term "department" is only needed in cases of ambiguity.
      Ideas for real improvement arise through discussion, but unfortunately no discussion ever took place. THEPROMENADER 09:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Cantons of French Guiana would seem the natural formulation. john k 18:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm getting a bit tired of selective "wikilawyer" statements that provide selective arguments tailored to support one "side": these both ignore and miss the point of comprehension entirely. Again, there are several ways to convey the correct meaning of an ambiguous word: extra English vocabulary is one, and italicised yet recognisable native-language terms are another. For the hundredth time, every publicatoin has its own preference, so is pointless to declare "we should do what others do" - then show only a selective selection of "others" adopting only your point of view: if you want to "fix" the existing system, you have to declare that the existing system doesn't work, and explain exactly why. THEPROMENADER 16:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Is there common ground that whichever style is used should provide clarity and context in each article for a wide variety of readers? If so, then we can focus this discussion around (1) who are the intended readers; (2) how much clarity is desired/required; and (3) how much context is required to achieve this clarity. --Ishu 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This common ground exists already, and many articles use both English and italicised French-word styles. Both can be perfectly comprehensible to the reader if used correctly - if one or the other wasn't, it would have been edited out of existence over the years. This is not at all the case! THEPROMENADER 11:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is the English wiki. We should use English whenever possible. The French do their best to avoid English terms. It only makes sense. --English Subtitle 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Simple answer: Accuracy over consistancy. As an encyclopedia, we should inform, and if the terms can be confusing (as this long discussion has been), then usage should be explained, regardless of whether using english or french versions of such terms. Accuracy of information and in naming should trump the consistancy to use english. As for which to use for the names of articles, see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). I also think Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English may be applicable here as well. - jc37 12:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    jc37: what part of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) do you think applies here, and how? Also, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English concerns only English dialects (not French spelling). I totally agree with your "accuracy over consistency" though - it should be possible to use more than one means of conveying context and meaning. THEPROMENADER 13:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    Because both are good information, and I think in understanding those pages, we might understand this situation better, and use what's there to guide us in what to do here. - jc37 14:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I must comment on Eric's statement because it not only does not address the entire question: it only exposes certain aspects of each situation to better favour an already-decided point of view. The omissions are almost deafening.
Such is the case with "department" and "region." These two words are the English versions of the French words "département" and "région," respectively; they are just spelled and pronounced differently.
Absolutely not - only if they have the same common meaning are they the same. These English words may have roots in Old French and Latin, but, between their languages their most common use and most common meaning today are not at all the same. It is what readers understand today that counts here, and if you do not provide context or extra explanation, the reader may get the wrong meaning. Insinuating "people should understand" does not mean that they will - this declaration is both ignorant and biased.
Using the English words should be the most natural thing to do in the English version of Wikipedia, because it improves clarity.
Not when the most-known meaning of the word translated to is not the same of its native-language twin - especially without the explanatory context. Of course one could add extra explanation where the need be (administrative region instead of just "region"), or the article subject itself can lend argument to the real meaning of the term. It is the very fact that the words resemble, yet have different "most-known" meanings, that lends confusion to a literal and word-for-word translation, and permit the use of the very-recognisable native word form. Both are very recognisable to the English reader - so it is simple choice of style, not of "clarity".
Readers familiar with the territorial subdivisions of France, for example, are not going to flounder in the middle of an article when they encounter the word "department" being used for "département."
What of readers not familiar with the terms? These will flounder if the real meaning of the word isn't clear. Italics quite clearly provide this context, as does extra explanation. If the above argument is for the word alone without context, it is wrong: English "department" and French "département" do not share the same "most common" meaning. One cannot assume readership knowledge - to better use and promote a certain taste in writing style!
If readers unfamiliar with the territorial subdivisions of France ... they will inquire further, regardless of whether the term was presented in normal-text English or italicised French
Not necessarily, and especially if the word, lacking the proper context, is misunderstood. Which one of the following asks "what is Alsace really?" : "in the Alsace region" or "in the Alsace région" ?
...If the article happens to be about one of these territorial subdivisions, there will be an infobox on the right of the page detailing the country’s system.
No need for the infobox: The article will already have the context needed for the proper meaning of the word "department" to be understood correctly.
If multiple, long-established and well-respected reference sources document and support the use of the English version of a term--as has been demonstrated above for these terms--there should be no question that English is preferable.
Bollocks. There are other publications - including France's highest official statistics bureau, the INSEE itself - that use the italicised form in its English publications. Just saying that "there is no question" doesn't mean there isn't one - in fact, the very utterance of this phrase lends doubt to the veracity of the phrase following, and more since what follows in this case is choices based on taste, not fact. What would "need no more question" is solid, constructive and objective proof that one method or the other does not work. Here we are quibbling over taste, nothing more. THEPROMENADER 14:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but all of what you state is cherrypicked and it also seems to me that you appear to want to browbeat people into accepting your POV. It is true that one should not assume readership, but I would assume that that would mean use English, as English is what anglophones tend to understand. You want people to write to the lowest common denominator, but that would entail using words that are unnecessary. My previous example of set is perfect in this context. What does it mean? The set of the tide? The three sets required to win a match of tennis at Wimbledon? The set in a theatre? The set of a stone in a bracelet? English words have many definitions, and in this case, exact translations as aluded to more than adequately above. To state anything different would be both incorrect and POV unless a source can be provided that backs up this claim. A source being an academic in the transaltion field, an academic journal, an expert in the field of English-French translations or similar. It is not unreasonable to assume that department and region may mean different things outside of the most common definitions, especially as both England and Scotland have/or had administrative regions. To assume that the average reader is too stupid to understand this is baffling indeed. Using French where English is more than adequate is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them, as alluded to above in the references regarding using French terms where English is more than adequate. Thank you. --Bob 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bob, how is it possible to "cherry-pick" in a point-for-point answer that is a call to basic common sense? Your "set" example serves most to try to convince us that your prose is an argument when it isn't - where is the French in all that? All the phrases you provide are the context for "set", so even in its own language it is not an argument.
Actually, your "set" examples are the perfect example - change the context of the phrase - its words or language - and the word "set" will change in meaning. This is basic common sense, and has nothing to do with reader "stupidity". Now to simply translate a single word in a phrase without changing the rest of the sentence structure to convey new meaning, as you did to thousands of Wiki articles before all this was brought to our attention: of course the meaning of word may change, and of course readers - of any level - will not understand. At present (at least before the silent "word switcharoo" campaign), in the writing style of many French articles, the italicised native word-form is the context.
Again - sources for what claim? You need "proof" that a word without context has many possible meanings? Please - drop this attempt at argument, as well as the rest of the POV-accusation crap.
In summary, your answer sounds like argument, but is nothing of the kind. Nowhere have you proved that the writing style largely in use in France-article English Wiki does not work: this is what you'll have to prove if you want to garner consensus to "fix" something.
Phrases such as "more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them" express only opinion without proof to that end. What do people "not understand" in the present system? Why was it contributed in that way by so many, and remained so for so long? Where are all the complaints?
Again, this discussion pretending to be critical of "ill method" is all about taste, nothing more. If those few who would "fix" something that is not broken would like to instigate change - think of it like a new paint-job - then you'll have to garner and convince a consensus for your choice of colour. Yet to say that the car's motor isn't working because you don't like its colour: that is about what your and Eric's arguments amount to.
I don't have to "browbeat" people into any POV - about a writing style that exists already! I am not the one crying for change, so it is not I who has to "prove" anything here - it is those wanting change who must either provide proof that the existing system is wrong, or convince enough others, and to be fair, those who contributed to the system in the first place, that the system needs changing.
It is only normal that I question a few changing of thousands of articles based on decisions of taste alone - especially when the few in question are incapable to find real reason other than personal taste, an obsessive predetermined choice based on the same - presented as ideals not necessarily shared by others - for reason for their widespread changes. Even more so when I see that, judging from the pages I have examined, the result of the widespread word-switcharoo has indeed left many of the "translated" phrases without context - or no longer lending proper meaning to certain "translated" words they use - or in a word, ambiguity. Of this I have already provided examples above.
So thus far, short of a widespread revert, there's much to examine and repair. As for furthering a widespread "Anglicisation" change, those few who would want it have got a lot of convincing to do, and this to more than just a few. THEPROMENADER 23:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you fail to comprehend a quite simple argument. 'tis quite baffling. However, as your POV is more than adequately found on this page, why not leave some space for others to comment? Our reasons are clearly stated above, yet you fail to read and/or understand them. The RfC is here to clarify the position of those involved and seek broader comment from others. Obfsucating the opinion of some users here does not help in this procedure. --Bob 01:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

...Quite simple argument? Non-existent, You mean! I would think that filling the "statement" section with biased argument-sounding "examples" would affect external opinion more than a common-sense answer to the same in the "comments" section would. If you don't like the "French method", just say so, and find others that share your opinion - but please, don't go to such an effort to leave texts that insinuate - not prove - that the system is broken and needs fixing, when it is nothing of the kind; it is this sort of argument that obliges me to answer in kind. And if a "comment" section can't be used for comments, what the hell is it for? This thread is about your hasty no-consensus translations, not about my method of argument. No more "lawyerly" distractions from the real question, please. THEPROMENADER 13:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The RFC isn't working...
Before fixing something, one needs to show that it is broken, otherwise one's edits are just an distasteful change from one style to another. The French and English terms are both used in the professional field, so why is this change preferable ? Because it speaks to the lowest common denominator ? Dumbing-down Wikipedia with bad translations and lofty confidence in the quality of the context ? Italicising French words in English texts is not a novel idea. Britannica, the oldest English-language enyclopædia in print, uses the French terms. Why do they do so ? Probably because région and département, regardless of French usage, can have but one meaning in English : the meaning clearly defined at the beginning of the article ! No confusion ! No abmiguity such as with the word "set" or other such horrors.
Show how the current method adopted by dozens of Wikipedia editors is wrong or you have no argument ! --Aquarelle 16:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I think I spoke too soon on the earlier page about this. On second thought, if "region" and "department" are widely used descriptions of these French administrative divisions, then we should prefer those rather than neologisms. We should just make sure they're used unambiguously and linked to their definitions wherever possible. Stevage 03:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Those French terms aren't neologisms. However the bad English translations, in this sense, are. --Aquarelle 09:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
As an example of the difficulty that use of only the English word "region" might create... I wanted to speak of the "Jura region"... but worried that someone might think that I implied that the Jura is the name of a French administrative region (which it isn't). If "région" is always used for the administrative division and "region" used for the more casual usage, then this wouldn't be a problem. I guess I could have said "the region around the Jura mountains", but that seems verbose. What to do? -- NYArtsnWords 06:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
What to do? Either provide the context or extra description - like you have done in your example - so that the correct meaning of word in question will be understood. Italicised text gives context; extra explanation lends meaning. Both say "the meaning of the word is not what you think it is" and point to the correct one. THEPROMENADER 14:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The "Children's Encyclopaedia does it" argument is, as far as this "do they understand it as it is?" thread, rather apples to oranges, and not really an argument at all for many reasons: it is the very job of the encyclopaedia to provide meaning for the words it contains, yet here it is the reader's job to determine the correct meaning of a word if it is not clearly explained; this, again, is only another example of publications that have adopted the English wordform rather than italicised French; it does not say whether the publications mentioned are written in a way that lends correct meaning to the words in question (which of course they do). This discussion is about the effectiveness of an existing and widely-used method (is it "broken"?) and the merits of an alternate context/meaning-providing method.
    Asking for "proof" that words are ambiguous? Open a dictionary, mate. If there are several definitions or meanings listed, the word is ambiguous. What more proof do you need?
    The fact that the existing method is so widespread proves a consensus of many editors over a long period of time - it is a result. As for arguments that seek to cancel this in favour of another method, the only argument I've seen so far is a selective "other people do it" - and this, if anything, is an expression of POV and nothing else. If it ain't broken, and everyone likes it, then there's no need for a very few to "fix" it. THEPROMENADER 15:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Article titles have been in Foreign languages until WP:UE came into full force. There was no reason to fix this except to imporve clarity for the reader. This is what some here wish to do. Children's Encyclopaedias are written in very simple English. They have articles on the France describing the hierarchy of the French system, the same as here. To suggest that kids can understand the difference in the two words and yet adults are unable to is quite simply baffling. However the bad English translations, in this sense, are provide a source that states this. Also, provide a reference that precisely states that the words are ambiguous in this context, a dictionary does not state that using the word region to describe a French admin region is ambiguous, I want a reference text that states this with 100% clarity. Find a source. Unless you do, both statements are unsourced POV. Provide sources that back up your POV or stop obfuscating fact. For the Jura mountains example, there are many ways to get around this. Besides, in French, we manage to understand that région means two different things. Are Anglophones stupid to the point that they won't understand the difference, is that what we are trying to state, or is it only in French geography articles that this stupidity becomes an issue? I say this as I see that all other articles on other admin regions in wikipedia all use the English word. Yes other people do it here on wikipedia, it seems to be a commonly employed style here (See:Basilicata). --Bob 16:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
No, Bob: "until your actions with only your own interpretations of WP:UE as justification "came into" (why the passive voice?) "full force.", rather. The "some" you speak of as many are in reality only a few, and even then, to undergo a widespread (and sloppy) change without the least discussion (even announcement that isn't after the fact!) is unwarrented - especially when you cannot even manage to say what is broken in the system you almost singlehandedly tried to "fix".
"...a dictionary does not state that using the word region to describe a French admin region is ambiguous, I want a reference text that states this with 100% clarity" - with all due respect, this oft-repeated "argument" is nothing short of idiotic. Where in hell do you expect to find a "source" stating that "the use of the English word "region" to describe a French administrative région is ambiguous" ? You are attempting to appear to "have a case" by repeatedly asking a question that you know has no answer. Ambiguous = "having more than one possible meaning". Again, open a dictionary, mate, and look at the listings under "region" and "department". Pay particular attention to the top definition of each. To close this "question" that is not, I need only trot out the "Centre region" example yet again - how is it not obvious that this, to the English reader, is highly ambiguous?
Who is calling anyone stupid? In the phrase "the fifth set", if someone doesn't understand whether we're talking about tennis or flatware, does that make them stupid? How about, again, "Centre region" if it isn't clear whether we are talking about regions or administrative areas? Who cares about what "other languages" do - especially when they don't have words that, untranslated, are so similar to their English counterparts that they need no translation to be understood, and that their untranslated state even gives them correct meaning?
Again, in your present course, you have no argument. Either prove that the existing system for French Wiki articles is broken, or make a case why careful change would be good, and one convincing enough to sway a majority - and in all fairness, the same who made consensus for the existing system in the first place. THEPROMENADER 17:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to change région to region or département to departement as instead of keeping the originam eaning, translating it by loosing the accent transforms the meaning of the word into something it no longer describes. A département is a french local subdivision, a departement is where women buy their clothes. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Neither is there any need to use spell-check or to change your clothes regularly, but it looks nicer when you do. Given your post, you might want read through the delightful "discussion" above, keeping a dictionary handy as you go. -Eric (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Discuss the message; not the messenger, please. THEPROMENADER 20:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
So I've made a couple of typos... It's happened before and it'll happen again, at least i'm on topic. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Captain--the spell-check/clothing change part was a general comment, not aimed at you. -Eric (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
(grinning) Bullsh*t : ) But thanks. THEPROMENADER 14:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree (again) with User:ThePromenader and strongly object to this recent trend of Anglicisation. The French terms are more specific than the English terms and the words are similar enough that non-French-speaking readers aren't gonna get confused. The English Wikipedia has used the French-language terms since I came onboard ages ago and, frankly, using the English-language terms seems like we're oversimplifying and dumbing-down. If it's good enough for the Encyclopædia Britannica, it's good enough for Wikipedia. — OwenBlacker 20:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think "region" and "department" should be used (ie the English words) in general use within teh body text and article headers. In the first mention of the term within an article, a link to an article discussing the French term and its significance within French government administration is appropriate. The only time when the French word should be the major part of the article is in an article discussing the term itself. I've found this issue on a number of weaights & measures articles, where people insist on calling traditional French (etc) units by their modern English names, with the actual term they used almost as a byline. Fine in an article about teh distamce from Paris to Lypns, ny confusing otherwise. Rhialto 04:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Some I think are missing the point. We, defenders of the french spelling are not arguying the fact that foreign words should be translated. We are saying that région and départements are not used here as common nouns, but as the factual and legal word for the administrative area in question. I would totally agree with Paris region to describe a loose area around the capital, but am absolutely against Paris region in the context of the Île-de-France région as Île de France is not an area, it is an official administrative division which does take the accent on the e. Furthermore if people start moving article to loose the é in Île-de-France (région), the articles will simply have to be moved to Région Île-de-France to maintain the administrative quality of the targetted article... Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the "no French words in an article about something in France" argument that the article Île-de-France (région) should be renamed to French Island (region), and always referred to in other articles as the French Island region? How can they accept "Île" but not "région"? I presume "Île" translates to "island", but means something different, too. --Scott Davis Talk 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Up until now, I haven't heard Captain Scarlet's argument that the terms "région" and "département" are being used as proper nouns. If that is the case, then I think they should be capitalised, as this example page from INSEE shows. As soon as you do not capitalise the words, or if you put the indefinite article "a" before them, they become normal nouns and should be translated to English. As far as ScottDavis's comments, no one has been, or intends, translating French place names, which by definition are proper nouns. Maybe we should rename the articles to Région Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur and Département of Hautes-Alpes or Département des Hautes-Alpes. The arrondissement and canton articles already follow this format. Then the English words region and department can be used as required in the article body, wikilinked of course to the appropriate article. Kiwipete 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This is beginning to sound like reason. Indeed, there is no "real" reason why articles should use one method or another to describe their subject - all that counts is that the identity of the subject is clear. If it is clear that we are indeed talking about administrative areas, there is no reason not to use English "department" or "region", but if we are but indicating an area as a locale of a certain event or in an attribution, the meaning of the same words, because of their similarity, may be ambiguous in meaning, so there is no reason not to use the perfectly Anglo-comprehensible French word form to indicate the word's true meaning and purpose. What I'm actually doing here is describing the existing system.

My only reservation is about article titles. Is it really necessary to add "department" to the proper name of a department - when that proper name is nothing other than a department? I can understand in cases of disambiguation (Île-de-France for example: it is both a historical province and a région), but perhaps this is not neccessary - unless it is an official name. Some may argue so. THEPROMENADER 17:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That some users are changing these without any previous discussion highly concerns me. It shows a lack of good-faith on their part. If current Francophone usage is consistent, does not mislead, and is comprehensible to English speakers, it should be kept. Don't fix something that isn't broken. The Jade Knight 20:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking forward to writing about department stores that sell AOC Corbières in the Corbières region in the région Languedoc-Roussillon in the Départment de l'Aude.

This won't necessarily happen all the time, but articles can sometimes be clarified by using the word "region" to mean "general area" in a paragraph where an editor has already written something about the "région" of France that the "region" is in. I've been trying to expand some wine articles and a lot of them get confusing and muddled if I'm not really careful with the language. There are régions, départements, regions (colloquial), AOCs, communes and towns that often share space and/or share names. Especially in the AOCs.

There is a vineyard in the AOC Cabardes where the grapes are technically in three different communes, none of which are Ventenac-Cabardès. There are also grapes in Ventenac-Cabardès that aren't Cabardes. What is a boy to do other than to use the word region or the phrase "surrounding area" a heck of a lot? The latter gets clunky, but I wouldn't want somebody to revert région to region in a paragraph where I've already used the word region colloquially.mroconnell 16:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Battle of the Somme FAR

Battle of the Somme has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Napoleon III

The contents table on the article on Napoleon III has a subsection (3.4) called "Foreign Policy", under the Foreign Policy section there are, I guess one could say, sub-subsections. The 'sub-subsections' included are "The Crimean War"(3.4.1), "East Asia"(3.4.3) and "Italy"(3.4.4). Then the following nations are listed as subsections instead of 'sub-subsections': "United States of America"(3.5), "Mexico"(3.6) and "Prussia"(3.7). I tried to align them appropriately but I don't know how to edit the contents table. You can find what I am talking about in the contents table at Napoleon III. Faustus Tacitus 02:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Bob 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Shiraz grape article name

There is a discussion on the talk page regarding moving the name of this article to one that is more consistent with other grape related articles. Since there is a regional preference between Syrah & Shiraz, any additional input would be appreciated. Please voice your comments on the Talk:Shiraz grape page. Agne 22:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Bullfighting

Hello. This project claims the article Bullfighting as falling under its domain, so I thought I would bring it to your attention that I have started a discussion about the article's status as a Featured Article. I would appreciate some help with it if anyone has some time. Please discuss it Talk:Bullfighting#Featured?. Thank you. --Falcorian (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Alesia FAR

Battle of Alesia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yaruch Bann

While trolling through random pages, I found the above-named article. It's problematic, but not a deletion candidate. Take a look at it. Try to figure out why the French Wikipedia does not have an article on this guy. YechielMan 05:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that the french Wikipedia admins have deleted the article about Yaruch Bann; it seems it was a hoax... (see fr:Wikipédia:Pages à supprimer/Yaruch Bann). — M-le-mot-dit (d) 23:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

FAR Bullfighting

Bullfighting has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Falcorian (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment of Articles

As per Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Assessment there are currently over 13000 unassessed articles. Any suggestions how we could motivate the Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Members to clear up this back log? STTW (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Anglicisation compromise

After reviewing many "Anglicised" article content over the past days, I can only conclude that the "translation" quality is poor at best: The English word was switched for the French in most all cases, without the provision of any added context or comprehension at all. I move to put these articles back in their former state - which in most cases was a use of both English and French terms where context and comprehension permitted. There was no need nor call for this hasty crusade.

The article titles, on the other hand, can stay in their English form - further discussion pending - as I do seem to sense a general consensus on this through the discussion here. All the same, the location of some of these should be reviewed by a few, and discussion about this would no doubt be useful. For example, is the term "department" even needed in the article title of a department (like putting "province" in Ontario? THEPROMENADER 12:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not a compromise, but an assumption that you are correct, which some here believe that you are not. --Bob 18:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The following départements are disambiguated: Ardennes, Cher, Jura, Lot, Nord, Rhône, Var. They seem like reasonable disambiguation cases, certainly nothing I would get to bothered about, especially as there are other potential disambiguations where the département has the main page (Calvados, Cantal, Dordogne, Loire, Marne, Meuse, Moselle, Oise, Puy-de-Dôme, Savoie, Somme, Vosges, Yonne, to give a non-exhaustive list...) Physchim62 (talk) 11:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Your hasty changes to thousands of articles without consulting anyone at all was wrong from the start, and the result is a mess. What's more, if anything, this discussion has gone to show that there was never any need for change at all. The "need for change" has yet to be established as an argument, and even less by consensus, but what is clear and proven the ill-effects of the "French word witchhunt switcharoo". The natural solution in these conditions is to put the text back the way it was before - to really "fix" it - until a need for change is accepted by a majority, and especially those contributing to those articles. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 10:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
And yes, only reverting in-text no-context "translations" - and not page moves - is a compromise. THEPROMENADER 11:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not a natural solution, far from it. It is an assumption that you are correct and that we must follow what you, personally, believe. Of the informed people above, those that understand English that is and not declaring falsehoods and POV as fact, then I would say that consenus is to anglicise. But that is my POV. Also, it is your POV that the result is a mess. Why, exactly, is it a mess. List me 100 examples of errors that Kiwipete or myself or others did. You state 1000 articles were modified, please give me at least 10% where the modifications have resulted in the articles being a mess as we speak now. I posit that the articles as they were were a mess, far too many external links, far too much advertising, incorrect information and an overuse of the French language where exact and commonly used translations are found in English and that they have been reasonably tidied. However, I see that you also believe that the English words used are neither commonly used or exact translations. But since you provide no evidence to support your claims, they are POV, not fact, and POV has nothing to do here. --Bob 18:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No need for change has been shown. The articles will go back to their original form. --Aquarelle 15:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It is an assumption that you are correct and that we must follow what you, personally, believe. Of the informed people above, those that understand English that is and not declaring falsehoods and POV as fact, then I would say that consenus is to anglicise. That is a WP:NPA, you have simply been unable to sway people who are apparently just as informed as you. If more contributors wish the orignal spelling to be kept, then bow down gracefully. You can't justify yourself simply with personnal reasons Bob. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Aquarelle and Promenader, who do you think you are? Your demands for "proof" and your authoritarian proclamations that articles don't need to be changed come across as unreasonable--even shrill and defensive. You could argue that many edits on Wikipedia don't NEED to be made, even if they are improvements. Are you going to insist that every editor on Wikipedia prove that their edits were necessary, under threat that you will dismiss their edits with holier-than-thou statements like you make above? Good luck!
Bob, I, and others have demonstrated with many examples that the English terms in question serve for the French meanings in many publications, and have long done so. We have provided logical, reasonable arguments that given those established facts, it is appropriate and preferable to use English terminology on the English Wikipedia. You two have shown nothing to refute this; you, especially Promenader, merely rant on that we are wrong. You continue to insist that only the French terminology is accurate, but you fail to demonstrate your point. I am certain that if this matter were given wider attention, you would find most people agreeing that putting unnecessary foreign terminology into English is an improvement. It almost seems that you have difficulty accepting that concepts you apparently first encountered in French had already been incorporated into the English language and discussed in English terms long before you became aware of them. -Eric (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You know, your problem is that you've taken a fixed idea - shared by none thus far contributing to France-related articles - and are doing your best to present it as consensus - through cherrypicked arguments and insinuations supporting only that predetermined point of view - when it is anything but. This is quite the opposite to anything that can be called reason. The rest of your arguments either (purposely) completely missing the point or an attempt to discredit those attempting to give credit to the existing system - we are saying that the existing system works - that's it. We have to "prove" that it works? We have to "prove" what people understand - or prove that this system is broken or that none others use it? Please open an encyclopedia Britannica - for example - and let this poor dead-horse-absence-of-an-argument die.
The only thing "wrong" thus far is the very sloppy transformation of thousands of articles by (so far as I know) two without the consultation of any - even less those who created the existing status quo for Wiki articles in the first place - and this has been proven many times through this thread with direct links to such errors. So please, stop calling your taste-based intentions "an improvement" only because you yourself think they are such. THEPROMENADER 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, is the Encyclopedia Britannica going to state that multiple other reference sources have it wrong?
Ah, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"--a truly brilliant stroke of reasoning! So nice to hear that again.
This sentence works: "I like to eat fromage."
This sentence works better: "I like to eat cheese." -Eric (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
So, Eric says: to the English reader, Région is just as incomprehensible as fromage is. What a simply idiotic attempt at an argument.
Indeed, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Three years of "broken" contributions? Really. There was nothing to "fix".
If you would like to make an argument for change, then present your argument as exactly that. Enough hypocrisy, please - forwarding such unfounded "airs of error" non-propos is rather insulting to the intelligence of those who read them. THEPROMENADER 13:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Excuse my agassement, Eric, but if you refuse to argue honestly then we'll be going in circles forever. THEPROMENADER 14:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I think you have to use a style for three and half years before it makes the magical leap from being a habit to being proclaimed a perfect and immutable style, don't you?
Oh, why do I even try? -Eric (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
So a style that has developed through years of contributions by hundreds of contributors is a mere nothing in the face of the whims of two. Yes Eric, it is best to argue when you have an argument. THEPROMENADER 19:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it may be time to go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration (I doubt that mediation would resolve anything and it would only wear everyone down).-- NYArtsnWords 23:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can agree, but am in no hurry. The case should be clearly presented though: the timeline until now, the system that has grown to become the norm over the years, and the recent actions of the few who would single-handedly change it. THEPROMENADER 00:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, let's take it there. We really need a neutral party able judge objectively the honesty of all arguments and intentions, and the reasoning behind them. Enough of this. NY, can you initiate the process? If you don't have the time, I can see to it later.THEPROMENADER 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Welcoming new members to the project using {{WelcomeFR}}

Welcome to WikiProject France

Welcome, WikiProject France, to the WikiProject France! Please direct any questions about the project to its talk page. If you create new articles on France-related topics, please list them at our announcement page and tag their talk page with our project template {{WikiProject France}}. A few features that you might find helpful:

  • The project's Navigation box points to most of the pages in the project that might be of use to you.
  • Most of the important discussions related to the project take place on the project's main talk page; you may find it useful to watchlist it.
  • We've developed a number of guidelines for names, titles, and other things to standardize our articles and make interlinking easier that you may find useful.
Wikipedia:France-related tasks
You can help! Vous pouvez aider!
 Here are some France related tasks you can do:
view • edit • discuss • history • watch

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any of the more experienced members of the project, and we'll be very happy to help you. Again, welcome, and thank you for joining this project! STTW (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

There is a dispute going on concerning Template:Comarques of Catalonia, where some editors wish to include areas which were historically part of Catalonia (e.g. in the Pyrénées-Orientales). Comments from editors are requested at Template talk:Comarques of Catalonia. Physchim62 (talk) 13:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration#Anglicisation of French administrative terms

I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Anglicisation of French administrative terms. Please leave your comments. -- NYArtsnWords 22:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The request for arbitration was declined, although neither Erik, Bob or Aquarelle responded to the RfA. For archival purposes, I include the following: --NYArtsnWords 02:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion concerning a request for arbitration on the issue of anglicisation of French terms has been moved from Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration (last version: Revision as of 01:54, 19 February 2007). Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made below this section. No further edits should be made to this section.

Anglicisation of French administrative terms

Initiated by NYArtsnWords at 22:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Involved parties

Principal parties
Peripherally involved parties
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Grcampbell, ThePromenader, EHM02667, Aquarelle, Olivier, Baristarim, OwenBlacker, Captain_scarlet, Stevage, John_Kenney Evv

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by NYArtsnWords (talk · contribs)

This is a dispute about whether the English or French terms department/département and region/région and other administrative terms should be used (a) in article titles, and/or (b) in article leads and/or (c) in the text of articles dealing with France and its administrative divisions.

Those in favor of the English terms cite the guidelines of WP:UE, WP:BETTER, WP:NCGN and WP:NAME and assert that the use of the English terms is appropriate, frequent, common (e.g., it is used in the Encyclopedia Britannica) and not subject to unnecessary confusion.

Those in favor of keeping the French terms in some or all of the above cases assert that the French terms define specific French administrative divisions, that their use on the English wikipedia has been longstanding, and that the use of English terms will create confusion for readers unacquainted with their specific French usage (e.g., in the case of the words "region" or "department", common English usage does not imply an administrative division).

The topic has been the subject of debate on the WikiProject France since 18 January 2007, and this debate has included a Request for Comment (22 January 2007). The dispute has been complicated by the fact that certain parties have been "anglicising" pages since the middle of December 2006 (see WikiProject France talk page), either through page moves (for changes to article titles) or through content edits, long before the anglicisation question was first discussed. Some parties in the dispute would like to see an immediate cessation of all anglicisation and a "rollback" of some or all of the previous anglicisation until the question is decided. The debate is becoming acrimonious (accusations of WP:NPA, WP:POV, WP:OR, etc.), and it is unlikely that mediation will lead to a consensus.

Arbitration is sought to clarify in which cases use of the French administrative terms may be used on the English-language wikipedia and whether a rollback of previous anglicisation should occur. It is feared that a lack of arbitration may result in an edit war.

Statement by ThePromenader (talk · contribs)

My stance is against the hasty blanket-yet-superficial modification of thousands of articles by but two contributors preferring one method over another established through years of contributions. The same had made no effort at all to discuss these changes with anyone at all, and the result of these widespread changes was in many cases both sloppiness and ambiguity.

Certain words such as "region" and "departement" share exactly the same spelling, save an accent, as their English counterparts, but in each language, their foremost meaning is not at all the same. It is the very similarity between these words that lends the possibilty of using a word that, perfectly recognisable in its original format, makes it evident that its meaning is other than what the English reader would normally understand. Otherwise it is neccessary to add extra context or explanation to the word. Both are widely-used techniques in many publications; Wiki, since three years now, has made liberal use of both. There is no need to totally erradicate one or the other, and, most of all, certainly not in the widepread, hasty and no-consensus manner that is has until it was called to the attention of other contributors.

This is not a minor affair, as it affects all French-topic articles. If anything is to be judged here though, it should be the actions of each participant - nameley the widespread no-consensus change - and what should be done in light of that. Discussion about content can move forward in a more constructive way, in another place than here, from there. But this must be resolved first.

Observation by all-but-uninvolved User:Stevage

This is an incredibly trivial issue. It really doesn't matter: department, département, tomayto, tomato. I would welcome a decision by the arbitration committee, by any means (flip a coin if you like), that everyone will stick to. Or even let's just create templates like {frdept} which can expand to either department or département depending on which month it is or something. Stevage 02:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Of course choice of method and vocabulary is a trivial issue, especially when both choices are perfectly understandable by all. What is not trivial is someone taking a phrase written using one method and context and half-assedly halfway changing it to another - a change to word with no thought to method or reader comprehension - is a complete other: It's making a mess.
I think the arbitration is to finalise a consensus on cleaning things up; not to discuss the merits of one method over another. Flip a coin, sure, but let's not be flippant. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I would like to cite WP:UE#Disputed_issues and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(standard_letters_with_diacritics)#Guideline_in_a_nutshell:
"during and after the poll mentioned above, e.g. Inishmore, not Inis Mór; Tomás Cardinal Ó Fiaich, not Tomas Cardinal O'Fiaich"
Which should be used instead of the flip a coin method. I will search for notable sources to see if one of the other is used in the case of official naming of administrative terms and regions; régions and départements. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Clerk notes

The arbitration committee generally does not hear content disputes and is not likely to decide the question you have posed. Is there cause for arbitration based on editor behavior (such as disruptive editing, edit warring or personal attacks) related to the debate on the question at issue? Thatcher131 23:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment from an uninvolved user (as it happens, me) moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Moved from Anglicisation of French administrative terms. Newyorkbrad 22:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

  • Decline, content dispute. Kirill Lokshin 02:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. Not our domain. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline. Premature, I'm sure a reasonable solution can be worked out. Just make sure there is no more move warring. - SimonP 14:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Reject per above. Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Decline, per above. Paul August ☎ 18:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made below.