Talk:France Voyage Tips and guide

A couple of queries about the section From Belgium

• Firstly, why do we even have a 'from Belgium' section in so much detail and not a similarly detailed 'from Italy' or 'from Switzerland' etc?
• Also there is contradictory information in that the first bullet seems to suggest that all trains from Belgium pass through Luxembourg which is not the case when you read the second bullet, and the information about the Thalys trains further back in the article.
• As someone who knows little about the subject matter of travelling between Belgium and France (i.e. the same state of mind most travellers that read this site are in), this section does little to enlighten me. If anything it confuses the matter in my mind.

May I then suggest that someone who knows what they're talking about take a look at this section and if possible re-write it. Many thanks --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good questions. Last time I was in that area (2007 or so), I took a train Amsterdam-Paris via Belgium and back with no border formalities at all. I thought that sort of thing was general within the Schengen group. If so, roughly 90% of the "From Belgium" section could just be deleted.

But you are right, it needs someone familiar with the area to take a look. Pashley (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the Schengen agreement was one thing I didn't mention for fear of coming across as too critical. I've crossed the French border before (from Spain and by car) and there was barely an acknowledgement of the border, let alone any controls. If this article is to be believed, it's easier to get into the US from Mexico than it is to enter France from Belgium, what the prospect of a forest hike in Longwy or a yomp across the dunes at De Panne :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

May I suggest that an editor who knows a bit about French universities and the sort of places foreign students can go to in the country to study takes a look at this section, since at the moment it's looking very bare. Regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that the article was marked as 'outline'. I have changed to 'Usable' although it could perhaps be considered for 'Guide'. In any case I am putting this here for visibility. Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is definitely at "Usable" status but not "guide". A quick research says that many of destination articles of France are at outline status and until all of them not achieve minimum "Usable" status, promoting this article to guide status will be not a good decision. --Saqib (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, unfortunately WV:Country guide status says that the destinations listed in the article must be "usable status or better" otherwise the country article cannot be even usable. The city of Bourges and almost all Other destinations are currently outlines. This is why most countries actually are outlines, even as the country article itself is in a good shape. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'm understanding this now. Still, it seems unfair since it means only tiny countries will ever be more than outlines. The United States which has a lot of useful and careful content will always be an outline because people will always create articles for every 'cowshed' and 'one horse town' without adding content. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be a good new-year's resolution for this site to do something about this two year old issue... Whether it be by addressing France in particular or the general problem of country guide status... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I noticed France has a cope section, which is not part of the standard template: Wikivoyage:Country_article_template

The content is around using the toilet, which although a valid traveler issue probably doesn't merit a top level section.

I move the text below instead: Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

++++++++ Toilets are available in restaurants, cafés; there are also public facilities, which generally charge a fee. Note that American euphemisms such as "restroom", "washroom" etc. will often not be understood; ask for "toilets" (or in French "toilettes". In older public facilities, particularly those that do not charge or in isolated rest areas, you may encounter squat toilets.

I don't think it matters whether "Cope" is an optional section not shown in the template. It can be used if it helps travellers. And shouldn't this content be somewhere in the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed there are effectively two talk sections:

• France#Talking_to_people
• France#Talk

The 'talking to people' section in particular seems to really want to hammer in the idea that you shouldn't use 'tu' when you need to use 'vous', and seems to try an explain it repeatedly over many paragraphs.

I would suggest this content is better served in the French phrasebook, and the usage of 'vous' and 'tu' should only be covered briefly in the talk section. Would this be an agreeable approach? Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

The second section is necessary when you want to speak with w:Milou... :D

Jokes aside, I agree that it fits better into French phrasebook. The thing about when to use "vous" and "tu" is, as you know, goes for almost all European countries and elsewhere. Maybe we could include the advice in some form in Talk or Respect? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that was the other thing. Although each country uses it slightly different, the general gist of 'tu and 'vous' is applicable through much of Europe.

I would say it merits a sentence or at most a paragraph in 'Respect'. (Also I never knew Snowy was called 'Milou' :) ) 15:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Andrewssi2 (talk)

I think the "Talking to people" section of "Respect" is useful and informative, but should perhaps be renamed "How to address people," or even "Tu and vous," though that's not all that's mentioned. Where I could definitely see paring the article is in the "Talk" section, where instead of providing an inadequate few phrases, the reader can just be referred to the French phrasebook. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the French phrasebook does exist so that we don't have to cover the language fully in 'Talk'. Quick and important phrases such as 'Excuse me' and 'please' are probably fine, although 'Où sont les toilettes' probably belongs in the phrasebook. Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

The section is definitely informative, although I'm not convinced this is the appropriate place for a detailed French lesson. If someone doesn't speak French at all then this level of detail will go right above their heads. Is there no precedent for moving this into the phrasebook? Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can somebody review the infobox called "L'anglais et les Français" under France#Talk and let me know what they think?

Perhaps the author meant well, but all I can really read is "All French people can speak English but are too shy, and only understand British accents". (Sorry for the simplification, although I think that is what a quick reading traveler would also pick up)

I'm not convinced any content in that infobox is particularly true or helpful. Speaking English clearly isn't exactly advice that is limited to France or even Europe.

A quick check shows that it was added in much of the existing state in March 2008 by an anonymous user. Andrewssi2 (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

It may be OK, but as you say, it's probably unnecessary. Plus, as a minor point, it's of course untrue that French people will never laugh at funny mistakes French learners may make. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have moved here in case anyone else wants to have a go at working on it :) Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think it was well-intentioned and worth a little more attention than Andrewssi2's simplification. I get the impression that the French have a reputation for not speaking English, which is undeserved but probably results from the large number of tourists the country attracts and probably the large number of English-speaking tourists who are rude and/or don't bother to try using any French. Regarding politeness, there was an image ([1])that spread on the internet last year of a cafe in the south of France that charged much higher prices for people who ordered coffee without saying "hello" and "thank you".

I doubt there are many instances where native francophones will laugh at tourist's mistakes; maybe in a casual setting, but not openly in public. The only somewhat humorous mistake a non-native may make is in pronouncing "répéter" (infinitive of "repeat"), which is subtly different than "refart" (to fart is "péter"). Of course, how many times does anyone say "refart"? They'll understand what you mean, but maybe it would be funny to children. However, it's probably not worth mentioning laughing at mistakes. AHeneen (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

The simplification was important in order to demonstrate the lack of clarity the infobox was providing. Also not quite sure why the news story about politeness is relevant to English speaking in France?

In any case I'll give the Infobox a go myself to try and get there... Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Would suggest replacing Bourges in this article's city list with some other city. Bourges is in an outright sad state and other language versions don't have much to translate. I would replace it with Nice, a major destination which I was surprised not to find in this list. Or if we want to have something representing Central France, then how about Clermont-Ferrand for instance? ϒpsilon (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been to Bourges or Clermont-Ferrand, though I will trust your judgement that the former is a poor destination. I haven't heard much good about C.F. either, and would err on the side of Nice, having been there and knowing how nice (cringe) it is, as well as its popularity and good reputation. As a courtesy to central France and promoting my old home region, I would also like to suggest Orléans or Tours as possible replacements for Bourges. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

You misunderstood me :), I meant the article is virtually empty. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, of course you did, haha :) Well, I still think Bourges is less of an attraction than Nice, and possibly Tours and Orléans too. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nice's article looks most extensive (Tours and Orleans are as of now short on hotels and restaurants). I'll make the change tomorrow if nobody opposes. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yep, makes sense. I'm working on expanding those two, but they're a way off yet. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I haven't been to Bourges or Clermont-Ferrand, but Nice is good to list. ThunderingTyphoons!, I like Orleans and it's a significant city, but what city would you like to substitute it for? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Bourges :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Would you not add Nice? Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ikan, I feel like you're not reading my previous posts. As I said, I would fully support the addition of Nice, but proposed Orléans and Tours as possible alternatives (partly for self-interested reasons, partly because they are both, like Bourges, in central France). --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

But, realistically, the list looks incomplete without Nice, more so than being without Orléans. The Loire Valley is certainly a top-level important destination, but thinking about it between Orléans / Tours and Nice, there is no contest. If we put more than 9 cities, certainly, but as we don't... Nice is the 5th largest city in France, Tours is 27th and Orléans is 33rd. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I did read your previous posts and thought that you might be interested in adding both Nice and Tours or Orléans. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Only if we can have more than nine cities :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Having taken a look at said pages, I have the opinion that Nice definitely deserves to be featured, as not only is the city a great touristic destination, but its page is in a very good condition, much more so than either Bourges, Orleans and Tours. I'd propose thinking of putting Chamonix in place of Lille, but would rather not polemize that further. Ibaman (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Chamonix is certainly a better article, Lille's a more notable city. The only northern city too, which would make the list even more weighted toward the south than it currently is. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't think we should be making our decisions based on the current state of articles. As ThunderingTyphoons! says, Lille is indeed an important city that deserves to be in the list. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll go ahead and replace Bourges with Nice. ϒpsilon (talk) 15:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Merci, ϒpsilon :)

When is it time to take the caution box at the top of the page about the Paris attacks in November off? I have no idea whether there are still controls at the borders, but if there are, shouldn't that be put in the get in section? I don't know. Anyway, thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  20:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, yes, it should be removed now. I fully agree with your points. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

The national state of emergency is still in effect, so I think it should stay for now --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Are there any actual travel implications for the 'national state of emergency' ? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dunno :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I guess that is what we are looking for. According to the US State Department, there is indeed a national state of emergency that appears to mean there are increased powers for the police, but nothing as far as I can tell that impacts travelers. I guess the caution box can be removed. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know a lot of details, but it appears that Auvergne and Rhône-Alpes were combined administratively earlier this year. There may have been other combinations as well. Is it important that our hierarchy reflect the administrative divisions on the ground? Powers ^(talk) 20:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

There have been quite a few mergers, meaning the number of regions has been reduced from 22 to 13. Many of the new regions have been renamed (for details see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regions_of_France), so it may indeed be time to review our region hierarchy.

We may, for example consider removing the distinction between geographic regions like "Northern France" and "Southwestern France" which only exist on Wikivoyage and other travel guides, and substituting actual regions such as Normandy and Nouvelle-Aquitaine, which are now enshrined into French law. This would remove one extra layer of the hierarchy, which in my view would be a good thing as our current top level regions are very sparse in their content. The new top-level regions would combine the contents of merged regions such as Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Picardy into one Hauts-de-France article.

Please comment and say what you think. Bonne année ! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Bonne année à tous! I think we should definitely use the new official regions, but I'm not positive we should avoid some kinds of general geographic regions, though it would probably make sense to reduce those. Here are the tables from Wikipedia:

Quite a few of the unchanged regions are overseas departments that Wikivoyage doesn't include in the France guide. So perhaps we could group the current regions like this:

North: Hauts-de-France, Normandy, Île-de-France, Brittany

Northeast: Grand Est, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté

Loire Valley: Centre-Val de Loire, Pays de la Loire

Southeast: Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Corsica

Southwest: Nouvelle-Aquitaine, Occitanie

Or we could just take ThunderingTyphoons!' idea and have 13 regions for France, corresponding to the 13 new official regions. What would best serve the traveller? Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input, Ikan. I had hoped one of our proposals would spur discussion on the topic, but a week on that doesn't seem to be happening. I'll put a request for comment, and hopefully some Wikivoyagers will descend from the heavens. Perhaps Powers would be interested as well, as the original instigator of the topic. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

In the event you don't get any more participation, I think you should just plunge forward with whatever you think best. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Given that the new regions give less than 9 for metropolitan France and the current subdivision seems to be suboptimal, I see no reason not to implement a regional breakdown based on this. And from that downwards we can assess which regional subdivisions are excessive and which should be recombined or otherwise changed from what they currently are. And should this discussion die down without resolution, I second Ikan's request to just go ahead. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've just realised that a major barrier to changing the regions is the country map. What's the standard procedure regarding that? I could easily replace it with a dynamic map and have co-ordinate numbers represent the regions, but that would be rather inferior to what we currently have. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nations need static maps, so a new one has to be created. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Okay, that may throw a spanner in the works. I don't expect someone else to spend the time to create such a map just because of three people agreeing the regions need changing, neither do I have the skills to do it myself. Even if we kept the top-level regions as they are (catering to the current map) that would still leave administrative regions such as Occitanie spread across two of our regions. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Don't make up other people's minds for them. It's perfectly reasonable to request for someone to create a new map. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Alright then, thanks for the advice. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have no knowledge of France with which to render any advice on whether or not to use the new administrative regions as travel regions, except to remind that there is no requirement to do so. The map should not be an issue; the "skills" required are minimal and in many ways creating a map is easier than writing travel guides. Powers ^(talk) 18:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. I'll wait a day or two more, then if no-one else has come forward to comment, I'll make the changes, and put in a request at the region map project. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I just had a look at the map, it comes with a SVG version with a hidden layer containing the borders of all the administrative regions. As the new regions are just a recombination of those, it should be quite straightforward to create those new regions from the old map. Drat70 (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I modified the map to include the new regions let me know if there are any mistakes or feel free to edit it yourself: File:France-regions-2017.svg.

As some of the region names are quite long, it's quite a squeeze to put in the name to some of them. We could consider abbreviations for some, but not sure which. Drat70 (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much Drat70! At a quick glance, the regions look perfect. The roads are definitely outdated, in that most of the yellow should be red, but I couldn't tell you all the stretches, and am not sure how much it matters. As the longer region names tend to be the new ones (those that opted to combine their old names, rather than agreeing on something new) there may not be any common abbreviations for them. The only one I know that is in very common use for a long-established region is PACA. Thanks again, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's somewhat aesthetically displeasing that the words Ile de France are outside of the region they describe, but otherwise good work. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, the roads (as much as everything else except the region) has been taken over from the old map, so the information is most probably outdated.

I agree, it looks weird that the words are outside of the region and the arrow that points into it is not very visible as well. This has been the case in the old map already, and given the size of the region, I don't really see how I could make it fit. Maybe somebody else has an idea how to improve on this? Drat70 (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I went back and changed it. Turns out it can just fit in, since the font size is now smaller than in the old map (this is due to the bigger number of regions). It looks a bit crammed now. IMO this is the lesser evil as compared to having the label outside, but if you disagree, feel free to revert to the old version of the image. Drat70 (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the change is ready to go. The 13 regions were decided upon? I'm OK with that. User:Hobbitschuster, are you OK with that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm still working on the mergers, albeit slowly. I regret that it's taking as long as it is, but I'm trying to do both a high-quality job and trying to fit it around everyday life, which is hectic at the moment. Four out of the six new region articles (created from mergers) are in a 'finished' state, while one is nearly finished, and the last one is still empty of content. And yes, I'm working on the basis of 13 regions, since nobody had any objections to that plan back in January. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: I see no reason to object and look forward to the changes coming online. @ThunderingTyphoons!: There is no rush, so do it on your own time. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to mar the great consensus, but I think this is a bad idea. Several of the old regions have a strong regional identity and distinctive character and are well known among travellers to France, e.g. Alsace, Lorraine, Burgundy, Auvergne. I do not think it serves the interest of travellers (i.e. our targeted audience) to replace them with abstract, purely administrative constructs like "Grand Est" or "Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes". The only case that makes sense to me from a traveller's point of view is the merger of Upper and Lower Normandy because they were always perceived as one touristic region anyway. I know that some of the old regions were oddly assorted, too, e.g. Rhône-Alpes, but in a general view the old regions are still better fitting (in a traveller's perspective) than the new ones. --RJFF (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The old regions were above all way too many. We can of course subdivide those if and when and where needed, but we should not immediately divide France into thirty regions. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Quite a few people in France were up in arms about the mergers too, so you're not alone, RJFF :-)

To (hopefully) address your concerns, all of those regions you cite will be made into redirects, so anyone searching for them will still find the right place. Many (indeed most) of the old region articles have precious little information and empty sections, whereas the new articles I've created all have plenty of content, which in my view better serves the traveller. It is also my hope that when the new regions are online, that we will split some of the larger ones into subregions, which could be based on their departments or on some of the more familiar regions, and that those articles will also steadily fill with content. That is to say, there is no reason why in the future there couldn't be an e.g. Alsace article under the hierarchy of Grand-Est. You could think of Grand-Est as replacing the even more anonymous (and once again contentless) Northeastern France. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) We can use the new administrative regions as top-level regions, but should keep at least those of the old regions that have a strong historical and cultural identity (e.g. the ones I mentioned above) as sub-regions. It would be very user-unfriendly to just blank, say, the Alsace article and redirect it to "Grand Est". --RJFF (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Please keep in mind that a large part of our readers arrive directly from search engines and do not really use our geographical hierarchy step-by-step. We would lose a lot of readers searching for a free travel guide on Alsace, Burgundy or Languedoc-Roussillon, because it is unlikely that search engines would rank a mere redirect as highly as they rank an article whose title exactly matches the search term. Blanking and redirecting these popular articles would be against the "traveller comes first" principle. Also, most of the new regions are huge and need sub-regionalisation anyway. In many cases, the old regions are the most natural and practical choices for subregions (more so than the départements whose names are mostly unfamiliar to foreigners). --RJFF (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is that the case though? We have a pretty stubborn problem of low search engine rankings and anecdotal evidence has shown "newly" created articles like Intercity buses in Germany to rank pretty high whereas legacy articles do not, so that's actually a slight argument in favor of new names for our regions. Also, where does it say that redirects are not found? Also also, we may subdivide the regions directly beyond France at some point in the future if and when necessary according to logic that will be evident by that point, so we may well end up with regions like idk Southern Alsace if and when that makes sense. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oops. When searching for [region] + Reiseführer, German Wikivoyage often comes up among the top 10. I assumed that the same would apply for the English version, but obviously it doesn't. That's a pity. Perhaps we should task someone at Wikimedia Foundation to seriously think about search-engine optimisation for this project. Anyhow, I think it is a fallacy to believe that using more unusual article titles would increase our readership. While our page may be among the top results for those search terms, how does that help if no one is searching for these terms? Seriously, who looks up "Grand Est" rather than "Alsace", "Lorraine" or "Champagne"? --RJFF (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Google tailors its results to individual users. Unless you use a non-tracking search engine (such as "startpage") your results will be distorted by the fact that you're rather active on WV. At any rate part of the reason for this is the "duplicate penalty" that google slaps on every article of ours that is too similar to that other site. de-WV obviously has less of this as it migrated earlier. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour, les Wikivoyageurs. Could anyone advise the best course of action for this particular merger? Rhône-Alpes is divided into subregions, whereas Auvergne is not. Presumably an Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes article which is only partially divided would be sub-optimal and against policy, so would it be best to create four new articles (corresponding to the four departments that made up Auvergne; initially they would be only empty templates as I focus my efforts on finishing this region merger job), or to make Auvergne itself a sub-region of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes? I'm excited to get going on this one, as it's the last new article needed before the merger takes place. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Are the subregions of Rhone-Alpes really needed at this point? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

They all have a fair bit of content, so I would say yes. Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes is also a very large region, larger than Switzerland, in fact. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I maintain my proposal (uttered at Talk:Rhône-Alpes) to merge the department articles into three articles about more "natural" subregions, i.e. French Alps, Greater Lyon, Ardèche and Drôme (the last one already exists). They could be placed next to Auvergne as sub-regions of the new Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes article. --RJFF (talk) 16:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

That would be an elegant solution. Would you be willing to work on that merger, while I created the main Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes article? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

@AlasdairW: Would you, as the main author, be OK if I merged Rhône, Ain and Loire into a "Greater Lyon" article? --RJFF (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Although personally I have a slight preference for having articles for Departments, I am quite happy if you merge the articles. Most of the content that I added was based on the French WV article, and I would suggest looking there in the course of the merger. AlasdairW (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am done with merging Ain, Loire and Rhône into Greater Lyon (there is still some fine-tuning to be done). I am not sure what to do about the three Alpine départements. Haute-Savoie has some content that is worthy of preservation and eleven sub-ordinate places, enough to warrant a separate region. Should it be a sub-region of Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (administratively correct) or French Alps (more intuitive and travel-related)? The article on Savoie is nearly empty, but has seven sub-ordinate places. Isère has little content and few places and could be merged into French Alps without considerable loss. --RJFF (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hi, RJFF, sorry for the slow response; I haven't had much time for Wikivoyage. Thanks for your work on Greater Lyon, it's come out really well.

Haute-Savoie doesn't have any proper 'see' or 'do' sections, which for me is enough reason to not justify its own article. On the other hand, Savoie does have 'see' and 'do' info, so perhaps a neat little merger of the two? It'll make quite a long list of towns, but this is allowed for with bottom-level regions. What's more, much like Upper and Lower Normandy, they are culturally one entity and will share pretty much all of the same 'understand', 'talk', 'eat' and 'drink' content.

French Alps is currently an extra-hierarchical region, meaning it doesn't fit within the breadcrumb trail of country > main region > little region > city, so although it can and does link to the departments within its area, it cannot itself 'own' sub-regions that are part of the breadcrumb. For this reason, we can't make the Savoies, Isère or anywhere else a sub-region of French Alps. The trouble with fixing this by bringing French Alps into the main hierarchy is that it overlaps with another top-level region altogether (Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur). For now, it might be best to have Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes split into:

• Ardèche and Drôme
• Auvergne
• Greater Lyon
• Isère
• Savoie (including Haute-Savoie)

that is until we either work out where to put Isère, or write enough content for it to definitively stand by itself. What do you think?

Just as a response to what you may be implying by talking about "preservation" and "considerable loss" (and I apologise if I've got the wrong end of the stick): there should be no question of deleting content. This is supposed to be a gathering of the information we have got into fewer articles so it's all spread less thinly. Through the mergers I've been doing elsewhere in France, the only information I deleted was either outdated / factually incorrect, or else wasn't suitable for a region article (for example, a restaurant listing - which should be moved down the hierarchy rather than deleted from Wikivoyage outright.) So although it may be a bit of a bore, it is just a case of seeing what information fits best where, and shunting it up or down the hierarchy as necessary. Once again, if you already realise this, and I'm just reading too much into your word choice, then forgive me for stating the obvious!

Hope you're having a smashing Thursday, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is it really true? Yes, after much delay, I have finally finished writing the new articles. Check out my project log to see how it was done, and to understand what must be done next, namely blanking, redirecting and transferring the new pages from the sandbox into mainspace.

I apologise to you all for the inordinate length of time this has taken, but see no further need for delay, so I'll get right to it. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Done --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Almost done, region categories have not been created. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Traveler100: I created Category:Hauts-de-France, but wasn't sure what to do with it next. Shouldn't it fill up with the pages it contains automatically, or do they have to be added manually? Some have appeared while others haven't. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The best way is to create the category first (or rather on edit of first city article) then as you edit each article it will update the category. Not a big issue they will update automatically over the next few days or when the article is next edited. I may start forcing updated in the next hour or so. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Right, I see. Thank you for creating the other categories. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Impressive work! ϒpsilon (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, ϒpsilon :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Bravo, ThunderingTyphoons! Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

One thing the new regions do need, if someone would be willing, are static maps. This is especially urgent for Occitanie, Nouvelle-Aquitaine and Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, which all contain sub-regions. Best, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maps are up now for Occitanie, Nouvelle-Aquitaine, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes and Brittany (the regions with subregions). The other regions are bottom-level regions and follow administrative borders so we can probably get a mapmask from Wikidata/OSM and do dynamic maps for them. -Shaundd (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

That chateau restoration project sounds like a pretty good voluntourist attraction. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Found a link to the chateau's website. Also a bit of Restore and Stay as well. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

As Corsica is a region, it shouldn't really be listed as an 'Other destination' as well. The question is, what to replace it with? I had thought another island, such as Île de Ré, which as a bonus is not in the south, unlike five other items on the list, but that doesn't have its own article yet. Other ideas, all firmly in the north, would be the D-Day Beaches, Fontainebleau, or Versailles - although the latter two are towns, they're almost exclusively visited for their respective royal châteaux and estates. What does anyone else think? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Another single-purpose city, albeit down south, Carcassonne.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

7 2 doesn't of course say there has to be 9 "Other destinations", so you could just delete Corsica.

How about some place from overseas France (even as they aren't breadcrumbed under France itself)? --Ypsilon (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're certainly right about the number; there doesn't have to be a replacement. That said, most of our well-developed country articles do have nine items in each list. This article explicitly isn't about overseas France, as stated in the Regions section. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Right. I'd suggest some individual place in Corsica, but there doesn't seem to be any "other destinations" listed there. In addition to the places you just mentioned (D-Day beaches could be a good idea as it has been featured on the main page and therefore has a good article), some famous French places I come to think of are the Lascaux site, Champagne or Verdun... if the articles would have more content. Ypsilon (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

You're right that the D-Day Beaches article is the most well-developed of those already mooted. Perhaps that's the one to go for, then, if any. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

• "As Corsica is a region, it shouldn't really be listed as an 'Other destination' as well." Is this really so? In this list, only Disneyland Paris and Mont St. Michel are not "regions". Also Camargue is in such a sorry incipient state, it doesn't merit to be featured as it is. As a traveller, I would suggest Annecy, Chamonix and Nîmes as worthy of this attention. Ibaman (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The crucial distinction is that Corsica is a top-level region listed in the "Regions" section of this very article. It makes no sense whatsoever to cover a top-level region as an "other destination". It's not: It's a region. Get it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Also, basing decisions about which destinations to list on how developed the articles about them are is in my opinion almost the reverse of how we should think about things. Destinations should be selected because they're the most beautiful, compelling, fascinating places in France, and then if the articles about them offer insufficient coverage, they should be suitably improved. That's how a travel guide serves travelers. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

So I've removed Corsica from the OD list now. Still open to suggestions/arguments over possible replacements. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've spent time only in several regions of France, so I don't know, but it looks like the list is lacking an island. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well there are the Îles d'Hyères. Others which spring to mind either redlink or redirect.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Disneland Paris-castle.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I suppose people can easily imagine what a Disney castle looks like, so probably no big deal. --LPfi (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Despite the message above, there's no discussion to be had as such, since all photos of the castle taken without the permission of Disney are illegal in France, where there's no such thing as freedom of panorama. I don't quite know why Wikimedia has to comply with French law (particularly one which is detrimental to multiple wiki projects) when its servers are in California, but Commons has a long-standing practice of deleting photos in breach of this law such that this notification is more of a courtesy than a genuine invitation to comment.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

The file could be uploaded locally. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

How? Aren't we then in breach of copyright? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage has a non-free content policy. It rarely comes up, but we could discuss whether we need to resort to it in this instance. Probably not, because of the lead photo in the Walt Disney World article, but it could be considered. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

That would be a solution, though I would think this would be more for the benefit of île de France than this page. This isn't even the best Disney castle (Florida's Cinderella one is the finest, IMO), let alone can it compete with any of France's great châteaux. By the way, I don't think the Florida photo you mention is comparable to the photo of the French one, since that photo is CC-licensed and at any rate depicts architecture, which if I understand the policy you linked correctly, is a permitted photograph in U.S. law, but would be illegal under French law.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

That's my understanding of the law, too. And totally agreed on Disney's fanciful castles being inferior to probably hundreds of real French chateaux. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm not that happy with this edit. France is one of the most important countries in the world in the history of European classical music, it's an important part of the country's heritage, and France is still an important country for classical music today. I would have left the entire section as is, but I might be persuadable if the argument is to summarize what was there and refer the reader to European classical music for the rest of it. My problem is that what's there now is not even bare bones. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's better to rewrite the section heading to "Performing arts" because it wasn't only talking about Classical music, but ballet and opera as well. Ballet and Opera are two completely different things. I think it's better to get to the point about what something is instead of sharing facts after facts about how awesome or lovely France's performing arts scene is. After all, the aim is to inform the reader(s) what to do when they're in France. Roovinn (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ballet and opera are genres of classical music. And you can most certainly catch a ballet or watch an opera when you visit France. And I think the information you deleted is important, because a travel guide is meant to also let people know why they should consider going for a classical music performance when visiting France. And for that matter, both ballet and opera are an important part of France's cultural heritage. The dog2 (talk) 05:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

France literally defined what we now know as classical ballet, and that's why all ballet terms are French. Incidentally, "ballet" and "opera" are not proper nouns except when referring to a building (the Opera in Paris). Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Let's look at some of these edits now. I think we all appreciate Roovinn's efforts to streamline the language here, but let's not do that at the expense of so much elegance. I agree that the "Thinking of France" initialisms aren't necessary, but the problem with the new paragraph that starts with "Being one of the most visited countries on the planet, France offers a plethora of iconic sights and tourist attractions" is that all the sights mentioned in it are in Paris, whereas the former language encompassed many sights in the "provinces" and then stated that they were only the tip of the iceberg. Also, compare the poetry of "Paris. the 'City of Light' and the capital of romance has been a travellers' magnet for centuries" with the prosaic "Paris has long been one of the world's most famous cities." Should we discuss how to split the difference? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I haven't paid much attention to this article, but the See section is not in great shape. That section isn't for listing cities and towns to visit; those are already mentioned and described in the top-level Cities and Other destinations sections. The subsections under See ought to be things like Architecture, Museums, Historical buildings, etc. USA and Japan are both very good examples of how the See section can be organized better; Netherlands and Germany are also pretty good. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. We also worked hard on India#See, and it might even be too short now. Ikan Kekek (talk)

Agreed with that. The section should be an overview of what there is to see in the country, and not just listing cities and towns, since those are already mentioned elsewhere. And I don't think we should make our language very dry; we want to share the excitement of travel, and we certainly should have some content of why people would want to see those attractions. I have posted a message on Roovinn's talk page, and while I am inclined to assume good faith as of now, I think he still needs some more guidance on our writing style here. We're after all writing a travel guide and not a scientific journal article. The dog2 (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I wouldn't have ever felt anyone would question Roovinn's good faith, and I certainly am not doing so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Having had a chance to review some of what's been said here, I do appreciate the feedback from you both (Ikan Kekek, The dog2). I suppose some aspects can be flowery, but it shouldn't be overdone. Roovinn (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sure, just take the lead from the more experienced editors here. The point of a travel guide is to tell people what it about a place that make people want to visit. If we reduced it to just "Tourists can visit X" without elaborating any further, then it isn't much of a travel guide, is it? The dog2 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Moved here while we figure out what to do with "See". Some of these descriptions may be useful somewhere. I don't think we want to duplicate "Cities" or "Regions" in "See". Instead, we should have categories. "Art museums" is good. We could also have "Seacoasts", "Chateaux", "Cathedrals", "Wine-growing areas", and let's think of other possibilities.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Paris has long been one of the world's most famous cities. Some iconic sights in the city include the world renown Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, the Notre Dame Cathedral, and the Sacré Coeur. With no less than 3,800 national monuments in and around Paris, history is literally around every corner. One may also stroll through the city's spacious parks, with the Luxembourg Gardens being the most famous of them. 20 km west of the capital is the Palace of Versailles, and its expansive estate.

Bordeaux is famous for its wine but it's is also a bustling city with lots of historic sights to discover. Bordeaux is UNESCO-listed for being an outstanding urban and architectural ensemble.

Lyon, the country's second largest city, boasts a beautiful old centre (also UNESCO-listed) and a number of Roman ruins.

Strasbourg, one of the EU's headquarters, has a character of its own, with clear German influences.

Montpellier has lots of monumental buildings and nice cafés.

Nantes, home to the Château des ducs de Bretagne, possesses numerous historical monuments.

Toulouse’s Capitole is situated right at the heart that famous university city's street plan.

Arles is home to numerous Roman and Romanesque monuments.

Reims is smack in the middle of champagne country and home to medieval France's most significant cathedral.

The Côte d'Azur was once the place to be for the rich and famous, but it is now equally popular with non-rich non-celebrities. Its sandy beaches, beautiful bays, rocky cliffs and lovely towns have made it one of the world's premier yachting and cruising areas as well as popular destination for land-bound travellers.

Nice, another city frequented by tourists, possesses stony beaches and the world famous Promenade des Anglais.

Cannes, where the world famous Cannes Film Festival is held annually, is a popular location for those working in the film industry.

Provence, backing a good part of the Côte d'Azur, has a typical Mediterranean atmosphere and is famous for its lavender fields and rosé wines. It's also home to the stunning Verdon Gorge, one of the most beautiful gorges in Europe.

Marseille, known for being an art-hub, has plenty of historic sights and nearby are the stunning Calanques, a series of miniature fjords. The city also houses the famous Gorges du Verdon.

We had "Major tourist cities and sights", which I moved to the section above because it felt too duplicative of "Cities" and "Regions". We now have the following subsections or topics:

"The French countryside"

"Cathedrals" (which I just added; please tweak at will)

"Art museums"

"Parks & natural attractions"

First, on the existing sections:

I don't think "Chateaux" should be stuck in "Countryside", and not all of the important chateaux are in the country, anyway - think of the Chateau of Angers, which exhibits the splendid Tapestries of the Apocalypse - so I'd propose to make it into another section. However, should we cover some wine-growing regions here or save that for "Drink"? It looks like there's room to mention a few particularly important ones in this section.

I think "Art museums" shouldn't have separate lines for each museum in Paris but should mention several of the most important ones in a single paragraph. I also think it should be "Museums" and should include museums about science, war and so forth.

What other sections should there be? One on mountains, which would encompass at least the Alps and Pyrenees? One on walled cities, perhaps? Islands? Lakes? Let's figure this out, because though we shouldn't consider trying to mention everything at all (rather, just giving readers a really, really small taste of what's in the region and city articles), we could do better to show the diversity of France's attractions than we currently do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Of the proposed subsections, I agree with most of them. Thanks for getting us started.

Having lived in a French wine region, while I enjoyed drinking local wines, I didn't find the vineyards themselves particularly added anything to the experience. What is there to actually see, other than fields and fields of grapes? How is that different to a wheat region, or an orange-growing region? Some wine regions definitely have museums, and I know wine people like visiting vineyards, but the latter is mostly a 'Drink' experience (WYCSI also suggests 'Do' or 'Buy'). There are also wine routes in France, but again these are itineraries, so more suited to 'Do'.

Is there a way of covering museums without writing a long list? I definitely agree with broadening it beyond just art museums.

In a similar vein, 'Cathedrals' could be broadened to cover churches in general, including abbeys and basilicas. Perhaps discuss the main architectural styles, with some prominent examples of each.

Mountains are undoubtedly worth seeing, but once you've looked at them and said "ooh! ah!", most of the attractions in mountain areas are 'Do' activities. So perhaps for this part, just a brief overview of where the main ranges / national parks are and what they're like? Definitely leave the hiking/skiing/rafting/wildlife watching to 'Do'.

While walled towns are found all over the country, there's a particular concentration in Occitania, where they're called bastides. Most regions have numerous lovely old towns, though not all walled; harbour towns on the Med and in Brittany, riverside Renaissance towns in the Loire Valley, hill towns in Provence, Brothers Grimm-style towns in Alsace...

France isn't particularly known for its islands, and doesn't have that many for a country its size. I'm not so sure about lakes, but I can't say that any particularly spring to mind other than Lake Geneva.

Another thing worth seeing are markets. Coverage of these certainly belongs in 'Buy' as well, but I would say that the average weekly market / covered market hall is still worth visiting just for the experience, even if you have just eaten and have a fully-stocked larder.

Oh, and while we're doing this, we should probably look at 'Do' as well. Practically everything before the 'Classical music' subheading is basically just "see this", "see that". 'Do' is a bit more difficult than 'See', as there probably aren't many activities that are exclusive to France, nor are there many things you can't do somewhere in the country. Music and spectator sports are good, but at a minimum we need to mention the national pastime, cycling, as well as the mountain activities mentioned above. Canoeing and (wind)surfing might be worth considering too. And then there's cookery / bakery as a guided activity, though at their commitment-level extremes, these may be more suited to 'Learn'.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. I agree with most of your points. It can be fun to visit a vineyard, but though it's pretty to see and tours in which the process of wine-making is explained can be interesting, it's probably wine-tasting that's the greatest focus of such trips, so it's probably best to cover trips to vineyards under "Do" (not necessarily "Drink" because of the other elements to the trips). On the other side of the argument, though, I could easily see how a visit to a perfume factory that uses lavender harvested in area farms could be interesting. Are factory visits a "See" or a "Do"? Probably a "Do" because tours are an activity? But it's also similar to museum trips, which are "See"s... Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of vineyards, I don't know if this applies to France, but in Australia, many of the vineyards have restaurants where you can have lunch. And many of them actually serve pretty good food. If there is also such a tradition of having lunch overlooking the vineyard in France, we should certainly mention it. The dog2 (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I changed "Cathedrals" to "Houses of worship" and added the Matisse Chapel in Vence. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I realized I didn't answer the question of how to cover museums other than with a long list. I think the answer is to provide a shorter, varied sort of "tasting" list to just give people a sense of the range of museums around the country, keeping in mind that there are dozens of very interesting museums in Paris alone, if not more.

Question: Should the "Chateaux" section also embrace palaces? After all, the Palace of Versailles was patterned on the Chateau de Vaux-le-Vicomte (which doesn't even seem to have a listing on this site!). Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Since "house of worship" is non-denominational, and the heading is focusing on Christian places of worship, perhaps 'Churches' would be a more appropriate heading. The alternative is to think of non-Christian POWs that are worthy of the country article.

In English, we tend to have quite a narrow idea of what a château is and isn't, whereas in French the concept is very broad indeed. By French standards, Versailles is indeed a château, as are Fontainebleau, Chambord, and other houses we'd call palaces by virtue of having been massive royal or presidential residences. The key difference between châteaux and palais is the latter are always inside a city, whereas the former were in the countryside at least when they were first established, and often still are. So the word "château" can refer to anything from a crumbling ruin of fortifications to a very grand house with palace-like proportions, as long as it is or was considered a country residence. But to answer your question, yes, let the heading embrace châteaux we'd call palaces, and if there are any true palais worth mentioning (maybe the Popes' Palace in Avignon?), then change the heading to 'Châteaux and palais'.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I doubt non-Christian houses of worship are highlights for a visit to France, but I wasn't sure "churches" would embrace self-standing chapels or oratoires. Interesting about the difference between "châteaux" and "palais". I must have known at a certain point that it was the Château de Versailles, but I never knew the difference. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The difference between châteaux and palais is not very logical in that they haven't selected an obvious differentiator like form or function, but rather something completely arbitrary in location. "Château" is a good example of the difference between the English and French languages; English likes to pin down a specific concept with a specific noun, or preferably several nouns of different etymologies with a scintilla of semantic difference between them, whereas French is quite happy to jumble several distinct concepts under one umbrella term. I wonder if that's why most French philosophy I've read seems too airy-fairy by far compared the structured logical arguments of Anglo and German philosophy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it is a problem to put a chapel under Churches, unless somebody is interested just in chapels (or a specific chapel) and skips the section because of the heading. –LPfi (talk) 11:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't the château/palais distinction make sense after all, in them having different functions? Here in (southern) Finland I've understood most aristocracy had a mansion on their grounds in the countryside, where they were able to control the management, and a house in the city, to participate in the social city life in the winter. Was there something similar in France? –LPfi (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sort of, except that before the Renaissance, most châteaux had defensive and strategic purposes and were the base of feudal power in a region, with a garrison, tribunal court etc. Later on, they became luxurious residences; some as rural boltholes, others as places of ostentatious displays of wealth and hedonism. That's at least four functions, all covered by the word château, where English would distinguish between castles, palaces, and country houses (under which stately homes, manors, mansions, halls, villas etc overlap but are not synonyms) And when some châteaux became surrounded by urbanisation, they didn't suddenly lose the name château! Just to complicate matters further, palais were only for royalty; the only palais that's a residence nowadays is the Élysée. Grand townhouses for aristocrats and other wealthy non-nobles were/are called hôtels.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Doesn't the term hôtel have a very broad meaning? I remember that the French equivalent of "city hall" is hôtel de ville, and when I was in Quebec City, the Quebec Parliament House was called Hôtel du Parlement. The dog2 (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yep, it's another one of those words. However, you can specify the type of hôtel that means "posh city residence" with the longer hôtel particulier. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SleepingBeautyCastleParis.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

• • Probably linked via the Disneyland Wikidata entry only, so just copying to Wikivoyage does not help. The nomination is deemed sloppy, but the case for this photo is quite clear: photo of a copyrighted work with no FoP. I think it is of little value to our articles. –LPfi (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

While many other country or continent countries divide the country into cultural regions, this article shows modern administrative regions of France, which correspond to neither ethnolinguistic regions, nor to traditional provinces, nor to broad regions. Those should absolutely be included, like is the case for other countries, since it's mainly for travelers and should be about culture. Specifically, the main very culturally and ethnically distinct regions are Brittany (including Nantes), Corsica and Alsace. Plus to a lesser extent Occitania, in most of Southern France, also called "midi" (not the same as the official region of Occitania), Catalonia and Basque country. Plus all the smaller provinces with still distinctive cultures, like Normandy, Picardy, Gascony, Provence. I think we need to massively improve the pages about France overall, since it really lacks what other pages have, where all pages are about cultural regions. 93.15.241.95 22:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is Wikivoyage, not Wikiethnolinguistics. The traveller comes first. How does your suggestion of overhauling the regional structure of France on this site help travellers so much that it's worth all the person-hours it would necessitate? I think you're creating a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist, but make an argument to try to get a consensus behind you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts are the same as Ikans. In this case, a political boundary works just fine. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

If the cultural regions work well also for transport etc. I think they might well make sense. My main fears are that after having separated the well-known important cultural region, what is left would not be not a couple of nice regions, and that tourist information on the regions would be hard to get, as official bureaux may follow the administrative divisions. Before accepting a change in regions we would need a well-thought-out proposal, where borders are well defined and all regions are sensible. –LPfi (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The page about Bosnia and Herzegovina and Luxembourg shows unofficial regions which aren't political boundaries at all. The pages of Russia and the USA show bigger regions than the administrative divisions. If in this case, it's better for travellers, why not in the case of France? What's beneficial in showing travellers the administrative divisions here? Because not having even a page on Alsace but having one on "Grand Est" doesn't make sense, as this region only existed for like 7 years, and woudn't it benefit travellers to know about cultural regions so that they could travel to a specific cultural area and learn about the culture there? Administrative divisions might help in some cases, but in the cases of history, culture and old traveling guides (There's very old guides on Alsace, and not Grand Est), having traditional regions might help. For example Polynesia and Kurdistan have pages too, and they're not official administrative divisions at all. And you say that it would take too much time to change and would be worthless, but you've already changed it in 2015, prior to 2015 there were pages on Alsace but you decided to change only based on administrative divisions, even tho you still stayed with the very old regions for Bosnia or Luxembourg, so if you've already changed it once why not change it another time? 2001:660:4701:6001:8845:7B5C:9429:61FA 09:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Speaking about the traveller comes first argument: many travellers still view Alsace, Lorraine and Champagne as separate travel regions, for traditional and cultural reasons and indeed there are still three separate regional tourism association: [2], [3], [4]. 2001:660:4701:6001:8845:7B5C:9429:61FA 10:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The "traveller comes first" argument is usually used against using administrative regions, rather than in favour. Do travellers interactivity the regional governments in any way? I don't think so.

I also want to point out that we try to keep the number of regions to 7±2 yet here we have 13. We should be looking at combining regions in this article, not splitting them up. If it makes sense to group Alsace destinations into an article that addresses Alsace's culture and cuisine, we can create a subregion to do that. Alsace is too small to be a region at the national level.

The French Wikivoyage article groups the 13 administrative regions into 6 major “cultural regions”:

• Ile-de-France
• Hauts-de-France
• North-East of France (Burgundy-Franche-Comté , Grand Est)
• North-West of France (Brittany, Pays de la Loire, Centre-Val de Loire , Normandy )
• South-West France (New Aquitaine, Occitanie)
• South-eastern France (Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur, Corsica)

However, reorganizing the regions of France would ge a very big job. I don't have time to work on this. Unless eone volunteers to undertake the project, there's not much point discussing it. Ground Zero (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@ThunderingTyphoons!: As our resident Francophile, do you know if there is anything we should take note off when talking about the French colonial empire? I know many Brits are proud of the British Empire (and I've even met one who supported Brexit out of nostalgia for the British Empire), Spaniards of the Spanish Empire, and Russians of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union, so I was wondering if many French people have that similar sense of pride in having had such a large colonial empire. If so, me might need to warn people from say, Vietnam or West Africa to avoid the topic when visiting France. As analogy would be an Indian discussing Winston Churchill when visiting the UK, because Brits consider Winston Churchill to be a national hero, while Indians blame him for causing the Bengal Famine, so things like that could potentially lead to a confrontation. The dog2 (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi The dog2! Sorry for the slow reply. I hope you had a nice Christmas.

Speaking very generally, French people don't have a sense of pride in reference to their old colonial empire. In many ways, white French people suffered more trauma during their empire's decline and collapse than white British people, so they don't have the same rosy-eyed view that some in the UK have. First, they were occupied by Nazi Germany, so they got to see empire from the other end. Second, France was effectively kicked out of Indochina by order of the UN after military defeat at the hands of the Viet-Minh and unilateral independence declarations by Cambodia and Laos. Third and most acutely, the brutal Algerian war took place on a territory was legally an integral part of France and resulted in the downfall of de Gaulle's Fourth Republic. The war displaced at least a million white Africans (pieds-noirs) who fled their homes and caused a refugee crisis in mainland France; their (re)integration into French society was difficult to say the least. By comparison, the British Empire collapsed much more gently (for the British) and there were even some military victories (e.g. the Falklands) to sweeten the pill still further.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see. Thanks for the explanation, and I hope you had a good Christmas too. The dog2 (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I removed a lame list from Do, mostly doubling things mentioned in See. However, I notice that the current Do consists of just Classical music and dance and Spectator sports. Parks and natural attractions should probably be moved to Do (and better developed; most parks mentioned are outlines) and ski resorts added. Wine tasting should probably be added to Drink. What else should we have here? –LPfi (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good catch. Also: Food tours (e.g., Lyon), beaches, Grande Randonnée. Ground Zero (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gambling, too. Water sports are popular in places like Nice, where you can see people doing parasailing (parachute ascensionnel). I'd definitely mention mountain climbing in addition to regular hiking and skiing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noted that in France#Camping we mention a couple of web sites that look like aggregators mostly based in the UK. Is there some official site we could use? Some French campsite organisation? Is there some reason for us to link these sites, and exactly these sites?

Here's the current paragraph (there is general text before it):

Camping is a great way to explore the local area as it offers you the freedom of being able to travel around at short notice. Small campsites can be discovered on Rural Camping France, while larger campsites can be booked through websites such as Eurocamp, Canvas Holidays & Go Camp France.

An IP substituted Holiday Parks Europe for Go Camp France, I reverted, but don't know whether either is better. –LPfi (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

• looks clearly to me as violation of WV:External links#What not to link to, and WV:Goals and non-goals, too. Nuke'em all, IMHO. Ibaman (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Agreed. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 13:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply