Talk:Q142

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Autodescription — France (Q142)

description: country in Western Europe
Useful links:
Generic queries for administrative territorial entities

This list of queries is designed for all instances of administrative territorial entity (Q56061). It is generated using {{TP administrative area}}.

🌎 Geography 🌎

👥 People 👥

🎭 Arts and fictions 🎭

See also

WikiProject France

A note on borders[edit]

It's my understanding that France is not properly considered to border the Netherlands, as, while Sint Maarten is a constituent country of the Netherlands, Saint-Martin is a French collectivity (similar to a territory). This would be akin to if American Samoa shared an island with the Independent State of Samoa - you wouldn't say that the U.S. thereby bordered Samoa. Of course, I forgot all this when I added Sint Maarten as a bordering entity, but I'm just noting this here to explain why I've removed Sint Maarten and the Netherlands under "shares border with", and as a reminder for anyone else who forgets, like I did. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 16:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not very clear, since what is important is not what is "true" but what is in sources. French collectivities are by some features similar to US unincorporated territories but are not by other features. French legislative talk uses the expression "territoire de la République" as meaning the greater extent of France, including all the overseas collectivities as well as New-Caledonia and the other oddities (TAAF,Clipperton). In this meaning of the word "France", there is obviously a border between France and Sint Maarten. Touriste (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As this discussion seems over, I have reinstated the Kingdom of the Netherlands as an entity bordering France. Touriste (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Touriste and PinkAmpersand,
Right now there is some redundancy France (Q142)shares border with (P47)Kingdom of the Netherlands (Q29999) and France (Q142)shares border with (P47)Sint Maarten (Q26273) (it's redundant because we already have Sint Maarten (Q26273)located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)Kingdom of the Netherlands (Q29999)). There is already enough question/problem with shares border with (P47), we shouldn't add one more.
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relation with French Fifth Republic (Q200686)[edit]

A number of the statements in France (Q142) seem like they might fit better in French Fifth Republic (Q200686). Thoughts? --Yair rand (talk) 05:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to statements like anthem ? I do not think so. The Fifth Republic is not a country, it is just the name given to the current political regime. Switching from the Fourth to the Fifth Republic did not affect in any way the international status, or even the name of France. I would say the question is more about France vs. French Republic, but it seems that the latter does not have any article. --Zolo (talk) 06:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The anthem and official language statements of this item are both sourced to articles in the Constitution of the Fifth Republic. These aren't exactly valid establishment sources for France before the Fifth Republic, though I suppose they could be used alongside additional statements for the preceding legal bases.
The entities of these items are not really very clear. On a number of major Wikipedias, the French Republics' articles, particularly on the earlier republics, are treated much more as countries than as governments (for example, using the "former country" infobox and categories for countries). Additionally, there are typically also articles on the government of France, the constitution of France, and points in the history of France. If the Fifth Republic articles are redundant to one of these, it's going to make it a bit difficult to work with. --Yair rand (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The anthem of France is actually the same as during the Fourth Republic, and we have the exact same sentence in both constitutions. Now that we have date qualifiers, we should probably improve things, but the constitution of the Fifth Republic is the most authoritative source for the current official language of France, so I am not sure what to do.
Many Wikipedia articles are a bit difficult to use in Wikidata. I would think that French Fifth Republic (Q200686), just like politics of France (Q1121558), belongs to the vast class of topics that make sense in Wikipedia but can be left essentially empty in Wikidata.
Another point that should be taken into account is that "Fifth Republic" and "First Republic" are rather different concepts: "Fifth Republic" refers to the political regime created by a new constitution, while the country itself remained the same. "First Republic" refers to a bunch of several short-lived regimes that succeeded one another between 1792 and 1804. I guess it is bundled with a change in the official name of the country (Royaume de France -> République française -> Empire Français). Conceptually, it would be more similar to 4th Republic + 5th Republic. --Zolo (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it is the same concept. What are numbered are not the constitutions but the span of uninterrupted republican rule. The First Republic saw three following republican constitutions without any interruption. The Fourth and the Fifth Republic have a quasi-military coup in-between which sort of interrupt the republican continuity and lead to have them having different numbers. Captain frakas (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yair rand, Zolo and Captain frakas,
There a question behind this : what is « France » ? Is it the compilation of all the successive governments ? If so for 1940 – 1944, is motto (P1546) = Travail, famille, patrie (Q3489443) ? (sorry if it hurts some people but I find this exemple enlightening for this discussion)
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is fairly clear that it is. "travail famille patrie". Unpleasant as it may ne, this seems fairly clear that this is the same country (eg some laws passed during the Vichy era are still in force today). Making things differently would make the structure needelessly complicated, like all French people who lived through the period should should have multiplle country (P17). Of course, it means many statements require date qualifications - like the long-form names "République française" and "Etat français". --Zolo (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Country in Europe"[edit]

When adding the countries to the Wikidata entry on the Guyana Shield, when I entered France (as French Guyana is part of France), it said "Country in Europe". Can we not find a better description? --Ysangkok (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok, Hsarrazin, Thierry Caro: the description in french has benn changed again. I think that « pays principalement en Europe » was both simple and precise enough. Can we stop changing the description, agreeing on one description and unifying this description in the different languages ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
whatever you choose, France is a European country : saying that it is principalement en Europe is maybe correct geographically speaking, but it seems absolutely ridiculous, especially in the description - it gives the impression that France is not a part of Europe ; saying that France is a pays d'Europe or pays européen is also correct politically.
I think that country in Europe is wrong, but European country should be allright. If you really want to precise in the definition that it has parts in other continents, then why not pays d'Europe de l'Ouest, ayant des territoires outre-mer or something like that... ? --Hsarrazin (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS : if France (Q142) must have such a long and preposterous definition, then it should be the same for Spain (Q29) that have territories in Africa (Ceuta & Mellila) and all other countries that have islands situated in other zones — note that all countries that have territory in Antarctica (Q51) are also concerned… and USA (because of Hawaï), etc. :/ — do you really think it worth it ?
description is just made to identify that you got the right item ; the precisions should be claims and in wp. in fact, I changed the description because, when adding "France" to a claim on another item, I thought it was the wrong item, because of that description.……--Hsarrazin (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notified participants of WikiProject France Bonjour, je relance cette discussion. Ayant constaté l'autre jour que la description de l'élément était devenue ridiculement longue (« pays transcontinental dont le territoire métropolitain est situé en Europe occidental »... Ce qui différencie de... quoi au juste ? Il y a un autre pays transcontinental appelé France, dont le territoire métropolitain serait situé en Europe orientale, et dont je n'aurais pas entendu parler ?), j'ai raccourci à simplement « pays ». Il me semble que celan ne pose pas de problème d'ambiguité, mais manifestement @Jozamba: et @EL3504: en voient puisqu'ils ont remis des précisions. Pouvez-vous s'il vous plaît indiquer avec l'élément de quel(s) autre(s) pays cela pourrait porter confusion ? -Ash Crow (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Du prénom ? :-| La pomme est un fruit, mais là on confine à la surdocumentation ; la description n'a pas vocation à être un article encyclopédique, mais au contraire plutôt concise… Je rejoins l'argument précédent sur les États-Unis et Hawaï, puisque le statut de Hawaï n'est même pas particulier (mais on pourrait considérer Porto Rico et les Mariannes, Guam et les îles Vierges, les Samoa américaines, …). La simplification en "pays" est encore la plus concise, et ne fait rien perdre en spécificité, autant la garder, en effet. Alphos (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
J'ai mis "pays européen" (car Help:Description préconise entre "2 et 12 mots", donc un c'est trop peu ; et par harmonisation avec les descriptions dans les autres langues), d'autres formulations peuvent convenir sans tomber dans le ridicule (voir même légèrement fausse, formulation que l'on retrouve aussi sur fr:France d'ailleurs). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Pays européen" ne me choque pas, mais s'il y a des gens à qui ça pose problème et qu'il faut absolument deux mots minimum, je propose « État souverain » -Ash Crow (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Head of State end date[edit]

Shouldn't Emmanuel Macron's mandate as President have no "End date" qualifier at all, instead of one with "unknown value"? This seems to be the policy for all the other heads of state and I've been having trouble handling this one outlier when querying WD. I made the edit but it was reverted. Manutaust (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as he is still in office (his mandate didn't end at an "unknown" date).
--- Jura 04:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Membre fondateur de l'Union Européenne[edit]

J'ai voulu mettre le même genre de citation pour le traité de Maastricht que pour le traité de Paris et celui de Rome mais je dépasse allègrement la limite de caractères. D=

Sa Majesté le Roi des Belges, sa Majesté la Reine de Danemark, le Président de la République Fédérale d'Allemagne, le Président de la République Hellénique, sa Majesté le Roi d'Espagne, le Président de la République Française, le Président d'Irlande, le Président de la République Italienne, son Altesse Royale le Grand-Duc de Luxembourg, sa Majesté la Reine des Pays-Bas, le Président de la République Portugaise, sa Majesté la Reine du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord [...] ont décidé d'instituer une Union Européenne

Ju gatsu mikka (talk) 08:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bon, j'ai résolu en utilisant deux fois "citation" dans une même référence. Ju gatsu mikka (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ju gatsu mikka: On en avait brièvement discuté fin 2016 sur le bistro, et il y avait eu des discussions auparavant sur la liste de discussion Wikidata. Je ne sais pas s'il y a toujours des discussions sur le sujet. Si ce n'est pas le cas, il serait peut-être bon de laisser un message sur le bistro anglophone (pourquoi pas avec {{Ping devteam}}) parce qu'apparemment ça ne pose pas de problème technique et tout le monde semble d'accord pour augmenter la valeur limite. Tubezlob (🙋) 21:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong date qualifiers[edit]

@Ju gatsu mikka: please change back inception (P571) to start time (P580), and end date accordingly. inception (P571) is not used as qualifiers in such situations, it is used on divisions themselves as property. --Infovarius (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: inception (P571) and dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) seem pretty accurate for me, those properties are used for date of fondation and dissolution of an organisation, which is precisely what we are talking about here. Ju gatsu mikka (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ju gatsu mikka: again, they are not used as qualifiers! --Infovarius (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ju gatsu mikka: Statements regarding when the organisation was founded belong on the item for the entity that was founded itself. Qualifiers here deal with the duration of the statement's accuracy, for which start time (P580) is correct. --Yair rand (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, User:Ju gatsu mikka, it seems that User:Swpb has made these edits. So, Swpb, would you revert your changes of qualifiers? --Infovarius (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. The only quals I have changed are the deprecated P794 (P794). I left all time-related qualifiers as they were, and I have no opinion on them. Swpb (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
start time (P580) and end time (P582) are generic properties to indicate when a statement start and stop to be true, but here we are talking about the existence of an organisation, to which inception (P571) and dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) are more specific. Ju gatsu mikka (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ju gatsu mikka: This item isn't about Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur (Q15104) or other subdivisions, and data on that is irrelevant here except insofar as it relates to the topic of France (Q142). The relevant data here is when the statement began to be true, and not anything about the subdivisions themselves. In addition, P571 and P576 are exclusively to be used for direct values, and not for qualifiers. These properties are only more specific versions of P580/P582 when used as direct value statements. --Yair rand (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date de fondation (P571)[edit]

@Sinequonen : quelle est la justification du changement de la date de fondation (P571), passée directement de 463 à 1792 ? À mon humble avis, le changement de régime en 1792 n'a rien changé au pays de nationalité des Français. Par ailleurs, que fait-on de la nationalité des 13 451 Français (P571=Q142) morts avant 1792 ? Ce n'est pas raisonnable. Il y a confusion : le pays n'est pas apparu avec l'abandon de la monarchie (d'ailleurs rétablie).

Cette modification est une fausse bonne idée, pouvez-vous faire marche arrière ?

Bob08 (talk) 10:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Le problème c'est que la France - au sens moderne du terme - n'est pas apparue en 463. C'était le royaume des Francs, suivi du royaume de France. C'est en 1792 que la 1re république est née, et on peut considérer que la France au sens actuel commence à ce moment là. Cette vision existe pour la GB (qui ne commence qu'en 1801), l'Italie (1946, précédé du royaume d'Italie...), etc. Cela impacte la citoyenneté : le pays de citoyenneté de Louis XIV n'est pas la France, mais le royaume de France. Sinequonen (talk) 13:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Il me semble y avoir confusion entre pays et régime politique. Que ce soit un royaume ou une république, c'est toujours de la France qu'il s'agit et les sujets de Louis XIV, par exemple, étaient bel et bien de nationalité française.
Certes, les frontières ont largement évolué au cours de l'histoire et il faut en tenir compte dans la nationalité de personnages historiques, mais, en cohérence avec l'article Wikipédia, je ferais volontiers remonter la naissance de la France au moins à Clovis.
Qu'en pensez-vous ? Bob08 (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour,
Clovis ne marque pas de fondation particulière vis-à-vis de l'existence de la France : c'est « simplement » le premier roi franc à se convertir au christianisme. Autrement, le royaume des francs existe avant et après lui. Août 843, date du traité de Verdun, marque la fondation du royaume de Francie Occidentale, qui est devenu la France d'aujourd'hui, sans interruption ni abolition de souveraineté. Si je devais choisir une date, ça serait celle-là.
@Sinequonen la comparaison avec la « GB » n'est pas pertinente : le pays que nous connaissons aujourd'hui s'appelle « Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord », et effectivement, l'union officielle avec l'Irelande date de 1801. Avant cela, et depuis 1707, c'est simplement le « Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne ». La France, elle, reste la France, qu'elle soit royaume ou république. Par contre, faire commencer l'Italie en 1946 me semble tout aussi erronné que pour la France, mais je pense que c'est aux italiens de trancher.
En tout cas 1792 ne me semble pas une date acceptable non plus. La plus vieille institution étatique française encore existante, la Monnaie de Paris, date de 864. La plus ancienne loi française encore en vigueur, l'Ordonnance de Villers-Côtterets, date de 1539. Ce sont à mon sens les limites hautes pour une date de fondation de la France. Même d'un point de vue du roman national, 1789 est la grande date de fondation de la France moderne, même si bien sûr 1792 est une date extrêmement importante aussi.
Si on s'en tient à une apparition de la République Française, il faudrait alors utiliser la date du 4 septembre 1870, puisque les républiques précédentes ont été abolies, voir celle du 20 août 1944, qui voit la fin du régime de Vichy, et donc le début d'une ère sans aucune interruption dans la nature républicaine du pays.
Sinon, il est toujours délicat de poser une date de fondation à un pays qui, comme la France, a évolué au cours de plus d'un millénaire et ressemble plus à un navire de Thésée version état-nation qu'à un état dont le début et la fin sont clairement identifiables (p.e. la Tchécoslovaquie), et toute date sera toujours source de désaccord et conflit, d'où le fait que Wikipédia en cite plusieurs. MrJojo (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

French description[edit]

Can someone revert this edit ? https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q142&diff=prev&oldid=1668498755 90.105.112.116 13:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Q142&oldid=1948695174"