Talk:Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur

This is getting weird. What's the difference between the Regions and the Departments? Why do we need both? --(WT-en) Evan 11:05, 19 Jan 2004 (EST)


 * Nothing in France is simple! Regions don't break down neatly into departments. With Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur, we can either break the region into its constituent departments: Drome Provencale, Hautes Alpes, Alpes Maritimes, Alpes de Haute Provence, Vaucluse, Bouches du Rhone, and Var or into its constituent regions: Provence (parts of Var, parts of Alpes de Haute Provence, all of Vaucluse, and all of Bouches du Rhone); Cote d'Azur (Alps Maritime - the Riviera and Nice); and Alpes (parts of Alpes de Haute Provence, all of Hautes Alpes). The latter makes more sense (to me) because it has the recognizable names of Provence and Cote d'Azur. We can always do a lateral subdivision (into Marseille, Luberon, etc.) as well. I'll plunge forward with this unless I hear an objection.--(WT-en) Wandering 16:54, 21 July 2007 (EDT)


 * This really does need sorted out. The current hierarchy in this area is fuzzy and unclear. As people are trying to update all of the "IsPartOf", there does not seem to be a logical way to do that with this region as it is now organized. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:12, 12 December 2009 (EST)


 * Yes, we need a completely different setup. I suggest we call this whole article Provence and use the following subregions:


 * Avignon Region (part of Vaucluse)
 * Camargue (part of Bouches-du-Rhône)
 * Provence Alps (part of Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, all of Hautes-Alpes)
 * French Riviera (Alpes-Maritimes and Var) — can be further divided into Southeast Coast, Central Coast and Northeast Coast
 * Luberon (part of Vaucluse, part of Alpes-de-Haute-Provence)
 * Marseille-Pays d'Aix (part of Bouches-du-Rhône, includes Aix-en-Provence)

--(WT-en) globe-trotter 15:07, 23 July 2010 (EDT)


 * I have changed my opinion and made the map using the Departments. Later these departments could have the subdivisions Camargue, Luberon, etc, but they are not necessary yet. The only problem now is Alpes-Maritimes, which should have subregions. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 20:47, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

French Riviera instead of departments?
It seems that the experiment of following the official regional division of France did not quite work out, as we ended up with a number of near-empty articles with laundry lists of variously blue or red links. Doesn't seem very helpful to the travellers.

On the other hand, French Riviera, for all its shortcomings, appears to at least contain SOME content. Why don't we replace Bouches-du-Rhone, Var and Alpes-Maritimes with French Riviera then? PrinceGloria (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you have a good point, but should we broaden this discussion to Talk:France? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason I ask is that the issues you bring up in regard to articles about departments are not restricted to the south of France. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There are 80-something departments in France, I don't think a blanket solution is possible or recommendable. Let us replace those here if we agree to do so, and any other where the situation is similar. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It could be disorderly to divide parts of France by department and other parts by region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We did that in many different countries. We're talking of last-level regions here, I see no problem. It's about providing travellers with the best information, not having a neato division of nothing. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * We definitely agree in principle; I'd just like to see how this would work in practice, beyond this region alone. Perhaps other people will have ideas, but it certainly is reasonable on the face of it to consider the French Riviera as a region. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The French version is also broken down into departments and I think we might want to confer with them on their opinion/experience with doing it this way. Also consider that we have 41 articles spread across the three departments proposed for merging. Putting all those under one parent region would make this literally our number one most populous bottom-level region by a long shot. Texugo (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the French obviously have more content in each department because they are French, known their thing and care about France, so they edit their articles. If you speak French and care, you can perhaps port content. I am trying to remedy the situation for now - this is an important region touristically and we're providing very little coverage above the destination level.
 * If you are concerned with 41 articles linked from one (are you sure those are blue links and the articles actually have any content?), then the easisest thing to do would be to distribute the content from French Riviera across the departments. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't go trying to deprecate extraregions against consensus again. Yes, it has 41, which is clear from the category pages, and I don't need to check whether they have content because policy is to always link all destinations if it becomes a bottom level region. Texugo (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe we need to make sure they have some content though, this is an important region touristically. Either we go with French Riviera only, or we make those regions reasonable. PrinceGloria (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I would oppose putting 41 destinations under one umbrella no matter what. We have to draw a line somewhere. Otherwise if we go around combining regions using your logic we'll end up with lots and lots of regions with very very long lists. I suggest that most of the ones with over 25 are already getting excessively long, and there are current only 33 regions even that long. Your logic would lead to dozens of regions over 40, I'm afraid. If we're going to head that direction, I think we need a community decision on it, because we've always tried to avoid it before... Texugo (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My logic is to split the content between the three regions now knowing we have to cover 41 destinations. PrinceGloria (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * But you have a conflict of interest at hand, in which you have put out a simultaneous proposal elsewhere to similarly remove and redistribute such content from all extraregions, and many have opposed that proposal. As with your nomination to delete Korea, it gives the distinct impression that you're losing the fight to eradicate extraregions as a class so you're taking the fight to the individual articles themselves. Texugo (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are taking Wikivoyage overly personal. If you believe it is a place where we fight for stuff, I have a starkly different vision. I have a certain understanding of Wikivoyage principles that may be different from the others', this is why we discuss. Since we seem not to have reached any reasonable consensus on the extraregions, I decided to step back and give myself some time to ponder, while also trying to understand your point of view. That said, I have had issues with some extraregions not because they are extraregions, but because I believe they are simply inappropriate articles for Wikivoyage for various reasons. I always put up matters I find contentious and not fitting Wikivoyage up for discussion on sight. Recently, I've been going through extraregions to see what the deal is all about, so that's what I read and found needing correction, hence the discussion on Korea and here on French Riviera. Let us be less personal and focus on the matter at hand, not ideology. PrinceGloria (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * PS. Just to make sure, I have found many extraregions OK and not needing any discussion. Need I even say that? Why am I excuses. This is silly.

Photos
I added a few. Please add more. I think that what I'd like to do is, if possible, represent every departement, but also a range of rural areas, big cities, smaller cities and small towns, space allowing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Really nice images, Ikan, with a good variety. There isn't room for many more, perhaps one of the harbours that are so enigmatic of the region (Saint-Tropez, Menton, Marseille?) and a market scene and / or people playing pétanque would be enough? One thing I would say is the current rail map is pretty useless. Even in its much larger form, it is too small to read. I would recommend it be replaced by something better (if we've got it), but for now I've removed it and added a link to the official map) published by the SNCF. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll see whether there are some Featured or Quality images of the Port of Marseille. I did see a really nice picture of Menton. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I take it you didn't like the photos I suggested? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Though your ones are actually better anyway :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I managed to unintentionally ignore your links! The St. Tropez and Menton photos are very good (the one of Marseille is a bit hazy). I think there's room for one more photo, so I'll insert the St. Tropez one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you like the photo of Menton you linked better than the one I posted, by all means switch them. They're both beautiful photos. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I prefer the one you found actually. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I always look for Featured, Quality and Valued images first, but there are sometimes great photos which have none of those ratings, and occasionally, I don't like a Valued image. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A search of Commons Category:Pétanque produced no photos I considered good. Perhaps someone would like to take a good photo? Another possibility is a field of lavender. I associate the two in my mind because I walked through a field of lavender past the boule club in Nice every day for 4 weeks of a stage in flute in the summer of 1992. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By posting a photo of a lavender field with one already being the pagebanner, I'm doubling down, but the photo I posted is also of an abbey in Vaucluse, which wasn't yet represented by a photo, so this way, I cover 3 bases (or hit 3 boules?). Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The two lavender pics are sufficiently different from one another. I couldn't find any decent market pictures either, which is a shame. We can do without any more images on this article though. Too many and it risks being annoying to print out. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a shame about market pictures. True about printing. We have more or less one picture per section now. Another one could be shoehorned in somewhere, but it isn't necessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Status of Occitan
I have a friend who lived in a rural area recently and said that Occitan is very much alive and well today. I also remember that in the 90s, Nissart was spoken quite a bit in Nice, though perhaps mostly by people who were middle aged and up. Is the article's claim that Occitan is nearly dead really accurate? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If only older people speak the language, then I would say that qualifies as 'nearly dead' in the region. It is my understanding that Occitan is more widely-spoken by different generations in the south west, where in the extreme south it tapers into Catalan and Aragonese. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)