Wikipedia talk:WikiProject France

Main	Talk	Noticeboard	Article Status	Article Requests	Departments	Members	Paris Task force	Quick Help	Links

---

See also: Discussion du Projet France (Français)

How to write a TOESE

Topic sentence 
One reason
Evidence 
Second reason
Evidence

Versailles in the Paris task force?

Hi there hello, so I just spontaneously joined the Paris task force and got into tagging "Paris-related" articles, but I wonder whether or not articles that are "Versailles-related" should be tagged and improved as well. I'd be happy if anybody'd give me the answer to that. Update: I'll just tag the "Versailles-related" ones, just tell me if I shouldn't :) - CarolingianCitizen (talk) 10:02, 7 August 2022 (CET)

Good article reassessment for Morea expedition

Morea expedition has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk)

Translation help wanted: Graphéine (Paris design studio)

Hi all,

The French Wikipedia has an article on fr:Graphéine, a French design studio.

I tried twice to create an English draft via AfC. Both were declined.

I would rather a neutral editor with a fresh eye look at the French sources and decide what an English page should look like, than continue with self-authored. I should say I work at Graphéine as cofounder. COI declared on user page (Mathias de lyon).

Anyone interested?

Mathias de lyon (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mathias de lyon I am so sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I do believe it is a stub, I haven't included some as it seems a tad promotional.

I have translated it across. Please seeGraphéine.

I have added some citations needed etc. as well as added some.

Feel free to add citations but, it is probally advisable to request a COI edit for bigger changes.

Have a good end of the summer. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Equivalent-Text2598,

Thank you for your reply. I’m not sure I fully understand. You seem to be saying that you recreated the page, but the link points to a blank page.

I look forward to hearing from you. Mathias de lyon (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep, it was created and we then decided it didn't meet WP:NCORP Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Photo request

Is there any Wikipedian in Cherbourg that can get a photograph of the British yacht Bright Future, which is currently moored there. This is the yacht involved in the incident in the Channel, yesterday. Mjroots (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bertrand Pointeau

The article Bertrand Pointeau has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns for 10 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Created by a SPA with 2 edits. Poorly sourced BLP. Lacks significant coverage.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fadil Bellaabouss

The article Fadil Bellaabouss has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for BLP sources and notability concerns for almost 10 years. Poorly sourced BLP. No significant coverage in the article or online.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

L'Estaque

The article on L'Estaque is currently very short, contains no sources, and provides very little information. Could someone please expand and improve it, perhaps using the corresponding French article at fr:L'Estaque as a starting point? ~2026-38797-63 (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

what happened with the joenbenet murder case . did they find more dna evidence and who did it point to ~2026-39159-27 (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Les Mamelles de Tirésias#Requested move 16 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Les Mamelles de Tirésias#Requested move 16 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 03:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

World War I has an RfC

World War I has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Dominican Creole French#Requested move 17 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Dominican Creole French#Requested move 17 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 1isall (talk | contribs) 23:59, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Translation of the French article on Volney

Hello everyone,

I posted a draft at Talk:Constantin François Chassebœuf, comte de Volney.

My draft is a translation of the French Wikipedia article, to which I have been a major contributor. It is based primarily on Jean Gaulmier's 1959 biography and several dozen scholarly publications. I would appreciate any comments or suggestions before replacing the current version. Tornolac (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

There's a mass amount of information not sourced..... This is one of the major concerns people have with translation of articles...is that other Wikipedia's standards for inclusion and including sources for those inclusions is so much lower than here. This reads funny is this an AI translation? Moxy🍁 00:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I have added the references that were missing from the version you removed a few days ago: Draft:Constantin François Chasseboeuf, comte de Volney#Notes and references. Could you give me an example of an unsourced statement?

Given the quality of the current article and the few factual errors it contains (I see it is currently rated Start-class), I would not be quite so confident about the supposedly higher standards of the English Wikipedia. That is precisely why I prepared this translated version.

The translation was carried out using DeepL and then carefully reviewed by me, in accordance with what Wikipedia permits.

I’m not sure what you mean by "This reads funny." Could you point me to the specific wording? French is my first language, but English is my second, and I studied in the United Kingdom.

If you think the article is too long given the subject’s significance to an English-speaking readership, that is entirely possible. Tornolac (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I nevertheless think he is interesting at the time of the 250th anniversary of the independence of the American colonies.

The Alien and Sedition Acts, mentioned by Donald J. Trump during his 2025 inauguration speech, owe their origin in part to this man. Tornolac (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Request for help on article.

Hi all,

I am currently trying to write some of the requested articles which were on the requested article page for this project. I have written Pacifism in France and Pacifism in France during the inter-war period. I am currently writing French general strike of 1936 and I would like to ask for some help in this to try and get it to B class.

Any and all help would be appreciate (even a copyedit etc.)

Thanks so much. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Henri Padou#Requested move 22 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Henri Padou#Requested move 22 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 09:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tulle#Requested move 15 August 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tulle#Requested move 15 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-44665-60 (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Charles de Gaulle Airport#Requested move 31 August 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Charles de Gaulle Airport#Requested move 31 August 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:09, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Education in Paris

Hi guys. Hope you have a nice day. Please may I kindly request your help for the article Education in Paris. I try to talk on the talk page but as you can see as I have a hard time. Thanks in advance for your tips. Parisàvie (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi there an editor has replied on this page and I will look into this as well.

Cheers.
Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

Musée Renoir

An article for the Musée Renoir, the victim of the 2026 Musée Renoir theft, was recently created. An editor added information from the French Wikipedia article which was uncited. Any help finding citations would be appreciated. Best, Thriley (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Serge Hazanavicius

The article Serge Hazanavicius has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

only source is IMDb.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Bearian (talk) 03:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Justin Smith (soccer)

Your feedback at Talk:Justin Smith (soccer)#Requested move 11 September 2026 would be appreciated! Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Cléon derailment

Are there any editors able to expand the Cléon derailment article from French language sources? Mjroots (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2026 (UTC)``

I am very happy to. My only concern is that in the long term, it might not meet WP:lasting. I think it should due to the severity of the incident and the cause of it.

I will try and do this today. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 07:57, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Mjroots I have done some work on this, I will try to do some more a bit later when we have more on the lasting impact.

Cheers. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Equivalent-Text2598: My immediate thought on hearing the suspected cause was that the accident would be notable enough to sustain an article. It helps that there is now an article on fr-Wiki, which should give plenty of sources to use. Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Impasse Florimont

Discussion initiated by editor blocked for LLM misuse — Newslinger talk 13:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi all, I have recently updated the article Impasse Florimont. An AI-warning template is currently placed on the article. I would appreciate it if a neutral editor from the project could review the current state of the article and determine if the AI-warning template can be removed. Thank you. The Regulator 1 (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't understanding how the content of an article has significantly changed since the AI warning. The issue is that there might be Hallucination so please see WP:NOLLM.

The content issue has not been removed so I do not think the warning should be removed - theoretically the article could be deleted for LLM usage. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the response.

I realize I may not have explained the situation clearly at first, so let me clarify:

I strongly object to the assumption that this article involves LLM usage or "hallucinations." It never did. From the very beginning.

The AI-warning template was placed based on generalized, speculative assumptions regarding my language proficiency and editing history, not on any actual textual errors - pls have a look in the talk page for more info.

Repeating claims of "hallucinations" without pointing to a single unverified fact in the text is a violation of WP:AGF.

Every historical detail was verified humanly and manually against the original French sources.

Now that the context is clearer, I kindly ask you to review the current state of the article:

-         if you have a specific factual or translation concern, please point it out directly so it can be addressed.

-         if not, pls consider removing the AI-warning template yourself. If you're not comfortable doing so for any reason, I suggest we leave it to other neutral reviewers - perhaps someone else from the project will evaluate the content and decide.

Generic suspicions should not be used to dismiss legitimate human contributions.

The Regulator 1 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,

I have at no point claimed halluncinations so I'd say it is a bit far to say it is a violation of WP:AGF, I'd say it is perfectly in line with it the main part of the guideline is:

• Y Response that assumes good faith: "That person probably just doesn't understand Wikipedia's sourcing standards yet; I'm reverting this."
• N Response that assumes bad faith: "This person is trying to destroy Wikipedia by adding badly sourced garbage! I'm reverting this."

Do you use a translator for your content? I ask this as your previous response appears to be LLM generated on dashboards such as GPT Zero. This also happens when people use AI checkers or translators. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying.

To answer your question: yes, I use dictionaries and translation tools (like Google Translate). As you correctly noted, this often triggers false positives on automated AI detectors like GPTZero.

This is exactly why extreme caution is needed before assuming LLM usage, as these tools are unreliable when it comes to non-native speakers using translation assistance. A decent editor should rely on straightforward editorial work in good faith, rather than automated checkers.

To be frank, I'm exhausted by generalized, automated suspicions targeting non-native editors like me. I'm happy that you and I can now agree on the spirit of good faith and look past automated detector results. I hope we can now focus strictly on the actual quality of the article.

I invite you to review Impasse Florimont and let me know if you have any specific factual/citation/other concern:

If you find something that needs to be addressed, feel free to correct it, or let me know and I will do my best to fix it.

However, If you don't find any issues, I encourage you to remove the AI-warning template as requested. If you prefer not to do so, that is also OK; I will then leave this thread open for other neutral reviewers from the project to evaluate the content.

The Regulator 1 (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi there,

Thanks for your issue. I would encourage you to ask someone to review the translation if it was Machine Assisted. This is due to the likelihood that this can misunderstand the context and use the wrong word. I would recommend looking at WP:MACHINE as well as the general policy of WP:TRANSLATE.

Could you clarify if this translation has been reviewed.

Cheers. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I can absolutely clarify: this translation has been fully and thoroughly reviewed manually.

I am completely aligned with the principles of WP:MACHINE.

I conduct sentence-by-sentence manual review to ensure the English text accurately reflects the meaning of the original French historical and biographical sources.

The text has been verified by me personally and it aligns with WP:TRANSLATE. Still, I welcome any constructive feedback if any phrasing can be made even smoother.

I encourage you to remove the AI-warning template.

The Regulator 1 (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but, I really can't in good-faith remove that template. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Given that you have explicitly stated you have no intention or ability to remove the template, what is the purpose of your continued participation in this discussion / thread?

The sole objective of this thread at WikiProject France is to find neutral reviewers who can evaluate the article's substantial cleanup, verified citations, and accurate French-to-English terminology in order to determine if the template should be removed.

If you are admittedly unable or unwilling to participate in resolving this request, further commentary from you is unhelpful and only serves to obstruct the process. You are simply wasting my valuable time, time that I could have spent on translating articles such as fr:Non ædificandi, which no doubt you will find educational.

Please step aside and allow neutral editors from the project, who are willing to actually evaluate the content and source quality, to review the case.

The Regulator 1 (talk) 10:38, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi there could you bring down the tone there. When I say I am unable, it is a polite way of saying I will not and encouraging other users not to either. I would refer you to WP:BATTLE I am keeping very civil but you, I am sorry to say are not, you are trying to have an argument throughout here from the very start of the thread. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

See my response below that starts with "I would have preferred to maintain the same polite and calm tone I used in the beginning..." - it addresses the above.

The Regulator 1 (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Or, the People who need LLMs to contribute to English wikipedia could contribute to the wikipedia in a language where they don't need LLMs. Newystats (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I would agree with you. As well, if they need a translator to write it, I am not sure how they can verify the translation. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

It is disappointing to see you completely reverse your stance and jump on a dismissive thread.

My ability to verify the translation is already proven by the text itself.

In the very example you chose to jump onto, you displayed poor judgment: I successfully integrated highly precise, official municipal terms like 'non ædificandi restriction' from Paris's urban planning records, which you and Newystats both failed to recognize and incorrectly dismissed as a machine error.

If you are genuinely acting in good faith, as you claimed earlier, you should judge the article by the accuracy of its verifiable citations, rather than making patronizing assumptions about a non-native editor's ability to cross-check their own work.

If you cannot find a single factual error or mistranslation in the current content, please step aside and let neutral reviewers from the project evaluate the removal of this template.

Please do not be confused by my politeness: I ask you again to choose to act in good faith. The next time I am accused of LLM usage, I will not hesitate to file a formal complaint at WP:ANI.

The Regulator 1 (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Your comment—'the People who need LLMs to contribute to English wikipedia could contribute to the wikipedia in a language where they don't need LLMs' is a textbook example of hostile gatekeeping and xenophobic exclusion targeting non-native English editors.

English Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia built by international contributors, not an exclusive club for native speakers.

Non-native speakers like me, who manually research and translate foreign cultural topics, bring vital and specialized knowledge that native speakers often lack.

Usage of digital dictionaries and Google Translate does not invalidate my legitimate and human contributions.

Furthermore, your previous arrogant statement—'I don't think "non aedificandi restriction" in 'Location and Access' has been reviewed by a competent human French-English translator'— backfired completely and only highlights your own severe unfamiliarity with French urban planning.

Please do not be confused by my politeness: The next time that I am accused of LLM usage, I am going to file a complaint at WP:ANI. I don’t want to do that. All I want is to remove the AI-warning template from [[Impasse Florimont]] that was originally put there based on false generalized, speculative assumptions regarding my language proficiency and false claims on LLM usage. If you are here to aid in doing that, please go ahead and help. If not, please stop questioning if I'm human, and stop the prejudice against non-native English speakers—that may force involving steps I REALLY don't want to take.

The Regulator 1 (talk) 10:07, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi there could you bring down the tone there. When I say I am unable, it is a polite way of saying I will not and encouraging other users not to either. I would refer you to WP:BATTLE I am keeping very civil but you, I am sorry to say are not, you are trying to have an argument throughout here from the very start of the thread.

Please chill out and read our reasoning for saying that we are worried that this cannot be removed, I have added that it needs translation review but other than that we cannnot remove a warning considering that you have told us (link for if this gets into a bigger disagreement:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_France&diff=prev&oldid=1375688416) that you use a translator in this thread. My issue as stated before is that if you are using a translator for content, it increases the risk of error and the policies on machine translation such as WP:MACHINE state that consensus is:

"Wikipedia consensus is that an unedited machine translation, left as a Wikipedia article, is worse than nothing."

We are not zenophobic, it is the issue that dictionaries get stuff wrong, synonyms with different conotations can be very mistranslated in Machine translation which is why we don't think it is correct. I am a native English and French speaker, so my language ability isn't the major issue but, I would for example, never translate English to French as I know that the issue could be there and I don't use Machine Translation.

I would ask you to refrain from threatening other users and intimidating them as this is in direct violation of WP:battle. For everyone in this discusion please see: WP:AVOIDUNCIVIL.

My last issue is that currently I cannot confirm you meet WP:LLMTRANSLATE. This is not casting an aspersion as you have used a translator in this talk page and I am worried that the review might not be enough to go pass this guideline.

Kind regards. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I would have preferred to maintain the same polite and calm tone I used in the beginning of this thread, and then again after I thought—apparently mistakenly—that you were acting in good faith.

However, that became impossible after you joined dismissive threads against me, casting unsupported assumptions of LLM usage despite our previous agreement that tools like GPTZero are unreliable. Embracing a patronizing stance against non-native English speakers does not align with community standards.

Furthermore, your admission that you are actively encouraging other users to avoid reviewing or removing the template directly obstructs the consensus-building process.

I urge you to refer to WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DISRUPTIVE to be reminded of how proper consensus building should operate, and more importantly: how it should not.

To make my position entirely clear:

1. Declaring an intent to file a formal report at WP:ANI if unsubstantiated accusations of LLM usage continue is not a threat or a violation of WP:BATTLE; it is a standard tool for dispute resolution when WP:AGF is repeatedly ignored, which it did.
2. There is no violation of WP:MACHINE here. The text is not an 'unedited machine translation.' It has been fully and manually cross-checked sentence-by-sentence against reliable French biographical and municipal records. The inclusion of precise local technical terms ( fr:Non ædificandi ), which you initially dismissed, demonstrates that thorough human editorial oversight was applied.

I am not interested in having an argument. As I said multiple times in this thread, I am interested in an objective evaluation of the article's current encyclopedic quality.

As you have confirmed you will not evaluate the content yourself, I ask you once again to step aside and allow other neutral project members to review the actual sources and text without interference.

I encourage you to take this opportunity to step back from this dispute so we can conclude this discussion constructively, in alignment with Wikipedia's core values and goals. The tone has been brought down per your request; my requests remain firm.

Thank you.

The Regulator 1 (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Are you implying I am acting disruptively?

To be honest the tone has been made more aggresive.

I can see you are really not interested in listening to what others are saying from the start of this conversation.

WP:AGF has not been ignored. To be honest you are way more agressive in your assumption here. Everytime I have assumed that you are here for the right reasons. I have had reasoning following every guideline. Everything here is a reflection of guidelines on consensus. Two editors have evaluated it and agreed with the previous judgement.

I have not had a "patronizing" stance I have explained the issues of using a translator. I would not for example write in Spanish if I had to use a translator or a dictionary for content.

I really do resent this assumption that I am a bad faith editor. I have evualated the content and I have only replied to messages concerning a thread of replies related to my review. As you can see I have taken action and I have at no point said you use an LLM, I believe based on the evidence of what you said that you have used machine translation.

I have evaluated the rest of the article and tagged it for citations. I do not appreciate this label as disruptive.

At every point here I have looked at your point of view. Could you consider thinking about what I have said rather than try and create argument or division when everyone here is working towards one common aim-a better encylopedia.

I have taken a course of action to change the warning on the article as you requested. I have asked for a review of the content on a translation page. I did this before your last comment.

Can we agree that this is now solved and that the article needs to be checked by a translator

I would also like to point out that your original request was a review.

These are the core values:

"Policies and guidelines

Check what is acceptable and expected on Wikipedia.

Neutral point of view

Content must represent significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

No original research

Articles should summarise published sources, and not contain users’ own interpretation or knowledge.

Verifiability

New additions should include a citation, providing the source of the information.

Assume good faith

Remember that most users are trying to improve Wikipedia and not deliberately reduce its quality."

I have followed these throughout this thread. Could you for a moment assume that I am acting in Good faith.

Based on the information in my message before and this one, I hope you can see I am getting a little frustrated as I have changed the warning to something which is more accurate and I hope we can all agree is appriate based on this thread.

Finally, about your comment on ZeroGPT, I referenced this and asked you if you used a translator. This is not patronizing.

Thanks in advance for looking at my side and bringing down the tone of this. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Equivalent-Text2598:,

Thank you for this response - I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to explain your perspective.

More importantly, thank you so much for reviewing the article again and updating the warning to a Multiple issues template. I agree that this is a much more accurate and constructive reflection of the current state of the page.

To be completely honest, this process has been stressful for me, which is why my tone became defensive. I deeply apologize if I made you feel bad or unappreciated; that was truly not my intent.

I now accept that you are acting in good faith and working toward our shared goal of building a better encyclopedia.

Let's consider the dispute regarding the AI template officially solved. Does the thread need to be archived? Am I supposed to do it? If so, can you please explain me how and I'll do it?

Already yesterday I have decided to channel my frustration into something positive for the community. As a gesture of goodwill, I have launched a new public stub at Draft:Non ædificandi to cover this urban planning concept from a global, international perspective; from my research thus far it turns out it is not only in Paris/France, so it turned into writing an article from scratch rather than translating from the French Wiikipedia (also there there's a note that says: Cet article adopte un point de vue régional ou culturel particulier et nécessite une internationalisation... hahaha... maybe we'll do that too in the French WikiPedia...). Anyway I continue the reserach.

Since you mentioned you are a native speaker of both English and French, your language skills and editorial experience would be incredibly valuable here.

I have deliberately left several sections for European jurisdictions open, and I would be honored if you would join me there to co-author and refine the draft.

Working together would be a wonderful opportunity for me to learn from your experience with English Wikipedia, and to show you firsthand my workflow, research and how I write articles.

Thank you again for the constructive turn this conversation has taken.

I look forward to collaborating with you on the draft!

Cheers !

The Regulator 1 (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help and check through it.

I am not too free at the moment, but, I am happy to help with this draft.

I look forwards to working with you.

Thanks. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi again! I hope you're having a great week.

I have been working hard on the text and sourcing, and I believe the draft at Draft:Non ædificandi is now complete.

Whenever you can find a few spare moments, I would be grateful if you could look it over – feel free to make any copy-edits or layout adjustments you see fit, and check that everything flows naturally. I want to make sure it is in top shape before I move it to the main article namespace.

Thank you so much for your time and willingness to help with this—it is truly appreciated!

~~~~ The Regulator 1 (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Yep I think that it is a great article and have moved it.

(I have not fully checked the content as it wasn't part of AFC but, to me, the sources and parts I have checked seem great). Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I added categories + "see also" section. Also, apparently 26 additional articles (aside Impasse Florimont) used "non ædificandi", so they are now linked to the new article.

BTW, re "Impasse Florimont":

I have manually reviewed and rewritten all the sentences that I believe suffered from rough translation to ensure proper English syntax and flow. Additionally, I have sourced and added reliable citations for every missing reference in the article (the "citation needed" that you added). Since I believe both the translation and sourcing issues have been fully resolved, I feel comfortable removing the maintenance templates, as they are no longer needed. With that, I really prefer that you will be the one to verify that and, assuming you're also comfortable with it, remove the templates.

Cheers,

The Regulator 1 (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done it is a good article and I have upgraded it to B-class, have a good weekend. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think "non aedificandi restriction" in 'Location and Access' has been reviewed by a competent human French-English translator. Newystats (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Your assumption regarding the phrase 'non aedificandi restriction' actually highlights a significant unfamiliarity with French urban planning, rather than a translation error.

Non ædificandi is a precise, standard legal and urban planning term used in French municipal zoning regulations (zone non ædificandi), indicating an area where construction is legally prohibited.

In the specific context of Paris's land-use plans (PLU), it refers to historical properties or alley entrances protected from real estate developers.

Its inclusion here reflects a literal, accurate transfer of official French planning constraints into English.

In fact, I have added the article fr:Non ædificandi to my future translation list; I hope you will find it educational.

As for the claim that this text was not reviewed by a competent human translator:

You are mistaken. WP:COMPETENCE focuses heavily on the accuracy of the facts and the supporting cited text. I myself have thoroughly and manually reviewed every source. If you believe any historical or planning fact in the current text is incorrect, please attempt to prove it wrong.

Otherwise, if you cannot point to an actual factual error, you are welcome to focus on my original request and consider removing the AI-warning template yourself. This is because generic suspicions do not justify warning tags on an entirely verified, human-written article.

The Regulator 1 (talk) 09:51, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Please see and use the thread above. Equivalent-Text2598 (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

it may be a correct term, but you haven't translated it into English suitable for wikipedia readers. What does it mean in English? Newystats (talk) 21:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I've made the edit I think makes sense there. Newystats (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alexis Delahante

The article Alexis Delahante has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns for over 8 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourced biography about an art dealer from 200 years ago.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1896 Summer Olympics § Requested move 25 September 2026

An editor has requested that 1896 Summer Olympics be moved to 1896 Olympics, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2026 (UTC)
(Notification provided by Move+)

Requested move at Talk:Calvados#Requested move 27 September 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Calvados#Requested move 27 September 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-52515-80 (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Orne (Normandy)#Requested move 30 September 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Orne (Normandy)#Requested move 30 September 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-52515-80 (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Look for sourcing?

Hey, I just declined a G13 speedy for Draft:Odette Collet. The article looks to be a translation of the French Wikipedia's article on her. I get the impression that she's probably notable, as one part describes her as a "pioneer of the small screen" and the "first female television director", but coverage will likely be entirely in French. I'm not at all fluent and as her fame predates the internet, it will likely require some digging that would make some level of fluency necessary.

I just wanted to make sure that this had a fair shake. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:18, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

PostiglaDzen is the draft's creator, so I'm tagging them here as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:19, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Van der Valk Hotel Paris CDG Airport

Please add reliable sources, or send the issue to wP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2026 French lycée protests § Requested move 7 October 2026

An editor has requested that 2026 French lycée protests be moved to 2026 Belgian and French student protests, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. — Raihanur (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
(Notification provided by Move+)