Talk:Francophonie

Is this page needed?

""Francophonie" means the fact of speaking french around the world, while this page refered specifically to the OIF, the French speaking organisation. " Is the term "Francophonie" actually ever used in English aside from the name of the organization? I've seen the adjective "francophone" used, but not this word. --Khajidha (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This is not an English word. The page on the Francophonie organisation should be moved here per WP:UCN. 194.193.205.87 (talk) 13:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Louisiana

The article Louisiana French mentions "Louisiana's 2018 accession to the Organisation internationale de la francophonie." Should the map be updated to include the U.S. state of Louisiana? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.169.226 (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this actually be 'Francophone' (with a REDIRECT from 'Francophonie' to 'Francophone' (I suppose))?

I'm pretty sure it should be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.156 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Why? "Francophonie" in English usually means the OIF, and francophone in English means someone who speaks French. So "Francophonie" should redirect to the OIF. We have articles for French language and Geographical distribution of French speakers -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 16:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

♣z==Redirect?== Do you see the first post on this page? I made it over three years ago, disputing the creation of this page by a user who moved the page of the OIF. The response "This is not an English word. The page on the Francophonie organisation should be moved here per WP:UCN. " agreed with me. The post just above this one "So "Francophonie" should redirect to the OIF." Also agreed with me. How is it that you are saying they did not? Another poster suggested redirecting this to Francophone. With three years with no one saying why this page should exist why shouldn't it be redirected to the page that was actually at this location. If you check the histories, this page started as a redirect to the organization back in 2002.--Khajidha (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this article as it stands is nothing more than a WP:DICDEF, and as such not a suitable topic for Wikipedia. (Plus, it's so poorly written as to be barely intelligible, and the few factual claims it contains are unsourced. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

(Note I've taken the freedom of changing the section heading per WP:TALKNEW. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC))

==Francophonie==~ copied here from my TP. Kleuske (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Kleuske: I reverted the above article back to the redirect as part of WP:NPP. It is perfectly decent redirect. If you need to recreate it, please recreate it on a seperate page and leave the redirect in place. 21:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: That seems a bit weird, since the article exists since 2016, has been edited many times by many different editors, has never been a redirect, has never been AfD’d and you “restore” a valid redirect. Would you elucidate on the exact NPP policy this is based on? Also, based on the ping, I assume you intended it for the talk-page, were it belongs. I’ll copy it there, so we can discuss. Kleuske (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Kleuske: I did think it would worth keeping the redirect and putting the other article in a separate page. Certainly as a human I do make mistakes. When you look at it as fresh page, which I've never seen this article, yip, keep the redirect, fresh page for the content, but could be wrong. I trust your judgement. scope_creep^Talk 22:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske:, I'll have another look at it tomorrow. scope_creep^Talk 22:37, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

The "article" was created in 2016 after User:Wisi eu moved the previous contents of the page to "Francophonie (organisation)", which was later moved to the full French name of the organization. --Khajidha (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

That wasn’t the question. It makes no difference, either. Kleuske (talk) 04:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up @Kleuske:. scope_creep^Talk 09:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

You may want to consider answering. Kleuske (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Kleuske: I see the article has been reverted back to a redirect. Perhaps an RFC is needed? What do you think? 13:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I think you need to answer my question. How was your action justified by NPP rules? I also think you need to actually sign your posts, instead of time stamping them. Kleuske (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Page Protection

@Kleuske:, @Wisi eu:, @Khajidha: I have requested page protection, until we sort out what going on here. I think an RFC is needed. scope_creep^Talk 13:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Posturing in lieu of providing actual arguments does not create a favorable impression. Kleuske (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Arguments are 1) this is a basic dictionary definition (and not even the English definition, at that) and 2) the article then goes on to label normal English usage as "misused" compared to French usage. The article presents no evidence that English language sources use "francophonie" for anything other than the name of the OIF. --Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There's also 2 comments on the OIF talk page stating that that page should move here or this page should redirect there. --Khajidha (talk) 19:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)