NOT VERIFIED - it is quite probable that the French government will not allow this[edit]

This part of the following sentence in this article is an opinion. And an the Wikipedia is not a place to express opinions, specially politics. It should be taken out.--Friviere 11:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Catalan nationalists in Roussillon would like the Pyrénées-Orientales département to secede from Languedoc-Roussillon and become a région in its own right, which they wish to name "Catalunya Nord" (i.e. "North Catalonia"), but it is quite probable that the French government will not allow this.

The part of sentence you are highlighting is not personal opinion. It is a well known fact that the French government is not in favor of local autonomist movements, be it in the Basque country, in Roussillon, or in Brittany. Hardouin 14:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This does not change anything it's an opinion, and the Wikipedia is not a Cristall Ball: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Unless this can be well documented, it should be changed.--Paco ✉ 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

I have removed the map, which seems to be published by Catalan nationalists. In the 8th century, there was not such a thing as a "Catalan-Aragonese kingdom". The unified kingdom of Aragon and Catalonia did not appear until 1162 with King Alfonso II of Aragon. What the map shows, in reality, is the rump Visigoth kingdom after the Arabs had conquered most of the Spanish peninsula. Within years, this rump Visigoth kingdom was also conquered by the Arabs, so the map only represents the situation in the Spanish peninsula for a few years around 714-719. This is not very informative, unless of course the author of the map wants to present history in a Catalan nationalistic perspective. Hardouin 14:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What was then? Catalan-Aragonese_Confederation

How can the first Count of Barcelona come in the year 801? --Friviere 17:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do you read dates?? The map you put is in the 710s. That's many centuries before the Kingdom of Aragon. As for the counts of Barcelona in the early 800s, they were counts of the Frankish Empire. They were not independent back then. In fact what is now Catalonia was called then the Spanish March, and it was part of the Frankish Empire, and later France. It is only in the 12th century that the ties with France were severed. Hardouin 19:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Question[edit]

Hi I'm the webmaster for an external website that this article used to link to. Someone mentioned to me that the link had been removed with the comment that it is "commercial spam" - but it's clearly not commercial spam - its not even commercial (see for yourself here). I've taken the liberty of putting the link back. Q1. Is that OK for me to add links to my own site? Q2 Why would anyone want to delete the link on a false premise like this - is it just random vandalism? 66.43.120.115 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who removed it; I'm just commenting in answer to your question.
Q1. No, it's bad practice on Wikipedia to add links to your own site.
Q2. I don't think it was vandalism. I have seen this link before and wondered about it. I looked at the site, and, purely personally, I considered it to be interesting AND commercial, so I left the link in: but I can understand why someone else might have decided it was just commercial.
Because it's a borderline case, I think if some other named editor (not you) added the link to your site, and if the link stated that the site has some advertising but also a lot of handy information for visitors (which is true), then the link might survive. A link that sort-of-implies-by-not-denying that this is an official Languedoc site, and added by an anonymous user who might be (and in fact is!) the webmaster, is likely to go on being removed. Andrew Dalby 08:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, can I suggest you get yourself a user name - it helps a lot. Second it looks like a good link to me. I'm not aware of any better websites on this topic - including official sites. Third, I can't really see that it could be classified as commercial , but that's just my opinion (did I miss something ?). as Andrew says, if the concensus is that it's a good link then it will survive. Fourth, I did a bit of digging and discovered something that might be of interest to you, which suggests that the reasons for removing the link might might not be altogether altruistic. If you look here 84.4.152.52's history you'll see that the same user has been methodically removing links from Wiki pages to this Languedoc website. Oddly, he didn't remove the link from the "languedoc" article - that was done by Alexgregbiba who has also been methodically removing links to Languedoc related pages (see the Languedoc Talk page and Alexgregiba's history. There seems to a suggestion that Alexgregbiba runs a commercial website, but I'm still not sure what his/her motive is unless he regards you as a competitor, but even then it's not obvious what he wants to achieve. In the circumstances, I think it's a bit unfair that he can remove dozens of links posted by different people over several years, but you can't put them back. Andrew - any ideas how to handle this? Is there any way of checking whether 84.4.152.52 and Alexgregbiba are the same person? Even if they are, have they done anything wrong in Wiki terms? Nostick 18:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nostick, I hadn't noticed the history. How interesting: I agree, now, that the removal of these links might be bordering on vandalism. But the trouble is that the adding of them is also frowned on: one isn't supposed to add one's own site. As for the identity of those two users, that is not normally possible even for an administrator to verify. Anyway, I'm not an administrator and it might be better to ask one.
For what it's worth, my suggestion is this. 66.43.120.115 should (as Nostick says above) get a username, preferably make some useful additions to the text of Languedoc related articles (not difficult, many are quite stubby) and also add the link again, to pages where it is really relevant, making it clear (as I said above) what kind of site it is. I quite agree with Nostick that the site is a useful one. I will now myself put the link back on the Languedoc-Roussillon page. Andrew Dalby 21:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile it has reappeared! Yes, if we look back through the history of just this page, we see that there's quite a lot of back-and-forth adding and removal of links, not all of it altruistic. Given the way Wikipedia works, I doubt that it can be prevented altogether. Andrew Dalby 21:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I am (or was) 66.43.120.115, now with a user name. Many thanks for your help and suggestions - I'll be happy to contribute, but feel I should mention that quite a lot of the existing Wikipedia material, especially on Languedoc towns and cities, is already lifted from my website! Sorry, just wanted to get that off my chest. Anyway, thanks again, By the way, how do I contact an administrator?, Regards Jay McDee 16:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite see why you might want to contact one! I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. The first paragraph looks very sensible -- whether it continues like that I don't know ...
You can, of course, legitimately remove from an article anything that is really plagiarised. And, if that and further information can still be found on your site, what a good reason for making sure the link is there! All the best Andrew Dalby 22:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, Once again, many thanks for your help. Jay McDee 16:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definition of "Pays"[edit]

Many catalanists are reverting this article because of what-they-call anticalanism on my part. Their revertions are not even taking care of the small contributions made by others. just to named some of the changes they are including:
-Santiago Boffil is described as catalan. --> Well, as far as I'm concerned, he is Spanish, with an Spanish Passport.
-Languedoc-Roussillon is a collection of culturally Catalan pays. --> Well, I invite them to take a look at the map in France and see the extension of the map.
-(in Catalonia, on the other side of the border, a pays is known as a comarca). --> That is surely right, but Languedoc-Roussillon is french territory, then "pays" has a french description by its own and that's the one to be refered. See Pays (France)
-And finally the obsession to call the Senyera the catalan flag! "stripes of Catalonia for Roussillon" --> In this same manner I could call the Flag of Barcelona the Flag of England, right? For this reason, I'm changing to previous version " cross of Languedoc as well as the Flag of Roussillon"

Maurice27 16:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Issue: edit buttons are formatted incorrectly[edit]

The edit buttons for each section are all bunched together low on the page. Why is that? How do we fix it? I suppose it might be related to the right margin factbox and pictures taking up so much space, but that doesn't make sense. Can somebody who is proficient in formatting fix that? --mroconnell 14:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger[edit]

See Talk:Languedoc wine for discussion.

I wrote up a section on wine since it's such an important aspect of life in the Languedoc-Roussillon, but then I found a section on Languedoc wine which I spiffed up and I don't know if it should be merged or left alone or what. Any ideas? Maybe we could talk on the Languedoc wine page since this one is already pretty cluttered. --mroconnell 14:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend holding off on the proposed Merger till after the Wine Improvement Drive is completed. See how well the Wine Project members can do with this puppy. :) AgneCheese/Wine 07:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan. I'd love for the article to stand on its own legs.  :-)--mroconnell 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with ((WikiProject Food and drink)) banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect web address[edit]

The article contains a link to "Languedoc-Rousillon Tourist Board Official Tourism Committee Website for the Region (in English)" However, the link points to http://www.sunfrance.net/UK which (despite its name) is in French.

I did find what seems to be the English version. It is (see OOPS below). At the bottom of the page it says, "COMITÉ RÉGIONAL DU TOURISME DU LANGUEDOC-ROUSSILLON - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED" which is the same notice as the current site.

However, when I try to correct the link, I get a message that says, "The link filter blocked your page save because it detected a blocked external link."

Would appreciate it if someone could clean this up.

OOPS: When I tried to save this page, I got the same error message. The site I'm referring to is: http: // en.sunfrance.com / (Spaces added to bypass filter.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alweiss (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag and coat of arms[edit]

Hi,

The flag and coat of arms presented here are NOT official flags and coat of arms. Since 2005, the official flag and coat of arms (present for instance in the license plates of cars) is the flag mentioned as "logo". I edited the flag and added "unofficial" to the coat of arms legend since this coat of arms has nothing official. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.209.96.249 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Occitanie[edit]

The name Languedoc-Roussillon-Midi-Pyrénées has now been superseded and the official name of the enlarged region is Occitanie. The name was decided upon after considerable public consultation. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Languedoc-Roussillon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Languedoc-Roussillon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categories