Talk:Années folles

Untitled

Looks like a lot of good info on this page that could/should be incorporated into the primary article. Will get to work on this when I get some time.

wow

the page history says this was translated from the French, but there is no french equivalent to refer to. Heavy going even for a bilingual who knows the city, the area and to some extent the history. And yet. This *is* an important period, will chip away at the problems a little I guess. Elinruby (talk) 08:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

art deco

not at all mentioned right now

Article title

I think the article needs a rename to Années folles. (The French article is Années folles.) Just like "The U.S. in the 1920s" gives a very different impression from "Roaring Twenties", similarly here.

When the name for a sociocultural period is international and affects many countries in similar ways, then we typically use essentially the same term in different countries, translated as appropriate: the Great Depression in the U.S., la Grande Dépression in France, la Gran Depresión in Spain. Ditto "the Great War", "the Middle Ages", and so on. But when the name for a period is culturally or nationally bound because it manifests differently in different regions, then the terms are often not translated but borrowed, and articles may appear in other Wikipedias about foreign epochs having italicized names in a foreign language:

• The Gilded Age in the U.S., le Gilded Age on French Wikipedia when talking about that period in the U.S.
• La Belle Époque in France; the Belle Époque on English Wikipedia when talking about the French period.
• The Roaring Twenties in U.S.; le Roaring Twenties (about the U.S. phenomenon) on French Wikipedia.

Note that while the Roaring Twenties in the U.S. was roughly coterminous with les années folles in France, they were not the same phenomenon which explains why French Wikipedia has separate articles on each topic: le Roaring Twenties and les Années folles, and named accordingly. So should we.

References

Mathglot (talk) 11:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I second this motion. NightFire19 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I agree with your comments about gibberish and general improvements. As for the title, I'll wait a decent interval before renaming, and I also wanted to raise some related questions concerning the title just to dot all the i's and cross all the t's:

1. keep the acute accent in Années folles, or not? Keep.
2. italicize the article title, or not? (see WP:ITALICTITLE): Italicize.
3. capitalize the second word, or not? (see WP:TITLEFORMAT): Don't capitalize.

I think all these cases should really come down to following what sources writing in English do, and I believe that under that criterion the title should be Années folles—with accent, with italics, first word cap. Here's why:

Italics: We can guide ourselves somewhat by similar cases like Belle Époque, but sometimes one borrowed term may seem to have entered the language and no longer require italicization, whereas another may not, so I'm not sure other terms' articles should be decisive for this case.

Ditto the accent. 'Rendezvous' is fully anglicized, so rarely in italics in English, and the hyphen in the original French noun is dropped in English. Belle Époque still doesn't seem quite English yet, so we keep the accent, and italicize it. OTOH Art Deco is fully anglicized, thus drops the accent (French: Art déco) and the italics (as well as, in this case, overriding WP's sentence case for the dual capitals of a proper noun). Années folles definitely seems borrowed and not fully anglicized, so we should keep the accent. More evidence for this, below.

Capitalization: The case for capitalization is more subtle. I'm in favor of cap-A, lower case f, and I think the evidence supports that, but is a little tricky to work out: All three variants (A F, A f, a f) are seen in French, while in English, 5 of 6 variants are seen (because of e with & without accent): (Ae F, Ae f, ae f, Aé F, Aé f, aé f) but we can reduce that to three to simplify the comparison.

• In French, there's a clear preference for a f, hardly surprising in running text where it's not the first word in a sentence. The title of the French WP article is A f because of article title rules, so no surprise there.
• In English, the situation is muddy when you compare all six variants separately but since we're only considering caps here, if we include all six but factor the accents out of the equation leaving just three variants irrespective of accent (A[eé] F, A[eé] f, a[eé] f) and just compare those, then there's a clear preference for a[eé] f, just as in French. And by article title rules, that also becomes A[eé] f, as in French.

Combining all three, we end up with Années folles, which was my hunch before we started out, but now it is evidence-based, instead of just preference, so I feel more secure about it now.

Don't burn out, take a breather! Come back after you've unwrapped your presents. ;-) Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd consider this a pretty high priority article given the importance of the time and place and the fact that I do have a combination of skills and previous study that applies here. But I already had a lot on my place and that's just wikipedia. I'll work on this off and on until it is done if nobody else does first. Hell one of these days I'll finish Notre Dame de la Garde! To answer some questions -- I move articles that don't have accents. It's a spelling mistake in French to omit them when they are called for. To pick a nit, you have eé above and it should be ée. Yes, there should be an accent. Capital a per wikipedia title rules, not in body of article though. It it not usually capaitalizad in French and thus it should be Années folles -- italicized -- weak yes. I usually do this for foreign phrases unless it would overwhelm the article body. Not sure what MOS says, persuadable to the contrary on this one point. Elinruby (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Note a little discussion about this article has also taken place at WP:PNT Elinruby (talk) 07:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Elinruby: This has no effect on the title move proposal, but in reply to I move articles that don't have accents. It's a spelling mistake in French to omit them when they are called for. : That works for French Wikipedia, but this is English Wikipedia, and something that may be a spelling mistake in French is irrelevant to correct usage here. We use the common name in English following the preponderance of reliable English sources when determining the correct spelling of words, even when they clearly derive from French, and may be spelled differently in French. That's why we say address (not adresse), responsibility (not responsabilité), general (not général), siege (not siège), Baton Rouge (not Bâton-Rouge) and fricassee (not fricassée). Loanwords go through an adaptation process from seeming very foreign when first borrowed, in which case they are italicized in English and often retain accents and hyphens of the original, to seeming less so, and finally when seen as fully anglicized they typically lose the italics, and the accents (unless needed for pronunciation: cliché). Some words are in the middle of that trajectory (café or cafe), with some sources preferring one style, and some another. But none of that need concern us here, as long as we stick to the principle of following reliable English usage when there is clear consensus, and pointing out both alternatives when there is not.

That said, there seems to be agreement on the title move, and if there are no further comments in a week or so I'll go ahead and do it, or anyone should feel free to do so. Mathglot (talk) 21:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes but we aren't talking about words that came to english with the Normans. We are talking about a specific period of time specifically in Paris. Didn't we just say that there are different terms for the equivalent periods in New York and in London? It seems to me that it should be e accent aigu e in this instance, but I don't think you're arguing with that and I don't feel like arguing about this right now anyway.Elinruby (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If we are using the French term I think années folles or Années folles for the article title. Elinruby (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Cap-A for the title, of course. Mathglot (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahem, ahem. When I just searched the UK and Cdn googles for Années folles I seemed to find that the most prominent items are in French. Although I accept that this is most likely the most appropriate title it would appear that it might have limited currency among English speakers and that visitors to wikipedia would search for this title only if they were tipped by some other source. Do you have, or are you planning, a way of embedding a mention of this article in a context where users would be likely to identify it as a period in 20th century French history or perhaps in comparison with somewhat similar North American periods? SewerCat (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@SewerCat: There are good articles on several trends in the period, I have noticed, among them Dada and Art Deco. But yes, this should be done; it won't be an orphan. We're talking about a lot of work but it really is true that the Germany and US of the period were culturally distinct. The "Roaring Twenties" were an economic phenomenon, and while Germany offered some similarities to Paris (cabaret comes to mind) there wasn't the literary and artistic explosion there was in Paris. Elinruby (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Very exciting. FWIW, I agree. This makes me think of the general articles about the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment (only smaller!) but what to call it? No, I'm not asking; I know you're busy. Thanks for responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SewerCat (talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

ballets russes

based in paris at the period

translation notes

rises being used to translate (prob) réaliser. Check but likely really means produce or possibly mise en scène, which is why it needs to be checked. Elinruby (talk) 12:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Elinruby, where? Depending on context, it can just mean "carry out", "execute" and the like, or even "build". Mathglot (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

The context here was that I was unsure in some cases whether the person had produced the scenery or the entire play -- When I come back to this I'll see if I have learned enough wikignoming around on related articles to figure it out from the names in question. Elinruby (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Dada and the 20s (Elinruby)

User:Elinruby has listed at RfD, with the title "?" as holding title (here, on the log for 27 Dec 2016):

open as to resolution. I am here to complain the article France in the 1920s has a section about the influence of Dada; the School of Paris is part of that, but the linked article opens with a discussion of illuminated manuscripts. That may be dada, but we're supposed to explain these things not embody them.

I quote verbatim (I hope). I've said at the RfD it's the wrong place to start that discussion, and suggested that here or Talk:School of Paris (or both) would be better places. I'll put a courtesy note like this over there, too.

If there's any need, I can speak French reasonably well and have a nodding acquaintance with Dadaism but no more than that. There was an excellent exhibition of Mogdiliani's works here in Budapest this autumn, and I thoght he is very much influenced by that school, but I'm no art critic. Si Trew (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Both the manuscript illuminators and the early-20th century movement are called school of Paris, legitimately. They should he different articles though, Elinruby (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

His name is one of several mentioned in the article that cries out for expansion. Picasso, Hemingway, Klee, Gertrude Stein, Ballets Russes...Elinruby (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing content and revision history on this page

@Elinruby, Premeditated Chaos, and NeilN:

Something very, very strange is going on with the former article France in the 1920s which is now a redirect to Années folles after a Redirect was applied either on January 25, or February 6, depending on what bit of surviving Revision History you believe. There is missing content on the Talk page of the article, and there's a good deal of missing history on the Revision History of the Talk page which existed at least as far back as mid-Deember, and I'd like to know what happened to it all, and how the content and the history of the talk page can be restored.

As I recall, I was the one who first raised the proposed rename of the old article title in mid-December. At that time, the Talk page section was called Talk:France in the 1920s#Article title, and within a week or so there was fairly extensive content in the Talk page about it, with various opinions offered from several different editors. All of this content is now gone, and the history of it seems to be gone, too, as the history of the Talk page now dates only as far back as 25 January, which makes no sense.

The talk page was certainly not created on that date, because of the long section which was already there in December. A faint trace of this section still survives in the article page history for 15 December, where I added the {{Disputed title}} template, including the section param for that template with the value Article title which pointed to the section on the talk page discussing the move. Why doesn't the history of that section appear in the history of the Talk page?

More strangeness: if you look at the history of the Talk page you see entries for January 25 and 6 February and they both have pretty much the same edit summary:

• 21:08, 6 February 2017‎ Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs)‎ m . . (50 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Premeditated Chaos moved page Talk:France in the 1920s to Talk:Années folles: article specifically discusses the art and literary scene in Paris, as opposed to anything going on elsewhere in France, and the period looked significantly differen...)
• 15:31, 25 January 2017‎ Elinruby (talk · contribs) . . (50 bytes) (+50)‎ . . (Elinruby moved page Talk:France in the 1920s to Talk:Années folles: page deals specifically with the cultural scene in Paris, not France, and this art/music/literature scene differs significantly from what was happening outside Paris; move has...)

How is this possible?

In addition, on the redirect-page Talk:France in the 1920s, the Revision History now shows one single entry, namely one for 21:08, 6 Feb 2017, which would be okay if the earlier history of that page as a discussion page for the article, including the aforementioned 'Article title' section would have been preserved in the content and history of the redirected page now at Talk:Années_folles, but it was not.

I'm baffled by all of this, and wonder if anyone can help. Adding uninvolved admin NeilN as well.

Postscript: If in assisting us to unscramble this, it is necessary to delete this talk page (again?), then I would like to request that this section be preserved somehow and not also disappear into a black hole; renaming it to a subpage under my User page is fine. Thanks.

Mathglot (talk) 09:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I found a clue which may be relevant, and it is a deletion log entry for the talk page on February 6. If this is the page that had the missing content (I can't tell because I can't view it pre-deletion) then this may have been a mistake. If so, please undo this action, or merge the deleted content with the current content of this page (or move it to Talk:Talk:Années_folles/Archive_1, or some such solution that preserves the content, and the corresponding history). Mathglot (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mathglot. I believe Premeditated Chaos deleted the talk page by accident. I've undeleted it and restored the content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yep, that is exactly what happened. Mathglot, I apologize for causing confusion. I'm used to always deleting talk pages after a speedy, and I don't do page moves often, so I think what happened was I moved the page and then deleted the talk out of sheer muscle memory. Thanks for covering my butt, NeilN. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I am currently preoccupied with non-wikipedia problems but I think I may have caused this. It sounds like it is resolved? What I know about this is that I tried to move "France in the 1920s" to "Années folles" per consensus but was impeded by the redirect someone had done from the "Golden Twenties" I think it was -- a page about the same period that dealt primarily with Berlin and didn't mention some of the salient Paris points like Hemingway and Dali and Dada etc. Thus the edit summary you quoted, which was mine. The thing was, only the talk page moved. So "France in the 1920s" had a talk page entitled "Années folles" and my attempt to solve this by deleting the redirect resulted in a blank page, which was even sillier, so I asked for help in the chat-room and was told a syntax for tagging. I noticed the move had been done and the talk page was then redirecting to itself or something -- inaccessible to mere mortals anyway -- but did not have the mental bandwidth to deal with it at the time. I will not reallybe working on this page much if at all for the next week or so, but as I recall it has reached a point of being close to a complete translation -- I think I had the translated tag on it ---although it was not all in the same order, and the French page in my opinion is pretty bad as well. Anyway, hope this clarifies; please ameliorate in any way you are able. As I have mentioned before the article really needs to expand some sections and it's almost criminal to omit Art Deco. Elinruby (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's resolved, thanks. I thought if the move process can't move both, it doesn't move either one, or am I mistaken? I wonder if you've discovered a bug, in which case it should be added to Phabricator, if not already listed.

Now that the rename is completed, a wikidata problem remains, but I'm not going to attack it right now, but if you're feeling up to it, go for it.

Btw, I added a See also section recently, feel free to update with more links. Mathglot (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am still juggling different chainsaws; I just came in here to check on this. But no, apparently it is possible for one to move without the other. Elinruby (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the wikidata problem is now fixed (see d:Talk:Q702442) and the French article (fr:Années folles) now shows up in the language sidebar. Mathglot (talk) 06:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Added new section Fashion and style

Added a new H2 section #Fashion and style and started it off with a couple of paragraphs translated and adapted from the French Wikipedia articles at fr:Garçonne (mode) (v. 133820851) and fr:Coco Chanel (v. 134694000). Mathglot (talk) 06:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Good job, thanks ;) Elinruby (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Overlap with Paris between the Wars (1919–1939)

There is a fair amount of overlap between this article, Années folles (originally France in the 1920s), and the article Paris between the Wars (1919–1939) which was started independently a few months later. This one covers half the time period (one decade, instead of two for the other) and whereas the other one limits itself in the title to events in Paris, Années folles purports to cover all of France (although much of what happened was, in fact, limited to Paris).

As for the time period covered, there is no France in the 1930s or Paris in the 1930s article covering the other decade per se, although there are articles touching on this period in France, namely, Great Depression in France and Non-conformists of the 1930s albeit from a different angle. As far as the content is concerned, the other article has two detailed sections on §Music halls and §Movie palaces which are not covered well here, or at all.

I've made a suggestion on how to handle this at the Talk page of the other article. Mathglot (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I commented over there but I wanted to add here that I think this article should focus on the cultural ferment of the time, which was primarily in Paris. I don't have strong dogmatic feelings about this, but also, insisting on dividing it up by decades is a bit artificial because I am finding that a lot of the discussion about Années Folles starts (for example) with Cézanne as an influence on the Cubists, and those that don't start with the end of WWI, not January 1, 1920. At least, that is my current opinion. I realize that X in the period Y is a template used throughout WP -- perhaps we should cover this with a timeline if we can devise one that will work Elinruby (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, totally agree about the "cultural ferment" aspect of les Années folles as even the name itself demonstrates, and not, for example, economic or foreign relations aspects, which would be more appropriate at "Paris Between the Wars" which could handle any aspect of life in that period. OTOH, there's disagreement at the other talk page; maybe we should centralize the ongoing discussion there? Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Roaring Twenties

what is that about? It may just be that I don't know how to do e accent aigu on my phone, but I disapprove. Roaring Twenties was a US term about the ebullient financial scene. Specifically in the US. I will look into this when I am on my laptop. Elinruby (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Elinruby: What redirect are you referring to? Mathglot (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

{{yo|Mathglot}) if you look at the question I asked at the NPOV board about School of Paris vs Jewish School of Paris, I put brackets around Annees Folles expecting the link to go here. However instead I get Roaring 20s, which of course is about this period in the US. Possibility the issue is that I don't know how to do e accent aigu on Android. I can check next time I am around windows, but either way I don't like the redirect being there and the app is not geared to wikignoming categories

 Fixed. Mathglot (talk) 07:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Elinruby (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)