Talk:Isle de France (Mauritius)

Demographics

Glad to see an article on this topic. That said, the paragraph on demographics raises some questions. If 1200-1300 slaves were being imported each year, why over five years did the slave population only quadruple? Were many slaves reexported, or was there massive mortality? Acad Ronin (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Isle de France → Isle de France (Mauritius) – Until September 2012, this used to redirect to Île-de-France, and the term "Isle de France" traditionally means that place. It is an alternate English spelling for the location in France, as well as the former French spelling of it -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support - given the confusion it will certainly cause with present title; the only other alternative for subarticles from History of Mauritius would be Dutch Mauritius then French Mauritius which currently misdirects then British Mauritius. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - The reason given for renaming this article is not to move another article here but just to make it a redirect to another article which is also commonly known with this name. This issue is already solved by this template
  For other uses, see Île-de-France (disambiguation).
  on the top of the article. This article is about a Former country and is notable enough to have this title. Mauritius was officially and commonly known as Isle de France for nearly 95 years, also whether this page was previously a redirect to Île-de-France is not a good reason that it should stay the same.Kingroyos (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment - The region in France was 'officially known' as "Isle de France" for hundreds of years. It was the official French spelling for much of that time. Indeed, it is still known by that name today in some instances. And the region in France is a former country. It was one of the constituent countries of the Frankish Empire. Read the article at Ile de France, to see it. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Well there no big difference between 100 years and 95 years, also one is a former country while the other one is just a former region.Kingroyos (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - How is the period from 1300s-today just 100 years? The spelling "Isle de France" for the region in France is still sometimes found in English publications, so it's 700 years, not 100. Middle French, from which the spelling originated lasted through the 1600s, so that's 300 years, much more than 95 years, not counting usages that lasted into the Modern French period. And it was the country, since the King of France was sovereign over the Isle of France, but only suzerain over the rest of it for the early part of the history of France. The king was suzerain over other countries. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Sorry i didn't notice the S in the hundreds which you mention. Mauritius has been known as Isle de France since 1715 (298 years) and is still use in all history books and other publications as "Isle de France" and "Île-de-France" whether English or French, if you are still not convince, this map of Mauritius and [1] is a clear example that Mauritius was indeed called Isle de France.Kingroyos (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - You're incorrect since Mauritius is no longer known as "Isle de France", while Ile-de-France is still known as "Isle de France". So, there's only one century for Mauritius known as Isle de France, while 7 centuries for the part of France. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - In fact it is a former name for both the country and the region, however one is about former country history while the other one is a region which a different name, and according to WP:MODERNPLACENAME For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one. Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts when a substantial majority of reliable modern sources does the same; this includes the names of articles relating to particular historical periods.Kingroyos (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - It is neither the modern name for Mauritius nor the current French spelling for the region around Paris. I don't see your point. That doesn't determine the primary topic of "Isle de France". And the modern English name for the Mauritius period seems to be French Mauritius. Indeed, the article for region of France uses the modern spelling. The historic spelling would redirect to the modern spelling. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - It said Older names should be used in appropriate historical contexts for example a former country history, while For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name for example the region. Also you said the name seems to be French Mauritius, just give me a link to any book which refer Mauritius as French Mauritius during the French period rather than Isle de France or Ile de France.Kingroyos (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - "Isle de France" is still used to refer to the region in France, while it is no longer used to refer to Mauritius, it is only used to refer to the French colonial period. "French Mauritius" is used today to refer to the French colonial period. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - It is still use to refer to Mauritius during French period today, "French Mauritius" have never been use.Kingroyos (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - The French colonial period of Mauritius is in the past. In the current day, "Isle de France" is still used to identify the region in France. Throughout the French colonial period of Mauritius, "Isle de France" was also used to refer to the region in France, before the French colonial period of Mauritius, it only meant the region in France. "Isle de France" means the region in France today, and before. It only means about a century of Mauritian history, versus several centuries, including the present of what is currently a region in France. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Rename to either Isle de France (Mauritius) or French Mauritius. I'm not sure which of these two options is preferable, but Isle de France is ambiguous with the French region Île-de-France, from which it is distinguished only by punctuation. The region is clearly the primary topic (about 200 incoming links from article space for Île-de-France, vs 4 for the Ile de France), so Ile de France should redirect to the region. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment - You are wrong you are referring to Ile de France which is already a redirect to Île-de-France, here it is Isle de France and have some 259 incoming links (see [2]).Kingroyos (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Hmm... BrownHairedGirl isn't "wrong" but the links, that's actually a significant point. Even though Isle de France is ambiguous and French Mauritius (sorry) isn't the natural WP:PRIMARY for Isle de France, it's going to be a lot of work to fix 259 links. 65.92.180.137 are you volunteering? I sure am not. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Most of it should be easily fixed by fixing the template. As for the remainder, sure, why not. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Indeed she is wrong, she made a confusion and mention both Isle de France and Ile de France and said that it had only 4 incoming links and clearly the not primary topic.Kingroyos (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply - that's because you modified the template [3] to make the link to "Isle de France" when you converted the redirect to France into an article on Mauritius. That link count is spurious, since it's links you added when you created this article. Removing the link from the template will fix almost all of the links. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Even without the template its still links to lots of articles and my point here is not just the number of incoming links but is that Île-de-France can't be the primary topic for both Isle de France and Isle de France, the first one is already a redirect to the article why made the second one also a redirect when Isle de France is an article about a country which clearly fit it and disambiguation option already mention about other related articles.Kingroyos (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - We have moved articles before that have lots of incoming links because they aren't the primary topic. There aren't thousands of links to this article for the topic in this article. There's not that many incoming links. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Please read what i have written again, i haven't said that it has thousands incoming links, nor i am arguing which one has more links, Île-de-France can't be the primary topic for both Ile de France and Isle de France, the first one is already a redirect to the article why made the second one also a redirect when Isle de France is an article about a country which clearly fit it and disambiguation option already mention about other related articles also primary topics are chosen for articles and not for redirects moreover between the redirect and Country it is clear that the country is the primary topic.Kingroyos (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - That has nothing to do with which is primary. Regardless of how Ile-de-France is spelled as an article, doesn't mean that just because it isn't spelled as Isle de France that it isn't the primary topic for Isle de France. If Mauritius were the primary topic of Isle de France, why did Isle de France redirect to the region around Paris for 7 years, until to created an article on top of the redirect about Mauritius recently? It would have redirected to Mauritius instead of France in that case. The traditional usage of "Isle de France" is for the region around Paris, and it is still used today, to a degree to mean that region, as it is the Middle French (dialect from the Middle Ages) spelling for that region. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Well the reason is simple, the articles about the country didn't existed before until i create it and as i have already mention whether it has been a redirect to the region is not a reason to move the article just to make it a redirect again.Kingroyos (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - That's not a reason for it to have redirected to the region of France instead of redirecting to History of Mauritius or Mauritius, which it did not. And the existence of an article does not mean that it is the primary topic, since the previous 7-years of usage seems to indicate that it wasn't otherwise it would have redirected to a Mauritius article. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - You don't seem to understand and saying the same thing again.Kingroyos (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - You don't seem to understand. If Mauritius were the primary topic, then it would be likely that the redirect would not have pointed to a location in France instead of Mauritius. It doesn't matter that there was no article about "French Mauritius", since there was an article on the History of Mauritius and on Mauritius. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Again, you are saying the same thing, i have already mention that its not a good reason, its not realistic.Kingroyos (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - That's your opinion. It has been the basis for moving other article before, so clearly other editors think that way on other articles. And it clearly shows that no one thought French colonial Mauritius was the primary topic for the 7 years of the redirect to the region in France. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - If you still think that is really a good reason, let me tell you that on the French Wikipedia fr:Isle de France is a redirect to the Mauritius article since 2008.Kingroyos (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - Well, I was partly wrong: it would have been helpful to have counted the links for Isle de France. The reason I didn't do so is that is included in the huge template {{Former French colonies}}, so it's impossible to tell how many genuine incoming links there are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - To be honest, I fail to see the point of this article at all. There is practically nothing in it that isn't contained in History of Mauritius, and even much of the wording is duplicated. It is a clear case of Wikipedia:Content forking, and there appears to be no good reason for it. The result is that we will eventually get divergent articles where editors amend one, but not the other. Better to Merge into History of Mauritius. Skinsmoke (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - The article should not be merge, it is likely to be expanded afterward, it is part of a series of former countries on Wikipedia and is an encyclopedic topic.Kingroyos (talk) 08:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Agree. Fascinating and encyclopedic topic, and plenty of material for an article of its own. A no-brainer IMO. But let's sort the name out first. No change of vote (below). Andrewa (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Isle de France is such a common name in English for Île-de-France that its use as any other article title is unsupportable. Move first, sort out the possible merge afterwards. Andrewa (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Move per nomination and make "Isle de France" a redirect to the dab page. Anything else is confusing for the reader who is far more likely to end up here by misspelling Île-de France than by looking for Mauritius under an old name. I also question the need for this article but let's get the name sorted first.Mcewan (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Reply - See

For other uses, see Île-de-France (disambiguation).

on the top of the article, the request is just to make it a redirect to article Île-de-France and not to the dab.Kingroyos (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Isle de France is accepted and standard English to refer to part of France. Kingroyos has carried on a one-person campaign to confuse the whole issue in wikipedia, where period names and current place names would be much less ambiguous and serve readers much better.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

User:65.92.180.137, i think that we are both wasting our time by going into a useless debate which is not going to lead us anywhere, since both articles seem appropriate to this name, i think the best solution is to move this article to Isle de France (Mauritius) and make Isle de France a redirect not to the region in France but to Île-de-France (disambiguation) since it is also meant for the other articles. It will be up to the reader to choose which article he/she is searching. Cheers. Kingroyos (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, this debate is indicating a consensus: the only editor arguing for the current position is you. Most seem to want to revert to the position before your unilateral (and, arguably, disruptive) decision to embark on the wholesale renaming of this and other articles and categories. Mcewan (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

i gave the reasons why you are wrong, don't be biased in your judgement. i made a proposition to reach a consensus, but you prefer to attack me rather than focusing on the topic WP:TPG#YES.Kingroyos (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with this summary. I note particularly the phrase arguably disruptive. Let's not take that further but I think it's a fair comment. Kingroyos has had a more than fair hearing, and there are several aspects of the discussion above that raise my concern (example). No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Isle de France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) history shows this was a redirect to the part of France until recently. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC) + Isle de France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) history shows this was a redirect to the part of France until recently. -- [[Special:Contrimost −

Linguistic note. "Isle" and "Île" may be considered synonymous. The different spellings simply arising over time, with a circumflex being used to indicate a mute "s" fairly recently in French history. So, we should not continue the present position of having "Île de France" and "Isle de France" in article titles as being taken to mean two different things: they don't, they are both names for the region in France and for Mauritius for part of its history. Both terms are far more commonly used, historically and currently, for the region in France. That article (Île-de-France) already has a hatnote for other uses. Mcewan (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

wikiproject importances

I really question the importance ratings Kingroyos assigned. It is highly unlikely that this is a "top-importance" article for WPUK, WPFRANCE, WPHISTORY, WPFC, since Mauritius was a colony to France and Great Britain, and not a major financial one, unlike the sugar islands of the Caribbean or the spice islands of the East Indies. I can only see this as "top" for only WPMauritius. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is this labelled as WPUK as it was a French colonial possession, not a British one. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree and I have removed from UK and made low for France.Mcewan (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is a top-importance article for both WPUK and WPFRANCE, the fact that Isle de France was a French colony alone is enough, the strategic location of Mauritius was important, the UK launched several attacked on French to take possession of Isle de France (see Mauritius campaign of 1809–1811, Invasion of Isle de France, Battle of Grand Port). I don't really understand how you can compare it as a major financial one or not, both French and British bought slaves to Mauritius to work in sugar cane plantations. i have reverted your changes.Kingroyos (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If the Battle of Hastings is only low-importance to WPENGLAND, then I can't see how this is top-importance to WPUK. If the Battle of Waterloo is only high-importance to WPFRANCE, then I can't see how this is top-importance to WPFRANCE. If the colony of Canada, New France is only low-imporance to WPFRANCE, how is this colony top-importance ? How is Mauritius more important than Corsica (high-importance), which is still part of France? And this isn't the British Mauritius article, so WPUK doesn't look like it should belong, otherwise, France should be part of WPUK, because the D-Day invasion had the British attacking the French beaches, per your reasoning. And England should have a WPFRANCE banner because Guillame of Normandy attacked England. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not determined by comparing other articles (WP:OTHERSTUFF), also here it is not about battles or region, it is about a country. i think High-importance or Mid-importance is reasonable, but Low-importance is not.Kingroyos (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Mauritius is a different country to the UK and France. This article about a French colony is emphatically not top-importance to the UK project, and it shouldn't be tagged as a UK article at all! The purpose of project tagging is to identify articles of significance to that project, not an objective global assessment, the fact Mauritius is a country is irrelevant to the UK project - what's relevant is its not the UK.

Looking at two other articles about British colonies: British Raj and Dominion of Newfoundland, articles about two British colonies, neither is tagged as a UK project. Both are tagged as part of WikiProject British Empire (which hasn't implemented importance ratings). Articles about British Mauritius should be tagged as part of the British Empire project. Articles about French Mauritius (like this one) should not be tagged as part of any UK-focused project.

Looking at articles about French colonies (such as French Equatorial Africa), mid-importance to WP:France looks right for this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject France Article Importances

For information:

  Top (0.12%)

  High (0.8%)

  Mid (2.5%)

  Low (53.0%)

  Unknown (43.58%)

  Other (0%)

Mcewan (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Isle de France (Mauritius). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919022425/http://www.gov.mu/portal/site/abtmtius/menuitem.163fea3f13ca22984d57241079b521ca/ to http://www.gov.mu/portal/site/abtmtius/menuitem.163fea3f13ca22984d57241079b521ca/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120921090116/http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/pmo/file/TJC_Vol1.pdf to http://www.gov.mu/portal/goc/pmo/file/TJC_Vol1.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)