Talk:Francia

official language

vif12vf I see there is an edit war about the official language in the infobox. I suggest part of the problem here is that there was no such thing as an official language of Francia. It is however clearly correct that the only widely used written language was Latin. So I suggest we can delete that category or else use Latin. Your edsum makes no sense to me Latin would only have been gradually adopted after they converted, and frankish remained their mother tongue! Clearly the empire had no single mother tongue and clearly mother tongues are not the same as official languages. It is also very clear that Latin was not gradually adopted but rather a language which was already widely used in this area. I think the list of commonly used languages should also include Latin and Frankish? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. You're right. From their point of view there was no mediaeval Latin. That is a historical name assigned in modern times. They thought it was Latin, but of course their abilities and styles varied. If we are going to use vernaculars for the Carolingian Period, there are quite a few, as the empire was breaking up along local lines. I do not think they used vernaculars officially. The princes prided themselves on using Latin. Every educated person had to learn it and speak it. Even in the states in my youth Latin was universally taught. I taught it for a few years and then I was out of a job. Here Ivote for just Latin. We need a ref for that I think. I will look for one.~~~ Botteville (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless a source says they have an official language and it is Latin, it should be omitted. Ifly6 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I removed infobox's |official_languages= in this diff. The cited source is (1) not reliable – the thesis is an undergraduate one – (2) does not support an official language claim, and (3) improperly cited regardless (it should be cited to this PDF). The idea that it does, I think, is tendentious in the extreme. The mere fact that official documents were written in Latin does not make it an official language. I moved Mediaeval Latin into |common_languages= and removed the unreliable source. Ifly6 (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Organization

I found the levels not exactly conforming to the periodization. From everything I can see the history had 3 periods, early Franks, Merovingian, Carolingian. The article conformed to that scheme, but not exactly. One was not sure of what topic belonged to what period. So, I adjusted the levels, changing the language as little as possible. I think it flows better logically.Botteville (talk)

@Botteville: your changes make the structure of the sub-headings unusually complex, now going to 5 levels. I think most of us try to avoid too many levels because by the time we get to level 5 the format of the headings is not very different from normal text. Apparently what we gain from this are official-seeming period names, especially "Early Frankish period" because the Merovingian and Carolingian were already mentioned. I am doubting whether it is important to mention any "Early Frankish period" at all, let alone use it to restructure the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. You're partially right. Five levels is a lot. By changing titles we might get it down to 4 but I did not wish to rock the boat too much. For the early Franks, I find them everywhere. Early Franks. Early Frankish period. It means that time before the Merovingian kingdom. I am going to do a new article on them. Also I am doing a section to be added to Name of the Franks. I'm aware of the fact that you do not like to discuss "Franks" before the 5th century. You gave me a nice passage from a German encyclopedist expressing his concern over what to call the tribal Franks as they had no state. He ended with "tribal confederacy." But, I just deleted a long section on these Franks from Genobaud. Wishing they weren't there does not make them disappear. We can't fiat away some history because it does not seem to fit. In summary, "early" is used by most. If you could admit that it would make things easier.~~~ Botteville (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Botteville: if you can keep to 4 levels I personally think that would certainly be better. I am not sure why you think I have a problem with "Franks" before the 5th century, or why it is relevant here. As you have mentioned before, you sometimes seem to misunderstand me. In any case please address issues on other articles on those talk pages. Concerning the term "Early Frankish period" can you please give an example of a historians using this term as a proper name in a periodization (and not for example as adjectives and noun in a running text about Frankish history)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

There are no less that 3 infoboxes on this article. The top one is a special enormous one that almost seems like a separate article, and has been growing steadily. @Sinclairian: why did you revert my deletion? Please explain the value of this infobox and how it is consistent with the norms of Wikipedia. See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE The purpose of an infobox is to summarize, but not supplant, the key facts that appear in an article. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't really see what was wrong with the infobox. I looked at previous versions which had it and the infobox listed some pretty standard stuff like religion, common languages, notable rulers and successor states. If there was something which you think was redundant then I guess you could have deleted just that. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 15:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

This was a very big box, and one of three. What is the point of having a big "summary" construction that is more complex and difficult to understand than the article? This is just a back door for nonsense, and only "standard" to the extent that infoboxes are often contain nonsensical "creative" information. You mention religion for example. The infobox gave "Chalcedonian Christianity (official)". Is this a summary of the article? Same for the other things you mention. Official languages mentioned anywhere in the article? No, because this is garbage. Common languages include ? This was NOT a summary of the article, and it would have been deleted if added straight into the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Again: instead of just deleting everything, you could have just deleted parts of the infobox that you thought were unnecessary. Second, you could also have deleted the two other infoboxes that you mentioned I guess. Finally, Christianity WAS mentioned in the article in the "Life in Francia" section. And also even if the subject was not mentioned directly, it could be still be in the infobox as per Help:Infobox which says "Infobox templates contain important facts and statistics of a type which are common to related articles". The topic of official languages of Francia and the religion of Francia are certainly related to the article. See Christianity in Merovingian Gaul for an article related to the topic of religion in Francia. איתן קרסנטי (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

You are inventing rules, and making no concrete proposal, giving no evidence that you have any knowledge about this topic or the sources. The onus is not on me. Infoboxes need to be justified just like anything else we want to add, so please explain what was worth keeping and then we can go consider it in terms of whether it is already in the article, whether it adds clarity as a short clear summary (which is a difficult thing to explain when the article is short), and of course in terms of the core content policies of WP.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I have added the infobox back (with modifications) for the following reasons:

1. I think this article contains enough information that the infobox is useful to gain a quick view of the topic
2. The entries you have mentioned have citations. If they are "nonsense" or not depends on the quality of those citations, rather than your personal opinions
3. In my view, not everything in an infobox needs to be in the article text. They are not called summaryboxes
   • To be clear, I do think bloated infoboxes are an issue. If there is significant information not in an infobox then it should be written into the main text of the article. I do not believe this to be the case here, except maybe the languages part

MildlyLucid (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Although it can sometimes be justified, if the information in the infobox needs citations then this is a bad sign that this is a kind of parallel article that contains information which is not in the article. If it is not in the article then it should be put into the article first, with citations where appropriate. This will make it more verifiable and easy to discuss.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Which information did you remove? It looks just as giant and fantastic as it used to. I'll list some examples:

• Official languages. Francia had no official language and was not like a modern country. This is an anachronism. The footnote is a deadlink and the work does not contain enough information to be identified. It should be deleted.
• Common languages. No simple summary is possible, and instead we have a complex statement which is vague when you take the time to parse it. That's not how simple summaries normally work. OK, we know 2 language families were present, and probably more. How is this a good short, and easy to absorb summary of what is in the article? Francia changed over time and was not always unified. The various Francias were multilingual and multicultural societies.
• Religion. We currently have the strange term "Chalcedonian Christianity (official)" which periodically gets inserted into these articles by editors who insist that we should not just say Catholic. This is clearly problematic if we judge its effectiveness in helping readers understand the article.
• King. This is an ambiguous heading. What is this section supposed to contain? This heading currently has a small selection of the many kings. This is very unclear, and not a good simple summary of the article.
• Historical era Early Middle Ages. Again this is an ambiguous and confusing heading. What should this section contain? Some key events?
• Area 814 est. I presume this is the estimated area in 814, but the article is about a concept which changed over time. There are other articles for the more specific regimes and periods.
• Currency. Again, in which periods and which versions of Francia?
• Preceded by / Succeeded by. This is very misleading OR. There is no simple succession.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, delete infobox. And the France and Germany sidebars. Srnec (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. As you say, the history is too complex to summarize in an infobox. Carlstak (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Not seeing any arguments against removing the France and Germany sidebars. I have modified the infobox again, with the following reasons:

1. Official languages. Agree, bad source.
2. Common languages. Agree, too vague to be useful.
3. Religion. Agree, the minutiae of schisms in Christianity isn't particularly relevant to Francia. The more common "Catholicism" would be better.
4. King. Listing first and last here is reasonable I think. The heading also provides a link to a list of Kings of the Franks.
5. Historical era Early Middle Ages. I am confused whether you're looking at this from a reader's or editor's perspective in this criticism. From a reader's perspective this is obviously a list of events and their inclusion here implies they are key ones. From an editor's perspective, the fact this field is "event1" or similar removes any doubt that this section is for events.
6. Area 814 est & Currency. "the article is about a concept which changed over time". Maybe there is some nuance I am missing, but this article treats Francia as a kingdom (albeit sometimes divided). It is valid to mention the area covered by this kingdom (or kingdoms), just as it is for the Roman Empire (for example).
   To add, "There are other articles for the more specific regimes and periods." Following this logic, this article should be replaced by a redirect to History_of_France#Frankish_kingdoms_(486–987). As far as I can tell there is no unique information in this article that isn't covered by one of Franks, Merovingian dynasty, Carolingian Empire and Carolingian dynasty.
7. Preceded by/Succeeded by. Agree regarding the "Preceded by" ones. For the "Succeeded by" part, Francia#Divided_empire,_after_840 describes the split of Francia into Middle Francia, East Francia, and West Francia.

MildlyLucid (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

An argument was made that 3 infoboxes is too many by implication if we are keeping this one, then the others are over the top.

Concerning 5, consider the changing the heading for example!

Concerning 6, that's not really a decisive answer. I agree the existence, or at least definition/boundaries of the article could be questioned, but I'm putting that aside in this discussion. Picking 814 seems a bit random. I am presuming that someone had the idea of emphasizing the "biggest" Francia. But this is not clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the Historical era heading, that is the way the country infobox template is structured. Given the widespread usage of the template, Template_talk:Infobox_country is probably a better location for discussing changing it.

For the area, according to the source 814 is the death of Charlemagne and the largest extent of Francia. Maybe "Peak (814)" would reflect this better than "814 (Peak)". MildlyLucid (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

This isn't really an article about a country to begin with, at least in any simple sense, and this is clearly part of why it has, as several editors other than me have mentioned, three templates (for the time being!). So I don't see any reason at all to follow any laws based on what is typical if they do not fit. I think if this article is going to have ONE infobox then it should be custom made and stripped down to the job appropriate to this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, then it's a duck. The field in the country infobox are applicable to Francia; It has a name, some rulers, a form of government, a territory it exerted control over. It is intertwined with the Early Middle Ages, given it came into being near the start, and morphed into France and the HRE near the end of the period.

Consistency in structure between articles of a similar nature make it easier for readers to digest facts. Using templates is an easy way to achieve this consistency. Other articles with similar topics (e.g. Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Wessex, Old Saxony) all use this template. Therefore if a change in structure of the infobox is good for this article, then it is also good for the other articles similar to it. That is why I say changes like that are more to do with the template than this specific article, and why I think the infobox should not be custom made. MildlyLucid (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

To me it seems then that your interest is in the infobox itself, as a genre, not the topic of this article. Would that be right? If so then good standardization should be done by listening carefully to the concerns of the content editors, I feel, and not just telling them they have to be wrong because their concerns don't fit the template. We are NOt working for the AI industry, but human readers, and so this level of standardization (to the extent that it confuses and misleads) is not needed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

BTW you mention only articles and they are about very dissimilar topics. That's incredibly unconvincing. Why do they need to use the same template? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I bring up the more general structure of these infoboxes because the criticisms you have of this particular infobox are ones that are applicable to most infoboxes of this type. If you think it confuses and misleads here, then surely it is also confusing and misleading elsewhere as well! If this is the case, then making the change to the template will remedy it easily across all affected articles, which incidentally is the strength of using templates as opposed to custom made ones.

As for your other point, are they that dissimilar? They are entities that either had (at points) similarities in political structure, or were contemporary to Francia. Are there topics that you view as similar to Francia, or do you think it is completely unique and impossible to categorise? MildlyLucid (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

OK, that's a reasonable response. I'll have a look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Government

@Heraldry22276: As multiple editors have pointed out to you, the claims you want to add do not reflect the article text and are unduly complex. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

They arent fucking complex, if it were complex then you may as well delete the government of the Kamakura shogunate or the Empire of Japan as those are very complex, and what do you mean they dont reflect the article text? In the Wikipedia article it has a specified section on the Mayors of the Palace, they are not complex they can be understood by a child, if you refuse to acknowledge valid historical facts then leave wikipedia Heraldry22276 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

This type of information would not be overly complex in the body of an article, but the use of the term "military dictatorship" for this form of government would need better sourcing in order to prove that this is how historians describe, and this does not at first sight seem tenable. (Remember, WP just aims to summarise what has been published, not to publish new ideas.) The other problem is that it simply isn't what infoboxes are for. Infoboxes should typically summarize what is in the article or maybe collect handy links. The entries in an infobox are typically only a few words each (or they should be).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

User talk:Heraldry22276 you keep adding this text. I asked you some time back for the page number in the Wood book. I own a copy and I can't see anything like the wording you want to add. Please give a page number, or enter into more reasonable discussion about what is going on with these edits.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2026 (UTC)