Jump to content

Talk:French Riviera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

caption

[edit]

I've had to change the caption of the photo to "Quai des États-Unis" since "Promenade des Anglais" was incorrect. The "Promenade des Anglais" is however a continuation which is seen in the distance.Apgeraint 19:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is it called Cote D'Azur

[edit]

Can someone include information in why the French Riviera is called Cote D'Azur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.69.243 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Cote d'Azur" is just the french name of what is called in Anglophone countries "French Riviera". It means "coast of blue", referring to the color of the sea and sky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
better translations in English are "azure coast", or "blue coast" - cheers --fraise (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The name was coined by poet Stéphen Liégeard around the end of the 19th century, possibly influenced by his own origins in the French departement of Côte-d'Or (Gold Coast). Dick Kimball (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too much centered on tourism

[edit]

On another subject I think that this article is too much centred about the vision of the region from a turistic point of view only. This is not only a region of "resorts", and is also the home of one to two million people, and hosts the 5th french biggest city, Nice. It is far to be a region of stars and rich people only. The average level of life is not really higher than in most regions of France, and is much less high than Paris, Lyon's regions for exemple. the permanant population is far to be living just for turisme, but the region is also home of flower production, universities, High-tech activities. Some districts of Nice or Cannes such as Ariane or la Bocca are low-income places with high levels of poverty, violence and immigration problems. Maybe it would be better to have an article that not just spread the cliché of "millionaires's region", which is really untrue, despite the fact that a lot of millionaires live in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.59.166 (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The characterization of Cannes la Bocca as a violent immigrant slum is woefully inaccurate! I have a second home on Cap d'Antibes only a few kilometers to the east. While incrementally less pricy and less trendy than La Croisette (the seafront boulevard) and La Californie (the large hill overlooking it), la Bocca is quite a nice neighborhood where most of the "immigrants" are probably American and English! This is the part of Cannes where Lord Brougham originally settled and his mansion still stands, albeit now divided into condominiums. There are several other English-built mansions in this area. Dick Kimball (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I think this sub- category/title/topic should be added. I have one entry in mind - the Cote d'Azur is mentioned in a song by The Divine Comedy, called A Lady of a Certain Age. Dorfl 00:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politics

[edit]

Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that Jean-Marie Le Pen always polls very well here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.143.241.138 (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Railroads, Gambling, and Royalty

[edit]

I dispute that the name Monte Carlo was coined by Francois Blanc. I have read in several books on Monaco and the French Riviera that the former Speluges was renamed by Prince Charles III's mother, Princess Caroline, who wanted a name that was somewhat exotic-sounding. The princess also named the Société des Bains de Mer et Cercle des Étrangers, which still operates the casino and several luxury hotels in Monaco. Dick Kimball (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Monte Carlo wasn't a "brand-new city," it was merely renamed from the admittedly unglamorous Speluges. Dick Kimball (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama Photograph Removal Suggestion

[edit]

The panorama at the beginning of this page is not only poorly placed, but I feel as if it offers little to the meat of the topic. It is a small marina with many boats surrounded by only a few buildings. It does not show anything very vast nor does it really expose what the French Riviera is like. This could easily be found in an article for a Caribbean Island and only a few would know the difference.

I suggest its removal from the article on basis that it does not add anything significant to the article. If nothing else it should be placed somewhere that it doesn't get in the way; it is certainly in the way now.

Wadester16 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion - I've replaced it with a picture of Cannes, which is more typical, and I'm trying to find some other pictures that capture the essence of the Riviera. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous residents section

[edit]

Since none of this is referenced, and a long list like this is hardly very encyclopedic, I'm removing from the page and leaving it here for reference, so that perhaps a few paragraphs could be made out of it and re-added. --Schcamboaon scéal? 13:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I think this list is pretty useless. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the current titile really prevailing over Côte d'Azur?

[edit]

Really? Then why do Travel TV hosts exaggeratedly pronounce the place in French? We do not resort to Google result as references, but it could show the real world usage,

I also found the geographical name cote d'azur at Merriam-Webster. I think French Riviera is one of attempts to unify unfamiliar foreign names to less unfamiliar loan words. This page of course belongs to English encyclopedia, but outside English-speaking world, it is called Côte d'Azur. Miami Beach is not titled American Riviera, so I think the title should reflect real world usage.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The name French Riviera is misledaing because Monaco is an independent state, not a part of France. Cote d'Azur is the only known name in the native use. Moreover, Cote d'Azur is fully admitted in the Webster English dictionary.--Nil Blau (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, "French Riviera" is the English term decided upon by the French Riviera Chamber of Commerce (scroll down and click on the small UK flag). I am a professional translator who has worked directly with them. They specifically refuse "Côte d'Azur" in English. Cheers --fraise (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, since its a question of branding, for them. However, Côte d'Azur is the correct name and used by both English and French speakers here. The article should be titled Côte d'Azur (as is the French language wikipedia article, which is better in many ways) and French Riviera should be a redirect.

--82.226.191.237 (talk) 13:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cote d'Azur

[edit]

Nil Blau,

Your recent redefinition of the limits of the Cote d'Azur is at odds with the definition shown in Wikipedia (French). Can you tell us how you reconcile that, please?

Your claim that "French Riviera" is 'quite unknown locally' is a statement of the obvious, because the local language is not English, whereas this Wikipedia article is an English article. If you meant that the juxtaposition of the words Riviera and Française are unknown locally, then this is at odds with the content of the official website http://www.riviera-francaise.fr. So, either way, your comment does not appear to stack up. Can you tell us how you reconcile this, please? --JHB (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. 1 The definition extracted from the famous Robert dictionary reflects a more genuine language use in French (thanks to the method of lexicography, i.e. the language use recording in dictionaries) than the French Wikipedia version. 2 We could say that French Riviera is common in the local use of English (on the Cote d'Azur/French Riviera) but uncommon in the local use of French (please note that "Riviera Française" is unknown in the Robert dictionary). 3 I agree with you about the reality of the French name "Communauté de la Riviera Française" [1], and we should mentioned it, but this is the name of a "intercommunalité": this type of commune co-operation community is quite recent in France and has little impact on everyday's language use. There are a lot of "intercommunalités" of this kind all over the French territory, but they don't create any regional identification among the population.--Nil Blau (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nil Blau
It's a bit like playing poker. Here is an extract straight from Wiktionnaire - 'le dictionnaire libre':
"Nom propre
Côte d’Azur féminin /kɔt.dazyʁ/
Partie du littoral français comprise entre Hyères et la frontière italienne."
Whatever 'Robert' may define, Wiki is consistent in its approach. So you have to climb that mountain first - or abandon your expedition at Hyères.
Also the Times Atlas of the World's Cote d'Azur notation goes nowhere near turning the corner towards Toulon.
Do you have a couple of aces up your sleeve?
--JHB (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about this idea: we should replace the title "French Riviera" by "Cote d'Azur".--Nil Blau (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article should be renamed Cote d'Azur, with an explanation of the term 'French Riviera.' As others have pointed out, most of this article is about the wider area broadly defined, not the very narrow area of the French Riviera defined here. SiefkinDR (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of my comment in the preceding section: For what it's worth, "French Riviera" is the English term decided upon by the French Riviera Chamber of Commerce (scroll down and click on the small UK flag). I am a professional translator who has worked directly with them. They specifically refuse "Côte d'Azur" in English. --fraise (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cote d'Azur and French Riviera 19 December 2008

[edit]

As of this morning we have a small nucleus of contributors who believe, in effect, that this article carries the wrong title (SiefkinDR - Nil Blau - JHB). A subsidiary issue is whether the French Riviera article:

a) should be abandoned and the FR element of the content be absorbed within 'Cote d'Azur',

b) should simply be moved over to the existing Cote d'Azur article (with FR absorbed therein)and the redirection reversed,

c) should be retained separately but with the content cut down to the necessary geographical limits (then expanded in depth (particularly historically) and carry a hyperlink to the Cote d'Azur article (which would have only fleeting references to FR) at the most appropriate point. That point may not be in a common links section right at the end, which would not really be high-profile enough.

JHB preferences: c) first, b) second, a) last.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTORS / EDITORS WITH POSITIVE VIEWS ON THIS ISSUE?

IF SO, SPEAK NOW. --JHB (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think c is probably the best option. The history of the French Riviera as a tourist destination should probably stay with the the FR article, while everything else (geography, early history, climate, artists, food, economy, etc.) should be in the Cote d'Azur article. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with solution c). I also suggest that we create a desambiguation set:

Sounds like a good plan

--82.226.191.237 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cote d'Azur from Cassis to Menton

[edit]

JHB wrote: "Do you have a couple of aces up your sleeve?"
Dear JHB, once again, let me underline that the technique of lexicography (the scientific recording of genuine language use), as it is implemented by the famous Robert dictionary ——which is a French, reputed equivalent of the English Oxford dictionaries—- is much more serious and safer than any Wikipedia o Wiktionary version. Now, here are a couple of other "aces".

  • "«Porte de la Côte d'Azur», la région toulonnaise s'allonge sur cinquante kilomètres [...]" ("«Gate of the Cote d'Azur», the region of Toulon streches on aproximately 50 kilometers[...]") in Frédéric Zégierman (1999), Le guide des pays de France, Fayard, vol. "Sud", p. 474. The author is a professional geographer.
  • "Côte d'Azur, Partie orientale du littoral français, sur la Méditerranée, de Cassis à Menton" ("Cote d'Azur, Eastern part of the French coast, on the Mediterranean, from Cassis to Menton"), in Le Petit Larousse illustré (2005), p. 1297, another reputed French dictionary.
  • "Côte d'Azur, côte méditerranéenne française entre Cassis et Menton" ("Cote d'Azur, French Mediterranean coast between Cassis ans Toulon") in Dictionnaire Hachette encyclopédique (2000), p. 448
  • "Costa Blava - Nom que rep la costa meridional de la Provença, Occitània, que s'estén [...] entre Cassis i la frontera italiana" ("Cote d'Azur - Name received by the southern coast of Provence, Occitania, which stretches [...] between Cassis and the Italian border") in Enciclopèdia Catalana here.
  • I live in Toulon during a part of the year and my family is originary from that city. I can guarantee you that in Toulon, it is obvious for everyone that we dwell on the Cote d'Azur.--Nil Blau (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Nil Bau,
It may surprise you to hear that in truth I am indifferent to the outcome. I stand by what I wrote previously, which is that Wikipedia must ensure it ends up with the right answer. As a comparatively detached onlooker I have been confused by the vague or conflicting definitions surrounding the western end of the C d'A, emanating even from among the natives.
In my sporadic researches during today it seems you are steadily gaining ground, now with LAROUSSE concurring with ROBERT, and Robert being found on line, etc.
But there is still, of course, the issue of Wiki consistency - and it looks to me as though you have just registered on Wikipedia Français as 'Senior' and changed the western demarcation to Cassis within their definition. Discovering a new editor's first and only contribution being to replace Hyères with Cassis the day after I pointed the entry out to you represents too great a coincidence to ignore. But its all fair play - if you are right.
Will you be changing the Wiktionnaire entry as well? If you do, then we may have achieved consistency - unless someone then disagrees with you on one or both of the French sites.
By the way, should we write further on any such subject as this you can dispense with giving me English translations. That will save you some time.
I noted on one of the encyclopedia entries that the term 'Cote d'Azur; was first used in an 1887 publication, and its extent was then intended as Menton to Cannes. Who is it, then, who gives credence to and sanctions for the presumably gradual spread from Cannes to Cassis?
That's a fair chunk to add on to a coastal range in only a century or so. There is a reason for that question.
If the real answer is that the spread came about by popular demand, and as a result is now in respected encyclopedia, then we are probably wasting our time attempting to confine the FR to its technical or historical base. If popular demand holds sway, and the tourist industry is its vehicle, then the French Riviera means the Cote d'Azur. Period. --JHB (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name appeared in 1887 in a book of poet Stephen Liégeard, La Côte d'Azur. Initially, the Cote d'Azur was probably conceived for a more restricted area than today. What I did, do or will do on the French Wikipedia has no importance, the English Wikipedia is much more interesting and open-minded.--Nil Blau (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final Words on French Riviera

[edit]

I have consulted and studied more evidence on both Côte d'Azur and French Riviera, and observed several instances of Wiki involvement in these entities. The French Riviera is vague to say the least. The Côte d'Azur, I feel, started off at Hyères but those people west of there were offended and were keen to get in on the act and not be left out. If they have convinced Robert and Larousse they have done well, but that doesn't alter the creator's conception of 1887.

However, all that is as nothing when it comes to what is commonly understood by the English term French Riviera. It means Côte d'Azur, whether you like it or not, and whether it's right or wrong. That's what it means, and that's what Wiki are endorsing in almost everything they are doing or planning.

That's it, folks. You've got to live with it. Don't waste your time with nitty gritty details, evidence or protests - you'll get nowhere. People don't want to know. And neither, I am sure, do they care.

For this reason the lead section of this article will not, in fact, do itself any service or favours by hammering on about technical and historical fine points. They are not of sufficient interest and they will be a put-off for most visitors. Similarly, there is no mileage in changing the title to Côte d'Azur, for the simple reasons that it is not English and it means the same thing anyway (they think). Waste of time.

Obviously this is as much a U-turn for me as it would be for anybody else, but you only have to look at how the deck of cards is stacked to realise you are going nowhere. It would be different if Wikipedia were seen only in the hallowed halls of ancient universities, where the highest academic standards were revered. But that is not the situation.

I have rewritten the lead section to reflect what I believe to be the facts of life. --JHB (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let's have a serious beginning of the article, comparable to that of other Wikipedia articles, with citations and links. And we need separate article about the Cote d'Azur. If you want to have a long discussion on the definition, let put it later in the article, not in the first paragraph. SiefkinDR (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have deleted a lot of informations without discussing. You are very authoritarian. And you are quite rude with other contributors. It is a violation of basic WP policy. So I have reverted your changes. Before your changes, it was already said that 'French Riviera' can be used also as a synonym of 'Cote d'Azur'. 'Cote d'Azur' is an English name since you can find it in Merriam Webster's dictionary. The current definition of Cote d'Azur is the one which goes from Cassis to Menton, because autochtonous populations do feel it and because Larousse and Robert are more reputed authorities than you.--Nil Blau (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nil Blau, unfortunately you've restored an entirely unsatisfactory version. Quite honestly, it's a pieced-together mess, most of whose references direct to the French Wikipedia, which isn't allowed (see WP:REF). As can be seen from the discussion already on this page, the article is in dire need of a reasoned and referenced explanation of what both the two terms in question mean, hence the newly formed etymology section.
As far as I can see, there is no set definition of the term French Riviera, and please note that is currently the name of this article - if you think it should, by rights, be located at Cote d'Azur, then by all means open a case at WP:RM. SiefkinDR has not deleted any information (by the way, information is always singular in English) from what I can see. He has not been authoritarian, and he has not been rude. Please take some care before making such accusations.
I'm reverting back to the former version, and I'd ask that you work on improving that version rather than deleting it.
Finally, can we get the input of JHB here and in the lead section of the article, as he has done a lot of research on the subject. Thanks all. --Schcamboaon scéal? 00:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. There has been a pretty misunderstanding because JHB's adds were mixed with SiefkinDR's adds in this discussion page (see it there). There are really rude, unencyclopedic words ("That's it, folks. You've got to live with it. Don't waste your time with nitty gritty details, evidence or protests - you'll get nowhere. People don't want to know."). I have restored at least the French and Occitan names; this information was deleted.--Nil Blau (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see. Good point about the translations; I've formatted them a bit better. --Schcamboaon scéal? 01:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Schcambo, for your formatting; and apologies to Nil Blau; as Schcambo points out, my remarks - the one sentence beginning with 'Please' got mixed in with the longer unfinished comments above by JHB, which included the "You've got to live with it," That wasn't me. I just want to see a serious, well-documented, clear and orderly document, up to WIki standards. SiefkinDR (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SiefkinDR, in my turn, I'm sorry for the confusion. I agree with your principles.--Nil Blau (talk) 13:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Riviera in video games section

[edit]

This stands outlike a sore thumb. Without equivalent sections on (say) the Riviera in literature, film, or TV it is pretty pointless - and probably counts as Trivia, anyway.

  • The Côte d'Azur was used as the setting in the classic arcade racing game GTI Club in 1996 and is used in the remake of the game GTI Club+ on the PlayStation 3.
  • The French Riviera was used as a setting in the 2001 video game Spy Hunter, in the missions Double Vision and French Kiss.
  • Côte d'Azur is also used in the Halo series, as the capital city of the UNSC colony of Sigma Octanus IV.
[edit]

I have been watching this edit war which shows no signs of stopping. In reviewing the external links, I have made the decision to remove several based on the external link guidelines. Please refer to those guidelines.

  • Riviera life TV - Most of the news feeds here are draws from other sites with minimal original content. Other sections include movie listings and some youtube videos. It does not seem to pass "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article"
  • Riviera Radio - There is a life feed with some news articles on the site but there are also lots of ads here. I am removing it for now, but a case for and against this like I am sure could be made. Discussion should take place here on the talk page about it rather than edit warring.
  • Riviera Reporter - There may be some content here that is appropriate, but this appears to have a significant ad component as well. Again, a case could be made for or against. Discussion should take place here. Alternately, specific relevant articles about the French Riviera (not about the French lanaguage or cuisine) may be linked here or used as references if they can be deemed to be a reliable source.
  • Riviera Times - no content here. Articles are not available without a subscription which violates "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services" and "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation"
  • Angol info - again, content which is consistent with the guidelines is minimal. The news is aggregated from other sites. The only original news is provided by the Connexion newspaper which appears to be an English language newspaper covering all France rather than the French Riviera. The remainder of the content is advertising which violates "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising"
  • Radio International has no content, but appears to be an advertisment for a radio station. No online listening, no actual news or content other than ad directories.
  • Riverads is nothing more than that, ads. Fails WP:EL

Bottom line, this is clearly contentious and edit warring is not going to work. Discussion of external links needs to take place here. Spamming has never been acceptable. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 17:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK some fair points - some of the sites are much weaker than they used to be. However, the Riviera Reporter content is valid, and probably counts as a reliable source. Riviera radio's live feed gives a unique live audio window on the French Riviera, while AI is not a news site, nor primarily an advertising site (although like all the others it is a media business that makes its money out of selling ads, so you're going to get ads...). Take a look at the What's On and Information links for an awful lot of original content, that can be treated as a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.4.121.125 (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW - both the Times and Radio International used to have original content online. Times change... RivieraLife.TV does have original video content - and that what makes it interesting and relevant. Interesting and relevant enough, though..?
Would a descriptive "English-langage media" section or, better, an "Interenational media" section (as there are German and Italian newspapers) be a better way of handling this area, which is actually a key reflection of (and element in) the very international nature of the "French Riviera" life, as distinct from (for example) the Alpes-Maritimes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.4.121.125 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my take. I don't hate Riviera Radio and Riviera Life as much as some of the others. I wouldn't have a huge problem with their inclusion. Now that doesn't guarantee that some other person will not hate them more than I do and try to have them removed. Nor does it guarantee that your counterpart Ted06 won't raise an enormous stink. Then this has to go to some phase of dispute resolution. Angol Info still doesn't cut it for me. To me the ad content outweighs any content out there. In addition, "What's on" doesn't really constitute encyclopedic content. (You do have to remember that this is what WP is supposed to be.) Its a travel/local guide which generally does not fly. It becomes a slippery slope where people all decide they can add to the site their own "What's on" page. In addition, its going to be hard to establish that the site is notable. You may use it, others may use it. But that doesn't make it notable. A Frommers guide or Lonely Planet might be more along that notable side. But most articles aren't going to go with those either. Slippery slope again. Whose site is the best? Who judges? Do we include all or none?
What I suggest is this. If you want to add the Riviera Radio and Riviera Life links, I won't object as a compromise. I would strongly suggest using the open directory for others. Here is a link to the different regions of France. There isn't one called Franch Riviera but you can choose based on the appropriate provinces. You can use the suggest link to add AI or any others if they aren't already out there. Even Ted can suggest his site. I don't use it so if you want to add tastypoutinesucks.com, go right ahead. This alows anyone coming to the article to have a single repository for links. Anyone seeking additional links can go there. A dmoz link is entirely consistent with the guidelines. That's what I would do. If you want to seek dispute resolution that's up to you. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 17:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both Riviera Radio and Riviera Life fail WP:EL as they are about a different subject than the French Riviera in general. Links to specific subjects in general articles are generally not appropriate. For example, none of the newspapers in New York City (a featured article) is linked in the External links section of that article. ThemFromSpace 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I have lots of friends, anyway here is my opinion. Adding Riviera life is a joke this is a barely unique content, and it's obviously not an authority site for the french riviera (check the almost non existant traffic, and 0 PageRank). Riviera Radio have been discussed above and I perfectly agree with it. Riviera Times requires a subscription which makes is not compliant with WP:EL. Riviera Reporter is not a apprioriate because it does not address only the French Riviera. It's a news media for expat but they write about France and the World they just happen to do it in English, so I don't see why it would be in French Riviera page ? It might be better in a page like "British Expat" but then I'm not sure it's an autority source for all brits ;).
AngloInfo is not a source for the french riviera only the top domain angloinfo.com are doing franchising for different region, people buying their franchising pack have only one goal: to make money. That's why now AngloInfo (the subdomain riviera.angloinfo.com) is primarily a source of advertisment people post their classified and pay for it, and if it's not enough they even have amazon affiliates etc... So for me it's just not a good advise to point people in this direction !
RivierAds is a competitor of Angloinfo (the subdomain riviera.angloinfo.com), one british expat was pissed off at the cash cow angloinfo became and decided to offer a better service to user for free and not rapping them to post an ad. And I also happen to be a user of both AngloInfo and RivierAds, for me if you add as WP:EL AngloInfo I see no reason whatsoever to remove RivierAds.
Guys I live on the French Riviera (in Antibes) and work in Sophia Antipolis, I know what I'm talking about. It's insane before this "edit war" was started the only valuable link was missing ! (http://www.guideriviera.com/) which is the official link for the region !
My suggestion is to keep the page as it is right now, and if that can make some people happy to add a link to DMOZ but I'm not in favor of it (as DMOZ contains a lot of outdated links, and is not really up to date...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted06 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Riviera Times and Riviera Reporter are primarily for the Anglophone, ex-pat community - and represent only a small part of that - the ageing, where is the nearest Anglican church, we love Monaco because thy are a Monarchy, Sunny-Bank retirement home crowd. While interesting, and perhaps notable enough to include in a French ex-pat article, they do not represent all ex-pats far less all anglophones. And the Cote d'Azur article should be about the geographic region as it is (primarily French population!!) not some ex-pat fantasy where the French are merely a background. --82.226.191.237 (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the lack of consensus to add any links, it seems the best thing to do is leave the article as it is. I will leave a note on the article to inform other editors that links should be discussed on the talk page prior to addition. If anyone involved wants a dmoz link, that's fine. I do not know which category to use, so I'll leave that up to others. TastyPoutine talk (if you dare) 18:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed two per WP:EL as being too promotional and not close enough to the topic of the article. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a contentious and widely-discussed area, please do not remove links without first discussing them here. You have comre in cold and removed the two links to the only official information about the area despite a high degree of consensus that these are (perhaps uniquely) relevant and appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.4.123.114 (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The links are off-topic and promotional, as I mentioned above. We do not provide links to official business investing sites for anything because they are promotional in nature. We may exempt certain official tourist sites under certain circumstances, but I see no reason nor discussed rationale to do so here.

Consensus is not a vote. I see brief mention of the tourism link, misrepresenting it as something other than a tourism site. I see no mention of the investing site at all. From what I can tell of the discussion, they were left as a compromise with editors who wanted even worse links included as well. --Ronz (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ronz totally. The two links do violate WP:EL as they aren't about the subject of this article and they are promotional. ThemFromSpace 16:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section completely. I see no discussion of the additional links, and don't think the official tourism site has enough relevant information to offset it's promotional nature. --Ronz (talk) 03:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date Problems

[edit]

The dates quoted for habitation in "From prehistory to the Bronze Age" are in clear conflict with the dating given in the article Human. I suggest that the entire section be removed unless references can be found that fit with current knowledge as given on the Human page. Sejanus.sejanus (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite see the problem here. The tools found at the Grotte du Vallonnet were dated to between 980,000 and 1.05 million years ago; during the lower Paleolithic era. There are other sites in Spain even older. The inhabitants are believed to have been homo erectus. Homo erectus is discussed in the article on the human. Where's the clear conflict on dates?
SiefkinDR (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French Riviera. 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: 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) 22:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Western boundary

[edit]

The article has a section describing differing conventions for the western boundary. And there are sources. Great.

But I (perhaps a typical reader) am left wondering why the Riviera doesn't extend farther west. How does the Riviera differ from the rest of the French Mediterranean coast? For example, Marseilles is another sunny city that is very close to the Riviera but not in it. Why? Is it because the historical County of Nice didn't extend that far? Is it because the winds differ greatly between Toulon and Marseilles? The article could explain briefly. Mgnbar (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The western boundary is given by the rock formation of the l'Esterel. This also influences the different climate to that of the Var or Le Lavandou. 86.140.102.248 (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

[edit]

To add to this article: a map that actually shows where this place is in relation to the country of France. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_Riviera&oldid=1205931451"