Talk:French colonization of Texas/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about French colonization of Texas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Front page on April 1?

I came across the article while reading the Wikipedia signpost, and I've suggested it as the April Fool's featured article here. Just a heads up. Andjam (talk) 07:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

(1) In-house only

(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

(4) Typos and misunderstood coding

(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

(5) Edit-mode clutter

(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

(6) Limited application

(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up

The National Underwater and Marine Agency searched for L'Aimable from 1997 until 1999. Although they found a promising location, the ship was buried under more than 25 feet (7.6 m) of sand and could not be reached.

Any more recent news on this? It's hard to believe that that would be the end of the story. 129.120.176.206 (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this name actually used?

Google Books and Google Scholar seem to have little if any usage of "French Texas" to describe this. Why isn't the article at Fort Saint Louis (Texas)? --NE2 01:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The term "French Texas" doesn't appear in any of the sources cited in this article. Apparently the term was invented in the featured article nomination process because it fit with Wikipedia naming conventions. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure how that could be; we have Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Common names. Fort Saint Louis (Texas) is, on the other hand, a perfectly fine name. --NE2 05:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  - Well, I said that wrong. From the discussion it seems they wanted to name this so it went along with Spanish Texas and Mexican Texas. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    - That sounds like Original Research and I can't believe this was promoted to a featured article as such.--Crossmr (talk) 06:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
It seems like it follows other naming conventions, such as Spanish Louisiana, French Louisiana, Spanish Florida and the already mentioned Spanish Texas and Mexican Texasetc. I don't see the problem with it.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- No academics use the term, though. It's entirely an invention of Wikipedia to say there was something called French Texas, because apparently there wasn't. Note that of the three examples you give, one is a redirect, one is a dab page, and "Spanish Florida" actually is a term that means something outside of Wikipedia. The article on Mexican Texas begins "Mexican Texas is the given name by Texas history scholars to the period between..." but for French Texas, it apparently could only be said that French Texas is the name given by Wikipedia editors. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  The reason it was named French Texas was that Fort Saint Louis was too specific a name, since the article covers more than that -- essentially it describes the history of French involvement in colonizing Texas. LaSalle expedition II was also suggested but that is apparently not a widely-used name in the literature. I agree a more generally used term would be better than "French Texas"; what could this article be called that correctly describes its content? Mike Christie (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  - The sources make extensive reference to the French Colony of Texas (Fort Saint Louis). [1] The term "french colonization of Texas" is used in a few sources, including ones cited in this article. It doesn't seem to be widely used, but its infinitely more widely used than "French Texas", by virtue of being used at all. Also, French colonization of Texas is a more generic term... with French Texas we're claiming something existed by that name, when it really didn't, but with French colonization of Texas we're claiming that a French attempt at colonizing Texas existed, which is true. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    Works for me. I suggest a requested move. Mike Christie (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
    - Sure, after the article is off the main page though, I assumed. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
      - It should never have made it to the front page with such a name. Who approves an FA status on an article with an obviously inappropriate name? This name is incredibly point of view, and violates original research by putting forth a descriptive name that no one seems to use (which was pointed out in the FA).--Crossmr (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
        Well, I'm not sure what your point is. Are you really asking about the relationship between FA criteria and article names? If so, nothing is explicitly spelled out; it's up to the reviewers. I think if a better name had been suggested it might have been adopted, but nobody came up with one. As it stands a requested move seems a sensible next step, if you feel strongly that another name would be better. Mike Christie (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I was also slightly bemused to see an article on the main page about something that, as far as I know, never existed. The name "French Texas" surely either implies that for a period of time Texas - or something close to the area of the modern state - was ruled or governed by France, as in Mexican Texas; or that there is currently a significant part of the state that is culturally French in some way, as in French Canada. The page had a perfectly good name at one time of "Fort St Louis" - the one small colony and the expedition to found it that 90% of the content is actually about - before it was moved to the much more ambitious current one. I'm not sure either that "French colonization of Texas" is that accurate either, as, again, it suggests the area was widely and successfully colonised by France. --Nickhh (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The colonization was unsuccessful, but it did apparently lead to French claims of sovereignty. In popular Texas culture the French flag is one of the "Six Flags" that flew over Texas. The problem with "Fort St Louis" as a name is that it is a little too small in scope; a reader coming to it from, e.g., the Six Flags Over Texas article would be surprised by the resulting article title. I am not sure what the best name is, but French colonization of Texas seems the best so far -- it's accurately descriptive and includes the claims of sovereignty, even if the colony was a disastrous failure. Mike Christie (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is that it shows a serious problem with the FA status if this was approved. An FA is supposed to be an example of our best work, and an article with an inappropriate name which doesn't follow naming conventions which some editors just chose because it went along with some other articles and then ends up creating point of view, and basically original research doesn't represent our best work, and it should never have been promoted to FA in that state.--Crossmr (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, sure. Opinions differ on this, but my own feeling is that WP:FAC is one of those places where criticism is less useful than participation. It's fine to make indignant comments about the shortcomings of the FA process, but that process has no magical safeguards. Only the time and energy of the participants can improve the quality of the output. So I'd say point taken (though I feel "serious problem" is too strong), but the best thing you can do to avoid a recurrence is to spend time there yourself. (And perhaps you do already; I'm not currently a regular at FAC so I don't know if you review there.) Mike Christie (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Any updates on the article title situation? I too believe that a broader title like French colonization of Texas is more appropriate for this article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved. --NE2 23:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

1688 or 1689

The lead section and the "History of Texas" infobox say the colony ended in 1689, but the detailed parts of the article say that the colony ended in 1688 and "around Christmas" 1688. Presumably 89 is a mistake, but I want to make sure before I change it because that would involve editing the infobox which presumbly appears on other pages. Does anyone want to defend 1689? Richard75 (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Santo Domingo

Is the "Santo Domingo" mentioned in the article actually Saint-Domingue, the French colony that became Haiti? Funnyhat (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Funnyhat, I am glad you mentioned this. "Santo Domingo," "San Domingo," "St. Domingo", "St. Domingue", "Saint-Domingue" (even Hayiti, Haiti) all were used to describe the island of Hispaniola, which didn't favor either side of the island as the locality of these names could have been anywhere on Hispaniola. (See the source I had added: Hispaniola#Etymology). The names depended on the knowledge of the historian, therefore many times for us looking back it can start a big confusion, one I hope to help clear up among articles. In this case however, the article is explicably referring to the French possession of Saint-Domingue, the western portion of the island. The French briefly controlled the (Spanish) Santo Domingo from 1795-1809 when acquired from Spain in the Treaty of Basel and is often referred to as the "French Santo Domingo". Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

WP US importance

Top importance, seriously? can we at least make it high importance?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French colonization of Texas. 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/20071224174656/http://www.txarch.org/archeology/topics/articles/louis.html to http://www.txarch.org/archeology/topics/articles/louis.html

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) 15:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020: Image issue

Guerillero if you are interested in tackling one that doesn't look too hard, File:TXMap-doton-Inez.PNG used in this featured article breaches MOS:ACCIM, as the tiny red dot is not friendly for the visually impaired, and is barely visible even for me! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I put together a location map since that is what our readers have come to expect -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)