Talk:Canadian French

We need dit
Or perhaps Template:French-Canadian name.

Louis Riel mentions the subject's wife Marguerite Monet dit Bellehumeur, his friend Father Fabien Martin dit Barnabé, and "a passionate romance with Evelina Martin dit Barnabé, sister of his friend, the oblate father Fabien Barnabé", but links/says/indicates nothing about this "dit", not even a dot or a dah. See, and please ping me and discuss there.

--Thnidu (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Table accuracy?
Some items in the table seem to be switched - ie. what should be French Canadian is listed under France, and vice versa - eg. parking vs stationnement, milkshake vs lait frappé, and a few others. My own French is rusty as hell, but I have definitely heard both sets of words in Montréal for many of these cases ("weekend" is particularly common, I think I only ever heard "fin de semaine" in school); however, I honestly cannot remember if I have also heard them in other, more monolingual parts of Québec. (I know most of Quebec along the St. Lawrence and south to the U.S. border reasonably well.) Thus I don't know is whether both options are now considered French Canadian, whether the speaker in some cases spoke continental French, whether some of the terminology is unique to Montréal, or whether the term has become common Franglais. Could someone with both "France" French familiarity and Canadian French familiarity please take a look? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge French language in Canada into Canadian French. I think that the content in the French language in Canada article can easily be explained in the context of Canadian French, and the Canadian French article is of a reasonable size that the merging of French language in Canada will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Cornellier (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the two should cover different facets - they're a bit muddled at the moment but that's better addressed by editing than merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * These two pages should be merged according to the Wikipedia policy WP:REDUNDANTFORK. What justification can you offer for going against that policy? What are these "facets"? What "editing" are you proposing to do? I'm looking for solutions, rather than just keeping the status quo. --Cornellier (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done some appropriate splitting and merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your efforts but moving some content from French language in Canada to other articles doesn't address the underlying problem: there is not enough good, different, content to justify two articles. Canadian French is now a laundry list of varieties, an unreferenced table comparing apparently randomly-selected vocabulary with French of France, and a scattershot selection of anglicisms. And the difference in subject matter between the two articles is unclear -- would these be the "facets" mentioned above? The question of why two articles are required has not been answered. --Cornellier (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is primarily a linguistics article, focusing on the dialect and its varieties. The other is primarily a historic/sociological discussion of the French language in Canada, focusing on legal and political concerns. You clearly are not happy with the quality of this article, which is fair - but not a rationale for merging. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "rationale for merging" ? ... it's proof of the need for a merge. Content suffers when editors' efforts are spread too thin. We have French Canadian, French Canadians, Franco-Ontarian, Quebec French, Acadian French, Newfoundland French, Joual, Brayon, Chiac, etc. What can French language in Canada add that can't be covered in these other articles without WP:OVERLAP? No other wikipedia, including fr.wikipedia.org has this pair of articles. --Cornellier (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is one of scope. "Canadian French" is -- heroically -- not a traditional dialect article, because, as the article avows, "Canadian french" is merely an umbrella term for the various dialects (your "laundry list" -- I should note here that a so-called laundry list is a very useful compendium). So not a traditional dialect article -- owing to the unique political situation in Canada surrounding French. You can't call the predominant dialect "Canadian French" without raising untenable problems, but by the same token you cannot deny that there is no such thing as Canadian French. And things that exist merit Wikipedia Articles.
 * Language cannot be extricated from politics. But as an umbrella article it serves as a vital entry point into this topic, with necessarily a larger scope than any of the articles it links to. At the same time, histories of the various provincial organisations and summaries of bilingual schooling and language conflict are not germane to this gateway role, which is why there is an important need for "French in Canada" which is more about the historic and sociological aspects of the language, rather than the specifics of its variegation in Canada. — Muckapedia (talk) 24 e mai 2020 10h03 (-4h)


 * Support merging Canadian French to French language in Canada per Muckapedia. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per and  —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. I would suggest renaming French language in Canada to History of French in Canada. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 14:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Continuous underline symbol
I wonder if an editor familiar with this subject would have a look at underline ( ⎁ ), please? It only has two lines and the second is a supposition than needs a citation and/or a correction. Thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * For your convenience, this is the current text of the section:
 * In Canadian French, it is correct orthography to underline the masculine and feminine ordinal indicators and standard keyboards are engraved accordingly: a symbol, an underlined 'letter a with ellipsis', is available to document this use..
 * Comments welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)