This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

France This template is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Literature This template is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles

See also Template:French literature.
--R-C-R-J-- (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

There is a discrepancy in the information given about Eugene Ionesco and his play Rhinoceros. The French site says his hatred for conformism relates to the racism inspired by the war in Algeria. The English site suggests that it is due to the rise of the fascist Iron Guard in the 1930's in Romania. He probably was influenced by both, but it would be good to clarify the entries. Katt Muskuna 09:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

((editprotected)) Just wondering if tnavbar could be changed to navbar to avoid an extra redirect? Similar to what was done with Navbox -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Plastikspork (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((edit protected))

Weird that it's fully protected but whatever. Please add Category:Exclude in print to this template, as navboxes should be excluded from Wikipedia-Books. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created a doc page, and added it there. So at least interwikis and cats can be added without making editrequests. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((edit protected)) This is especially important since this was an outgrowth of Robert Delaunay and other's experiments in proto-abstract expressionism.

The word

other's

should be

others'

108.18.101.145 (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Adam Peiperl[reply]

Disabling. Does this refer to one of the articles linked by this template? The template itself doesn't contain the word "others". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the last line of the template, there seems to lack a blank space between "Literature portal" and "This box". Can that be changed? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation of this infobox is idiotic. The portals should be on the same line, without anything shoehorned into the v.d.e. line. Varlaam (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an oversight to me, gang. Varlaam (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, who is running the show around here?

The lack of activity on this page implies no one is. Varlaam (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can request unprotection of pages/templates at WP:RFPP. But, in this case, I have stepped down the protection to semi for you. Thanks for the note on my talk page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot.

Even those who've been around for a while have trouble with where to go for this, that, and the other.

Maybe there should be a page with a giant flowchart.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder why it is blocked... Could I also edit this page? --R-C-R-J-- (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

it's only semi-protected, confirmed editors can edit it. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to have added links for the portals "France" and "Literature" to the template. Now, we should also add "Portal:French language and French-speaking world" and "Portal:French and Francophone literature". What do you think? --R-C-R-J-- (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

added. Frietjes (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --R-C-R-J-- (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Is it necessary to have this great clunky box at the top of articles, as here? It buggers up the layout, adds little of use to the reader and looks awful. I vote to move it somewhere less obtrusive in the article if we must have it at all. Tim riley talk 15:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]