Talk:Occitanie

Chateau de Gudanes

That chateau restoration project sounds like a pretty good voluntourist attraction. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Found a link to the chateau's website. Also a bit of Restore and Stay as well. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you add it as a listing to Ariège? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Odd text

Current text mentions "the fascinating but fraudulent walled city of Carcassonne". What, if anything, is fraudulent about it? Pashley (talk) 13:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it was under the romans "capture list" SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

In the 19th century, Viollet-Le Duc set about "restoring" the rather dilapidated Carcassonne, but in the process added loads of faux medieval features that were never part of the original, including the famous conical turrets. This history should be discussed in the Carcassonne article, but perhaps the text here (mine) should also be expanded just so it's not confusing.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

In fact, this is already explained in this article, in the Cities list. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Aire de Montjaux 03.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems similar to earlier requests, which have been closed as delete. They have been contested on the grounds that such engineering works wouldn't be protected as works of art, but unless somebody can explain the French law in more detail, the probability of it being kept are small. The engineering company CEVM (Compagnie Eiffage du Viaduc de Millau) enforces it claims on copyright. Copied to here. –LPfi (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

My very limited understanding was that photos like this which don't have the copyrighted structure as their primary focus, but merely in the background, are allowed. But I couldn't name or quote the relevant law.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Avoiding the bridge would severely restrict taking photos of the valley, so it might count as "incidentally included" according to US terminology, but this photo is clearly intended to be a photo of the bridge: see how it is framed to include all the bridge and not much on its sides. The composition would be rather dull without the bridge. –LPfi (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah! Yes, that was the point of the contesting user. The question is whether all of the bridge or just certain features of it are copyrighted. But for arguing the point you'd need to know the French law, to convince the closing admin. –LPfi (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)