Talk:Bordeaux
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Bordeaux is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
 |
||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses. | |
Contents |
[edit] Umm...
I'm thinking someone went a little overboard with all the pictures. Lmz00 06:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add latitude and longitude, but I can find how to edit the infobox. Please somebody, add this info :
Bordeaux, France 44°50 N 0°31 W
source : http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001769.html
also, could someboy add a edit caption on the infobox
- You can edit the infobox here Template:Bordeaux infobox. Rl 12:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Why do a template if this template is only used on this page? antoinou2958 22:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] New Infobox Template proposition
I'd like to bring your attention to a new - or other - version of the "Large French Cities" infobox presently at use in a few French cities pages. The present version is much too large, partly because it consecrates too much space to information having little importance to French demography and an only distant and indirect relevence to the city itself. Instead I propose to follow a less cumbersome model closer to that used by the New York City article - you can view the new version in the Paris talk page here. Please view and comment. THEPROMENADER 22:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- As a result of discussion, there is an updated template available for perusal in its 'published ' form (filled with data) here - all comments welcome. -- THEPROMENADER 07:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ecclesiastical History?
What is it with this appearing in all the city articles? It far outweighs any other topic, yet is of only one particular interest presented from one viewpoint. This sort of subject can only be encyclopedic under its proper heading, that is to say "Ecclesiastical history of Bordeaux." Please move it to its proper place. THEPROMENADER 23:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Not only is it a matter of opinion whether such sections should be moved out at all, the phrase 'proper place' is not only disputable in its intention but positively improper since it is far better, if you must move it out (which is your option, so your 'trouble' -a simple cut and paste without having to bother with creating and resolving any (red) links is done in a jiffy- by choice and gloriously messes up redirects) to give it a more general name, (arch)diocese or (arch)bishopric as the case be, since sililar articles exist, not pages called ecclesiastical history, which was meant as a section header but makes little sense on its own, so other contributions on non-historical aspects of dioceses can be fitted in. Fastifex 13:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps I should say, concerning your contribution, 'its own place' means 'accurately descriptive namespace' and 'space ample enough for all the detail it contains'. I will not be getting into a discussion about the details of this, although I do see the sense in your "Bishopric of" rather than "Ecclesiatical history of". I would much rather that you, the more knowledgable on the subject in which you are contributing, undertake this extraction/article creation. Thank you if you do. THEPROMENADER 20:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Flags
Deleted flags as per this diff, this article WP:FLAGS, this debate, and this admin. One down, umpteen thousand to go. Pedro | Talk 21:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
