Talk:Place Vendôme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information and associated task forces:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Associated task forces (nations and regions):
	French military history task force

"gang of Communards" is not NPOV. I replaced it with other intent, we shall find a Wiki-consensus soon!!!

[edit] Statue

It's unclear from the article as to whose statue is on the column today. Dr. Dan 02:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone has substituted for "Bourbon-Condé family", "Chateauroux family". I believe this is incorrect: duc de Chateauroux is indeed a Bourbon-Condé title, needless to say. Would someone knowledgeable see to this? --Wetman 23:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonne mentioned too early in "History"

Something is not right in the part of article under "History". The second paragraph jumps into the 19th century with the history of the colonne, then we have to wait until the fourth paragraph for the origin of the square three centuries earlier. For proper continuity, paragraphs 2 & 3 need to go after 4; however, because of the pictures, I am afraid I will do something wrong if I touch it, thus becoming a vandal against my will! Someone please help. Frania W. (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the first paragraph of "History" is itself out of place - the fourth should be the beginning of "History", then it should go on following chronological order. Frania W. (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I've shifted paragraphs for more logical progression and to give the Column its own section. Is that better now? It seems so to me.--Wetman (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Wetman, now it makes more sense. Frania W. (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)