Talk:Picardy
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
The contents of the Picardy (region) page were merged into Picardy. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (March 31, 2012) |
Needs map
It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in France may be able to help! |
A map would be helpful here - can anyone provide one, please? Rodparkes 03:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The map currently (19 Jan 2011) shown isn't correctly presenting Picardie (but Pas-de-Calais). The map on the French page is correct: Picardie_region_locator_map.svg … Fixed!
Merge with Picardie
Isn't Picardy and
- Not actually. The one is the historical province, the other is the current administrative region. However, I do think that distinguishing them merely by the final letters is nonsensical. One is the English and the other the French spelling but the names are identical nonetheless. Str1977 (talk) 08:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- In French, we only say "Picardie", we don't have two words one for the administrative region and one for the historical province, they are the same! I don't understand why you mark this difference in English, it shouldn't!
http://global.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/459264/Picardy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:D31:F23B:5D4B:C506 (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Move to talk
"Whimsical enough is the origin of the name of Picards, and from thence of
What's this? It appears to be a quote from Gibbon. But we cannot simply put it into the article - it has to be integrated regarding NPOV and factual accuracy. Str1977 (talk) 08:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Picard people
The
Merge redux
I know there was a merge proposal a few years ago, but I really think it needs to be discussed again. As a reader, it's incredibly confusing to a) notice and b) figure out the difference between a historical region and a current one (as evidenced by the fact that I began editing this article thinking it was woefully narrow in scope and only hours later realized there's
- I agree. It's confusing to have both, especially since they are each so short. XOXOXO, Dave (Please help! 16:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)]
- Cool, glad you agree. Let's wait a bit longer for others to comment, and if there's no disagreement I'm happy to try to work them into one nice, comprehensive article :) Accedietalk to me 03:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree. There is very little overlap between the two articles, even though essentially they are both about the same place. Merging them should provide a better (and longer) article. Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, it looks like this is pretty non-controversial. I'll start merging. Accedietalk to me 00:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Terrible merge
By merging these articles without anybody involved having any idea what they're doing, we now have no article that really discusses Picardy as a historical province. The map of the historical region was also removed without any discussion as being "incorrect." There ought to be one article about the historical province, and a separate article about the modern day region, which has very different borders. The historical province is significantly more important than the region, which has only existed for 30 years, especially since French regions have rather indistinct governmental roles (most governmental functions are carried out at the departmental or communal level, not at the regional one). john k (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
It's easy
Create an article "Picardy (historical province) and another "Picardy (French region) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:D31:F23B:5D4B:C506 (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)