Wikipedia

Talk:Lausanne

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Eric Carpenter in topic Population bare URL, reference 2 in article
Learn more about this page

Cathedral (top) image placement and coordinates

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There have been various attempts to fit the cathedral image on top so that it wouldn't break page setup (conflicts with ToC when aligned on the left), but in my opinion (and probably Attilios' too) the result of its alignement on the right just below the infobox is somewhat ugly, ackward at least. It would be nice to have an image on top for sure (other than the CoA), but it would look much better within the infobox, unfortunately the "Swiss Town" infobox seems to be unappropriate for that without very non-standard markup.

As for the coordinates in the first paragraph (which are already stated in the infobox actually), I moved them to the header using the "CoorHeader" template, I think it looks better so.

In any case, it would probably be wiser to discuss further edits here concerning these two points. What do you think ?

Matthieu Houriet 19:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

You seem to know what you are talking about and seem concerned to improve the page (I have no technical skills). I say, do what you think is best. Good to see only one picture of the metro. Trompeta 14:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm doing by best indeed, but since I'm rather new to Wikipedia editing, I only apply WP:BOLD with care. Your comment makes me a little more confortable with this though :) Matthieu Houriet 00:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Update: The Infobox Swiss town template was edited today and now includes the CoorHeader template, so they can no longer be used together (overlap). Consequently, I commented out the CoorHeader template in the article. I didn't remove it for now because it's only testing (see rev. history of the template). Matthieu Houriet 00:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Language

edit
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is the first time I read that the French of Switzerland belongs to the Franco-Provençal group of languages; perhaps that used to be the case but surely not any more, not even in the Gros de Vaud. I always thought of it simply as Swiss Romand with some influences from the Savoie and some German additions dating from the Bernese occupation and the influx of German wives and 'suisse alémanique'. Can anyone provide a small lexicon? The only one that comes to mind is 'fada' instead of 'fou' for 'crazy'. Other words like chenil (mess) or étagère (shelf) are not (are they?) specifically of Franco-Provencal origine. Trompeta 11:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

Galleries

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a lot of activity in the art galleries section. On March 12 Vdubner added the Dubner gallery. I'd suggest to remove the category altogether as it is clear this is only ()ab)used for self-advertisement. Pkoppenb (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Errors with most articles on Swiss cities

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

At the moment, all Swiss articles seem to suffer from the same problem. To begin with, would someone please how to edit the population figure in the infobox? The line with population that comes up when clicking on edit is not the one actually displayed in the infobox, the latter is not possible to access in any way I've discovered. For most cities, the population figure shown come with a reference (not found anywhere in the editable version) that does not contain any data to support the population. Quite often there's a different population figure given in the text. In other words, most articles in Swiss cities suffer from three problems: 

- A population figure that it is not possible to edit.
- This population figure is usually unsourced (the source provided does not support the claim)
- A different population figure is often found in the main body of the article.

Jeppiz (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Suggest you take this to Template_talk:Infobox_Swiss_town - the population figure's taken from a 'municipality code' field in the template and comparing it with some dataset - I don't know enough to help here and suspect that'll be a better place to ask. --Peeky44 What's on your mind? 00:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

File:Bejart 1984.jpg Nominated for Deletion

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:Bejart 1984.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lausanne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

What is the German name for Lausanne?

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Bid thee to strengthen the article with whatever it may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.32.34 (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

If there is one, it's probably fallen out of use. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Lausanne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Lausanne. 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) 11:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

de: Lausannen

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

The ancient usage of the German term Lausannen is totally outdated (probably since centuries) as the given references (even added by user Sapphorain himself) cleary indicates (sic!). Outdated naming does not belong to the heading section but eventually to a Naming paragraph. Please Sapphorain, finally (!!) start to learn the policies and consensus of WP first, before you undo correct changes! -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

According to the German page of Lausanne this is not outdated, as it is even mentioned in the lede. It is time that ZH8000 start to realize that his own private opinion does not constitute a consensus. Sapphorain (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
As you should know for quite a while : WP is never a valid source!! Further, the given reference undoubtly writes the obvious naming situation in even three languages, including yours: fr: "ancien nom all. Losannen", de: "dt. früher Losannen", and it: "antico nome ted.: Losannen". As you can see, it is not even "Lausannen" but "Losannen" you should refer to, but those days there was no official (centralised) orthography available yet in German (and the French "au" sounds like a German "o"). – Astonishingly, it was even you who added this reference (well, after my request). – Comment: It is astonishingly how you refuse to accept an even obvious mistake by you. You definitely need to improve the seriousness and quality of your edits in the future to stay accepted (see your own talk history). -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
No. The source I gave, [1], lists « Lausannen » as a current used spelling in German, and 4 other spellings as older. Being nasty and insulting will not prove you right. Sapphorain (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
So, obviously you fudamentally misread/misinterpret what the purpose of your "source" is. It, the GLOSSARIUM HELVETIAE HISTORICUM (sic!), does NOT explicitly list current usages of "Flurnamen" (geographical names), BUT all Flurnamen with different spelling/naming – independent of when it was used. It does NOT differentiate between current and ancient usages!! It is so obvious, that it is really outrages to think differently. So your "source" is not valid. I can tell you I never ever read or heard one single person saying or read a work writing about "Lausannen/Losannen", except for a historical context; and I can tell you, I read a lot (German!)! It is such an outrages idea that this could be a current usage. The problem with your source is that it does not make explicit that the listings also (the majority actually) include historical/ancient/outdated namings/spellings! No surprise, since it explicitly refers to the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, (HDS) where you can find out whether a term is ancient or not (SEE MY PREVIOUS LINKS!!!!!). Actually, the GLOSSARIUM HELVETIAE HISTORICUM is a service by HDS!!!
Yes, "Lausannen/Losannnen" is a historical term, only, very much actually. Just show me one seriously redigated article/book/newspaper article that use the term Losannen in a not historical context!?!! Thanks. – Ok, then go and undo your own undo. -- ZH8000 (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
BTW: Even the (NOT valid as a refernce) German WP does say so: "veraltet auch Lausannen und Losanen". I just mention it since you said above that "According to the German page of Lausanne this is not outdated", which is obviously simply wrong. -qed- -- ZH8000 (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
No. The first entry, in roman type, in each language refers to currently used spellings, and the ones in italics to historical ones. The fact that you never encountered something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It is probably rare, granted, but it exists. It is not by underlining, bold typing, and babbling endlessly without providing any source that you will prove your point. Sapphorain (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
That's nonsense. Again, you are inventing things even though the source says something completing different:
de: "Innerhalb der Artikel erscheinen die Hauptformen der amtlichen bzw. ortsüblichen Namen ("Endonyme") halbfett und gross, diejenigen der historischen Exonyme normal, alle Nebenformen schliesslich sind kursiv wiedergegeben. Bei den Verweisen wird typographisch zwischen den einzelnen Formen kein Unterschied gemacht."
fr: "A l'intérieur des articles, les formes principales des noms officiels ou indigènes ("endonymes") sont affichées en gros caractères demi-gras, celles des exonymes historiques en caractères normaux. Enfin, toutes les formes secondaires sont imprimées en italique. Dans l'affichage des renvois, on ne fait pas de distinction entre les différentes formes."
it: "Nel testo degli articoli, le forme principali dei nomi ufficiali o indigeni ("endonimi") figurano in maiuscolo e in grassetto, le forme principali di uso corrente in grassetto, quelle degli esonimi storici in caratteri normali. Infine, tutte le forme secondarie sono indicate in corsivo. I rinvii non distinguono tipograficamente tra varianti principali o secondarie."
ro: "Entaifer ils artitgels cumparan las furmas principalas dals nums uffizials resp. dals nums usitads al lieu ("endonims") en scrittira mez grassa e cun maiuscla, las furmas principalas dals exonims usitads anc oz en scrittira mez grassa, quellas dals exonims istorics en stil normal e tut las furmas secundaras finalmain en stil cursiv. En il cas dals renviaments na vegn betg differenzià tipograficamain tranter las singulas furmas."
Are you actually able to read? Obviously, it is absolutely necessary that I use pronounciations, otherwise you just do not percieve it. Actually, I am not surprised. – Again, go and change it back, since you are undoubtly falsified. -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
ZH8000, please remain civil in these discussions. It's not about you or them; it's about the content and determining what should be included. Please be careful about what you say in the future. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply
Well, Primefac, that's easy to say and expect, but if you have to fight against stubborn wind mill wheels "all the time", it is not that easy to suppress your frustration about the wasted time and effort. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Frustration is fine, but insulting people (Are you actually able to read?) is not. As a reminder, if neither side concedes their point, a Third opinion may always be requested. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am requesting a third opinion. Sapphorain (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Both the hls-dhs-dss and the GLOSSARIUM HELVETIAE HISTORICUM agree that Lausannen is a historic name, not a current form. Additionally, the Amtliches Gemeindeverzeichnis der Schweiz does not include Lausannen as current name. Therefore I believe that at most it could be mentioned as historic name in the article, but it does not belong in the LEDE or to be given as a common name. On another note, the incivility by ZH8000 is part of a larger pattern which may lead to s/he being banned, which would be a loss to the project since many of his/her edits are quite good.Tobyc75 (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
So, can we finally close this futile issue of ignorance? -- ZH8000 (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
ZH8000, no, and for goodness sakes tone down the hyperbole. I would like to hear from Sapphorain, who requested the 3O, because it goes against their original position, before starting up another edit war. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Primefac, oh dear, don't you get it that this is just a (narcistic?) game for Sapphorain?! Nobody with enough knowledge about German in Switzerland (and enough education) would say anything else with the slightest doubt. And the given sources are the most profound you can get in Switzerland.
In such cases as this one, the otherwise very useful rules and policies by WP are failing dramatically, because it supports the deranged psychology of some rather disruptive editors than to fulfil the legitimate and real goals of an excyclopedia, namely to be precise and correct. Well, WP is indeed failing to this respect to quite a large degree anyhow, I know. At least I try to fight it with my modest possibilities. But, WP can and should definitely not be the open playground for psychologically deranged individuals living out their personal inabilities, e.g. the inability to give in, at least when being confronted with inevitable facts which prove them undoubtably wrong. Sapphorin is obviously not able to do so (see his next contribution, the next stage of denying given and documented facts, namely by changing the meaning of words. LOL) – I must admit that despite my initially strong commitment to the original thought of WP, I will soon lose my patience and just leave my WP contribution behind forever, primarily because of such utterly disruptive users like Sapphorain. And probably, this is the moment to do so. -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
I agree that this term is rarely used. But for instance there is a Lausannengasse In Fribourg. The term is in the lead of the German page, which got a label of good article, with the qualification « veraltet ». « Veraltet » doesn’t mean « outdated », it means « old-fashioned ». This last precision ("old-fashioned") can be added, but I disagree with the opinion that it should not be in the lead of the English article. Sapphorain (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Lausannengasse is a street name (not the town). Of course, its origin is very old and didn't change since its creation. But it does not prove the slightest aspect about the current naming of Lausanne, rather vice versa. You are indeed rediculous and fundamentally pathological. Full stop. -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Comment: The Sapphorain (talk · contribs) unfortunately does not understand that his claim ("Lausannen is a currently used German term for Lausanne") does not only fail, but he also does not get the hang of that even his own (sic!) source does falsify his claim (see my previous statements, in particular the fifth!)! This user should learn to read more carefully, much more actually. Or could someone tell me, how I should handle such stubborness? -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Protected edit request on 3 October 2017

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The "Historic population" subsection contains a broken reference and appears to be missing a chart. Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Jessicapierce (talk) 02:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done Primefac (talk) 12:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Spam

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under "Economy", Logitech is said to be "huge". This is spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.29.112 (talk) 10:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Fixed. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Protected edit request on 25 October 2017

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

212.147.27.122 (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Empty request disabled — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
Climate data for Pully (Lausanne) (1981–2010), Extremes (1981-2010)
Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Record high °C (°F) 14.9
(58.8) 		15.8
(60.4) 		22.6
(72.7) 		25.5
(77.9) 		31.3
(88.3) 		33.6
(92.5) 		35.2
(95.4) 		37.1
(98.8) 		28.6
(83.5) 		25.4
(77.7) 		19.8
(67.6) 		17.7
(63.9) 		37.1
(98.8)
Mean maximum °C (°F) 11.3
(52.3) 		12.6
(54.7) 		17.8
(64.0) 		22.1
(71.8) 		26.9
(80.4) 		30.3
(86.5) 		31.0
(87.8) 		30.3
(86.5) 		25.7
(78.3) 		21
(70) 		16.1
(61.0) 		11.6
(52.9) 		32.2
(90.0)
Mean daily maximum °C (°F) 4.4
(39.9) 		5.6
(42.1) 		10.1
(50.2) 		14.0
(57.2) 		18.7
(65.7) 		22.4
(72.3) 		25.0
(77.0) 		24.4
(75.9) 		19.8
(67.6) 		14.6
(58.3) 		8.6
(47.5) 		5.3
(41.5) 		14.4
(57.9)
Daily mean °C (°F) 1.2
(34.2) 		3.0
(37.4) 		6.6
(43.9) 		10.0
(50.0) 		14.4
(57.9) 		17.8
(64.0) 		20.3
(68.5) 		19.7
(67.5) 		15.8
(60.4) 		11.6
(52.9) 		6.1
(43.0) 		3.2
(37.8) 		10.9
(51.6)
Mean daily minimum °C (°F) 0.3
(32.5) 		0.7
(33.3) 		3.5
(38.3) 		6.4
(43.5) 		10.7
(51.3) 		13.8
(56.8) 		16.1
(61.0) 		15.9
(60.6) 		12.6
(54.7) 		9.1
(48.4) 		4.2
(39.6) 		1.4
(34.5) 		7.9
(46.2)
Mean minimum °C (°F) −4.9
(23.2) 		−4.4
(24.1) 		−1.7
(28.9) 		1.4
(34.5) 		6.2
(43.2) 		9.2
(48.6) 		11.7
(53.1) 		11.6
(52.9) 		8.3
(46.9) 		3.9
(39.0) 		−0.5
(31.1) 		−3.9
(25.0) 		−7.0
(19.4)
Record low °C (°F) −16.7
(1.9) 		−12.7
(9.1) 		−9.1
(15.6) 		−2.9
(26.8) 		2.1
(35.8) 		5.2
(41.4) 		9
(48) 		8.2
(46.8) 		4.4
(39.9) 		−1.2
(29.8) 		−6.2
(20.8) 		−10.1
(13.8) 		−16.7
(1.9)
Average precipitation mm (inches) 77
(3.0) 		67
(2.6) 		78
(3.1) 		87
(3.4) 		117
(4.6) 		112
(4.4) 		92
(3.6) 		110
(4.3) 		114
(4.5) 		113
(4.4) 		93
(3.7) 		92
(3.6) 		1,153
(45.4)
Average snowfall cm (inches) 10.9
(4.3) 		14.3
(5.6) 		1.6
(0.6) 		0.2
(0.1) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.0
(0.0) 		0.0
(0.0) 		1.1
(0.4) 		7.0
(2.8) 		35.1
(13.8)
Average precipitation days (≥ 1.0 mm) 10.1 8.8 10.2 9.8 12.1 10.4 9.0 9.5 8.8 10.1 10.2 10.7 119.7
Average snowy days (≥ 1.0 cm) 2.9 2.8 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.9 9.8
Average relative humidity (%) 78 73 68 66 67 66 65 68 73 78 78 78 72
Mean monthly sunshine hours 72 97 159 179 201 229 252 234 183 128 79 58 1,872
Percent possible sunshine 29 37 46 47 48 54 59 58 52 42 32 26 46
Source 1: MeteoSwiss[1]
Source 2: StatistiqueVaud [2]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ClimatPUY was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ (in French) http://www.scris.vd.ch/Default.aspx?DocID=8033&DomId=1961.

Protected edit request

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I motion for an admin to remove the French names for Lake Geneva from the lede. It seems WP:UNDUE to say what those names are, seeing as this article is not about Lake Geneva. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lausanne. 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) 13:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Bio Paragraph is Poorly Written.

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When reading the introductory paragraph I lost my place multiple times. While reading it I had to go back multiple times to see if I was reading the right way. This might brood poorly over my reading skills, but I am not the only one reading the article, and someone with a lower reading scale than me might have a hard time comprehending the introduction, and along with other parts written the same way. I just recommend writing the introduction in a way that most people can understand, and have an easier time reading. Jeydog12 (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Bread cart office?

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Turkish paper Servet-i Funun had an image of a "bread cart office" https://archives.saltresearch.org/bitstream/123456789/129372/674/PFSIF9180829A061.jpg . This was in the WWI era. I'm not sure if further reliable sources write about it... WhisperToMe (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Density

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This might seem a little odd, but if you look at Lausanne on a map it becomes clear that the density figure is thrown off by a large unpopulated forest holding to the north and above the city - the forest of Jorat. This forest area is approximately equal in surface area to the populated part of the city, so the average density in experience really is off by quite a bit.

I don't know what the rules are for calculating this sort of thing, or if there are ever exceptions made for this kind of situation, but it seems worthwhile to bring up. Mark J (talk) 15:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Population bare URL, reference 2 in article

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone edit the link for reference 2 in the article so it isn't a bare link, a bare URL? I can't seem to locate it when editing the article, cheers. Eric Carpenter (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lausanne&oldid=1242339112"