Talk:Sainte-Trinité, Paris

Title

Just wondering, why is this article titled in this slightly odd why ("Ste.-Trinité") when all the other Wikipedias, as well as the church's own website feature the full "Sainte-Trinité" title, which is surely easier? Is this convention? Rob (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Move?

Église de la Sainte-Trinité (Paris) → Église de la Sainte-Trinité — No need for qualifier, as is the only article about this French church at the moment. Rob (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• But there are likely hundreds of churches in French-speaking areas dedicated to the Holy Trinity. Leaving "(Paris)" in the name shows which of these churches the article is about without having to download the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ah righto - would it be possible to move it to Église de la Sainte-Trinité, Paris, then, please? Rob (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Didn't need admin intervention for that move. Rob (talk) 09:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Article rating

The rating on this article was changed from Stub to Start. However, the Stub tag on the main part of the article was not removed. The definition on the quality scale defines a Stub class article as:

The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.

This article definitely meets that quality level as it is mostly a rough collection information written almost list style. The article is unreferenced which is a definite sign of a Stub article. A Start article has meaningful information that is properly written with citations.

I will place that tag on this article and recommend it be reverted to Stub class on the quality scale.--Morenooso (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

References needed tag

Usually when that tag is placed on an article, you do citations as well. To slap a book title as one reference is not the best citation method.--Morenooso (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the rating to Stub; the added reference relates to the information which I added so "unreferenced" is no longer true.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)