Talk:Tours Cathedral

Ruined or not?
The article state the cathedral now is ruined and implies that all that remains is the western facade. However, here there is a colored photo of the cathedral, and in the French article there is a colored photo from the interior. That means the cathedral was restored or was never destroyed. The question is if and when it was restored? MathKnight 20:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

this article is a mess : they are talking about the basilic, on rue des hall not about the cathedral that's two different buildings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phler2 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

They've got the heights of the towers wrong too; not that I've been there, but they're a lot taller than 223 and 226 feet. I'll see if I can find a reliable reference. Meltingpot (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

--- I started translating the french article, but i'm new to wikipedia, and i presume there is a lot of cleaning to do especially concerning templates things, and links to other pages It seems their is no Saint Martin Bassilica pages either (which was mostly what the previous article here was talking about) so i'll try to create it soon my english is not the best either, especially concerning special vocabulary on arts/architecture/religion/.... so i did my best. Phler2 (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The cathedral is not ruined a bit. It's the article that is totally ruined. I kinda believed that articles in Wikipedia were to go from god to better, but this one is a clear example of gradual degradation. GGenov 11:46, 9 October 2008 (GMT)

Well, when I look at the article now I figure that it really looks horrifying but the information in the old page is indeed mostly about the Bassilica (I must have done the writing late in the night). There are still things on the old page that should not be taken away. The images for example. With all due respect for Viollet-le-Duc, I think that his Ground Plan of the Cathedral is poor in information, and the scan needs a serious toch for quality. The old version of the Ground plan was more informative from historical POV. A combination between the two may be considered. The parts of the text that can be kept as relevant I'll check in the weekend and give my suggestions in the talk page (i.e. here). Conserning the old Black&White image of the cathedral - from the POV of architectural photography it is better then any image available on Wiki Commons. One last remark. It's fine to take the French page as a starting point, but it is very far from being good either. Cheers! GGenov 15:30, 10 October 2008 (GMT) -

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)