Talk:Grand Canal (Venice)

message: Something as famous as the Grand Canal deserves a long article in Wikipedia, not just four short paragraphs. Nathanian 13:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion request

message: That section needs an intro paragraph to explain what it's talking about.
Is the series assuming that one is taking a boat around the canal? If so, in what direction and where does he start and stop.Peter K Burian (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this section, as it appears to be a directory and does not offer specific, encyclopedic information. This article starts by discussing the Grand Canal in Venice but quickly turns to describing architecture and the history of architecture of the buildings on the Grand Canal, which this article is not about - that should exist within the Venice article itself, Venetian Gothic architecture, or on a newly-created standalone page discussing architecture in Venice. This article should specifically discuss the Grand Canal and the history of the canal, not Venice history or architecture specifically. Garchy (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm pretty disappointed by the removal of the section of the single buildings on the canal. Besides the fact that I and many others worked very hard on it, I ask myself what harm does it do to the article? I, beeing very often in Venice, find it very useful and thats also the scope of an enciclopedia if I am not totally wrong. I believe there should be some sort of voting if this section has to be reinstalled. --Moroder (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi user:Moroder Thank you for your contributions, especially to this article. My concerns were that the information appeared to go beyond the scope of the Grand Canal, which is what this article is focused on. I do agree that the general information about Grand Canal architecture has immense encyclopedic value, and it should be expanded into a separate article. The numerous pictures seems to be far too many based on general consensus of the community. In the meantime I've created a sandbox for us to work on the material, so that it is not fully lost, I've made that here: User:Garchy/Grand_Canal_Architecture. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I appreciate and think a specific article is a good choice. I don't really understand what is wrong with that "numerous pictures seems to be far too many based on general consensus of the community" ?!--Moroder (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I am also very disappointed by the removal of the section of an itinerary of the canal. I worked on it hard, and was interested recently to see if one of the patrons of a church on the canal had a palace in the vicinity, but now I can not see the neighborhood of that church. Please create an article for this, you have removed a powerful resource for researchers. This should have been put up for debate before your move. I am disappointed that you can not see the value of such information. Rococo1700 (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Itinerary of what?  

message: I think that article should be consolidated with this one. Rococo1700 (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: I made an article titled [[Grand Canal (Venice) architecture]] with prior itinerary

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion