Talk:Schönebeck
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Schönebeck article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This is another occasion where the town article and the district article should have been merged. There is very little point in keeping town and district apart as, to take just one example, the River Elbe connects both and the flood meadows being part of the district villages take up a lot of the high-water volume when flooding does occur in and around the town as did happen two years ago. This aspect should be brought out, it is part of the story of Schönebeck. --Dieter Simon 01:23, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I shall mark it as a Wiki:Duplication article, not tonight though as it's late (;o). The town part needs developing, too. It is a spa, after all. Dieter Simon
- I strongly disagree - the city and the district aren't identical, and thus shouldn't be covered the same article. The only things where the two articles might partially overlap is the history. Don't forget 90% of the area of the district does not belong to the town, but are politically separate entities with their own history, geography, coat of arms etc. Of course the stub we have for the town needs enlargement, but not by throwing together things which don't belong together. andy 21:05, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)