Talk:Mont-Saint-Michel

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jcgy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ferry

I notice the comment about replacing the causeway with a ferry. I cannot discover any information about this... though I have been able to find information about making it a bridge to stop the silting up problems. Can anyone back this up? User_talk:Renata you made the point - do you have a weblink for this proposal? CustardJack

It may be a problem with a translation of the word navette which means shuttle, but also frequently refers to ferries. The official site of the désensablement project is here: English version. Man vyi 06:45, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why the line "it is also claimed by Brittany" was changed. It was a neutral statement. Would "it is also claimed by Bretons" be better? Doire, 16:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not a diplomatic question whereby the region of Brittany claims the territory as per a territorial dispute between states. It's also not even to be compared with the "claim" to Loire-Atlantique. I think the folkloric nature of the rival claims is adequately dealt with for encyclopaedic purposes futher down, although perhaps more detail on the vagaries of the course of the Couesnon would be useful, but should probably go in a Couesnon article. (Disclaimer: I'm a Norman ;-) and therefore not disinterested) Man vyi 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings

I have noticed that there is a citation needed tag on the point stating that the appearance and structure of the city of Minas Tirith in the final Lord of the Rings movie was based on MSM - if the author fails to cite his point, why not just remove the point altogether? NoahMoth

Height?

It surprises me that nowhere in thisarticle does it mention the height of the island. Is it 30m, 50m or 100m? --Mark J 14:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The appropriate thing to do in such cases is to determine the information and add it -- that's what Wikipedia is all about. I've done so. -- Jibal 09:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture

The picture looks almost exactly like a 1960s photo of the Mont. Are we sure it isnt the same one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spwicy (talk • contribs) .

A view of the Golden Gate Bridge from the Marin Headlands.

Isn't MSM one of those places where everybody takes the famous shot? Another example is the Marin Headlands where everyone stands on the hill and shoots the view looking towards the Golden Gate Bridge with the San Francisco business district in the bacground. Only the varying fog lets you realize that it isn't the exact same photograph used by thousands of people. ;-)

Atlant 19:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

a map, perhaps?

Just thought it might be useful to have a map showing where it is... I'll see if I can find one. Do you think one should be added? 71.71.198.236 23:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've done a map of Lower Normandy showing Mont St-Michel and other interesting sites. There is a copy available on my article [france-travel.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_normandy_coast] with an inset showing the region on a map of France. I'd be happy to supply a larger version.(Joanne brannan 21:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)).

Hey Wikipedia users!! Y'all need a map of Mont Saint Michel!

File:Msmfr

Mont Saint Michel

Fixwizard

World War II Damage and Rebuilding

I seem to recall a tour guide telling me that large parts of many buildings were almost completely destroyed in the second world war, and that much of the buildings that we see today are in fact modern replacements done in a sympathetic style. Is this a false memory, or can anyone provide sources? Andrew Oakley 13:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of nearby St. Malo. -- Jibal 03:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I know about the rebuilding of the walled town of St Malo (lovely town, try Bar Absinthe!). I specifically recall hearing a tour guide say that "la salle des hôtes" room in Mt St Michel was the only original room unaffected by the bombing, which did not need rebuilding. Andrew Oakley 11:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Mont-Saint-Michel was not destroyed at all. Nothing !Nortmannus (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Replacement of first image

I replaced the image titled Mont-Saint-Michel-2004.jpg with a very similar picture but without the color issues. I hope no one minds. Please leave me a message if you do. Janet13 02:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly a nice picture, thanks! But I've rearranged the pics, partly to put a view of the whole Mont at the top. With an expanded gallery, the photo with the sheep is now nearer the mention of the sheep in the text. Man vyi 05:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, I don't see a pic with sheep near mention of sheep in the text. And I can put up another picture with a more complete view of Mont St Michel (I just cut off a little bit of the left side of MSM on the pic I uploaded)... the current opening pic has color/fading issues that I find a bit off-putting as a lead photo). Thoughts? Janet13 20:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, the page just refreshed. Wonder why it took so long. Janet13 20:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

sono una marionetta ia ia oo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.247.157.39 (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Funding/Economy

What is the source of revenue/funding/economy for Mont Saint-Michel? Naturally I assume tourism and wealthy patrons are key, but I wish there was some specific information on that. I'm sure there's a mini-economy operating there. What is the closest economic center to the island? ~ Rollo44 03:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Other than the Catholic church, I'm sure the main funding stream is rent from tourist shops/restaurants and parking fees from visitors. Unfortunately I can't cite this, that's just from a personal guess as someone who has visited the place dozens of times, so I won't update the article. The largest nearby city is the regional capital Rennes (pop. 200,000; 80km/50 miles away). It is also within a 45 minutes drive of three major English Channel ports, St Malo, Cherbourg and Caen, St Malo being the closest at only 40km/25 miles. Despite being a Catholic centre, it is very popular with English tourists. As an English tourist myself, it seems very commercialised (holy water in bottles the shape of the mountain, Virgin Mary pencil cases, eleven knuckle-bones of Christ etc). Andrew Oakley 17:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous editors removing material with no discussion and no edit summary

On May 6, this material (possibly among other material) disappeared: "Mont Saint-Michel is located in Normandy in the department of Manche. Its name comes from a small island, a granitic outgrowth approaching 960 meters in circumference that reaches 92 meters above sea level, dedicated to archangel Michael. The extraordinary architecture of Mont Saint-Michel and its bay make it the most visited tourist attraction in Normandy and the third in France (after the Eiffel tower and the palace of Versailles), with some 200,000 visitors each year. Classified as a historic building in 1874, the site has been a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1979. The church is crowned by a gold statue of St. Michael. which was sculpted by Emmanuel Frémiet, reaching a height of 155 metres (510 feet) above sea level. 48°38′10.05″N, 1°30′40.9500″W."

While some of that material remains, scattered throughout the page, much does not. -- Jibal 03:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Text has been deleted.

I notice that there is obviously missing text under the header "Tidal Island". Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to make corrections.

Ve2dc (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move of this page

I propose that this page be moved to Le Mont-Saint-Michel (the correct name of the commune according to the INSEE Web site), and that this become a redirect to that page, rather than the reverse. Ksnow (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Ksnow

I'm not sure that this is the best approach. This article is about a different subject matter from the actual commune, and the name Mont Saint-Michel, I would suggest, is well-known. Maybe there should be another article called Le Mont-Saint-Michel (commune) or something similar to distinguish the two different subject matters. Kiwipete (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC) (p.s. please place this notice in WP:FRCOM so you can get feedback from a wider audience)

Who lives there?

I think the article should say who the 41 people are that live there. Are they monks? I can't tell if this place is a monastery or something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.85.43 (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is monks, would we ever know they're there? Monks don't talk to anyone, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixwizard (talk • contribs) 17:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to Start an Edit war, but...

Can You Please stop editing this page, stating that Heartcatch Precure! The Movie was also set in Mont Saint-Michel where The Pretty Cures defeat Baron Salamander?!

because, Everyone knows that Mont Saint-Michel was a Realistic City in France!!! >:( — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONS3Tnow (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Heraldry

Have just corrected the Heraldry section by translating from. 86.26.254.183 (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The heraldry section needs to add the formal blazon of the coat of arms. It's in the Wikimedia links from the coat of arms. Coat of arms of Mont-Saint-Michel city (Normandy) drawn by SSire (version "saumons") for Blazon Project of French-speaking Wikipedia, with Inkscape. Source: unspecified - Blazon: azure two bars wavy vert, overall two salmons argent in bend sinister placed palewise, the upper one facing sinister — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob Richmond (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Restoration of the Bay

There should be some content on the project to restore the bay at Mont Saint-Michel. As of April 2012 vehicles can no longer park along the causeway. Instead there is a new lot 2 km from the island and tourists can either walk from there or take a free shuttle. In 2014 pedestrians and shuttles will travel on a new bridge instead of the causeway. In 2015 the old causeway will be dismantled and Mont Saint-Michel will once again be an island. See http://www.projetmontsaintmichel.fr/en/why_act/objectives.html and http://www.accueilmontsaintmichel.com/change/en. 68.163.165.253 (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, this is mentioned in the Tidal Island section. Don't know how I read past this. 68.163.165.253 (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

monastic order?

I could not find any history of what monastic order or orders have lived at Mont Saint-Michel which was my main reason for looking it up on Wikipedia, does anyone know? I also noticed that someone have mentioned this same thing in 2010, thanks. Mickey 26/02/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.201.234 (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

According to the abbey's French web site (Histoire du Mont-Saint-Michel), it was founded as a Benedictine abbey in 966, transformed into a prison 1791-1864. A restoration was begun in 1874, and it remains a Benedictine monastery since 1886. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There is now a wikipedia article about the Mont Saint Michel Abbey that talks about the religious history of the place. The article needs a lot more to be of good value but it's a start. Nodar95 (talk) 22:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Le Mont-Saint Michel

Its very small, I don't want to live there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.56.63.128 (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Controversy regarding Finnikin of the Rock

At 10:46 on May 23, 2013 an anonymous contributor added the book “Finnikin of the Rock” in the “In popular culture” section of the article, along with a reference for it. This edit was reverted a few hours later by Eric with for justification “doesn't seem notable”. I disagreed with this as the book takes place, in his first chapter, at the Mont Saint Michel and the reference provided support for this fact. So I reverted the revert, along with this justification.

A few hours later, Hchc2009 removed the line, this time arguing “this tells us something about the origins of the book Finnikin of the Rock, but nothing really about Mont Saint-Michel”.

There is at least some misunderstanding here of what this part of the article is about. “In popular culture” means use of the Mont Saint Michel as a set, reference, etc.. in movies, books, films, music or any other mean of popular culture. EVERY entry in that part of the article is about the use of the Mont Saint Michel as an inspiration. So Hchc2009 is saying to have the entire section “in popular culture” of the article removed. Wikipedia articles are about encyclopedic knowledge of a subject and as far as I know the use of an historical place as inspiration in popular culture is part of that knowledge, especially when many pieces of that popular culture have their own Wikipedia articles.

Users Eric and Hchc2009 would you mind elaborate more on the reasons you removed this specific information? As so far it looks more like a feud against the book “Finnikin of the Rock” that anything else.Nodar95 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I should say at the outset that I doubt there's any feud being conducted against the book Finnikin of the Rock; from my perspective, at least, I can assure you that have no strong views about the novel either way.

One of the challenges in any Popular Culture section is balancing one of the major benefits of the wiki, the ability to reflect current popular culture, with the need to avoid the inclusion of trivia. I would argue that articles are rarely improved by stray connections between topics (e.g. "in video game X, location Y appears in part Z", or "in novel A, character B mentions location C in passing"), but certainly benefit from information that adds to the understanding or perception of the topic of the article itself (e.g. the popular image of the village of Portmeirion is certainly influenced by the series the The Prisoner).

This connection can be asymmetric. If I were editing the article on Finnikin of the Rock, the cited statement by the author that "in the first chapter of FINNIKIN, I knew it would be Mont Saint-Michel in France and although my climb was nothing like Finnikin’s, the smell and the views and the atmosphere was all there including the room where Finnikin first sees the novice Evanjalin" might be quite relevant (albeit a primary, rather than secondary, source); the reverse, that our understanding of Mont Saint-Michel is influenced by its appearing in Finnikin, might be less clear, and indeed probably original research. Melina Marchetta is talking about her novel, not the Mont. The Mont has been standing for thirteen (?) centuries or so; that it inspired the first chapter of Finnikin isn't all that important to the Mont's history, relevant though it is to the novel.

As it is, the article is, in my opinion, bloated in the popular culture section and shouldn't be expanded yet further without good cause. Indeed, I'd argue it should be cut back. How important is it, really, to the location that "Contemporary Mont Saint-Michel is displayed in the game Onimusha 3: Demon Siege (2004) by Capcom", or that it appeared in the "1985 : IMAX film Chronos"? I suggest that this is, to be honest, trivia - potentially relevant to the articles on Demon Siege and Chronos, but not to the Mont. I'd feel differently, I'd admit, if there were secondary sources about the Mont commenting on the links (e.g. a journal article or a part of a guidebook talking about its use as a film set etc.) - but at the moment we don't have them. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Those are very good points and made me realized that this section is indeed too long compared to the rest of the article. I wouldn't know which part to cut back and which to keep so I just added a cleanup tag hoping some discussion can emerge as to what to remove.

Maybe the cut could be done by limiting the mention to a few major pieces in each type of cultural media. Or to the one with Wikipedia articles about them. Or either to a list of authors/directors/musicians that used the Mont Saint Michel in their creations. I am aware that none of those are perfect solutions.

Alternatively we could create a new article (list?) dedicated to the use of Mont Saint Michel in popular culture, then even the smallest reference to it could be part of it without altering the balance of the main article. Nodar95 (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I rather like your last option. It's not a purist approach, but I've used it elsewhere, and it allows (particularly) new editors to add material from popular culture, without having to discourage them through reverts. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Well said, Hchc2009, and good of you to take the time to make your point so well on this topic. I'll be tempted to quote you on the talk pages of many articles with voluminous "in popular culture" sections. Eric ^talk 12:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I've created a subsidiary article for the popular culture, linked it from the relevant section, and cut down the list on the main article page. If anyone disagrees with my selection - I tried to base it on the referenced items, with a cross-section of media - please feel free to amend, alter etc.! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Awfully good of you to do that. Might have to make a new acronym for you: WBCOD—way beyond the call of duty, or maybe better: BOBTAT—bending over backwards to accommodate trivia! Thanks. Eric ^talk 19:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

External links

An SPA has been repeatedly adding a non-noteworthy link to this section (a generic bloglike site at http://www.listofwonders.com ); but not only does this not really add anything, I can't see that most of the rest of the links do either. The Official site obviously belongs, and perhaps the INSEE population statistics (which could do with a little explaining, as it is in French). I haven't investigated much, but there must surely be 100s if not 1000s of blog articles on "My visit to MSM", which do not merit a link. So I suggest the rest should be removed. Any other suggestions? Imaginatorium (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Area?

97 hectares seems a bit high - on maps, the island looks like it is at most 300 metres across, and thus I'd estimate it as 6 hectares. The internet disagrees (16-fold) so maybe I've misunderstood, like perhaps the area is measured at low tide or something. I'd edit it myself, but (i) I'm not that confident, and (ii) five minutes with Google hasn't come up with a definitive alternative, other than various travel guides stating "Massive walls measuring more than half a mile in circumference surround one of Europe's great attractions" which would tend to support my estimate.

Thank you and good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.139.102 (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. On satellite imagery the island looks no more than 1000 feet across, meaning the area would be more like 10 hectares not 100. If 100 hectares is correct then more explanation on what is covered/owned is needed. I also do not want to change the article as I am not an expert on this subject.

This has been raised before. I guess that the "area" given is the area of the commune, which includes a chunk of the surrounding marsh, and even perhaps some mudflats. A bit of grinding around the french sources would probably sort it out. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

18 year High Tide

This may be useful information to add to the article, but I am not sure where. March 21 2015 18 year High Tide surrounding Mont Saint-Michel with water. Explanation and photograph: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/explained-the-supertide-that-swallowed-a-french-abbey1/ Jcardazzi (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

Title, and commune name

Back in 2008 someone briefly suggested this should be moved to Le Mont-Saint-Michel, since this is the formal name (according to fr:WP) of the commune -- but (rightly, IMO) this did not happen, since the article is really about the geographic feature, rather than the French administrative division. However, currently the lead opens with Le Mont-Saint-Michel, which is inconsistent with the rest of the article. Before changing this, I would like to check if there has been discussion I have missed. Note that fr:WP has separate articles fr:Le Mont-Saint-Michel and fr:Mont Saint-Michel (note the different hyphenation, as well as the definite article!). I suggest the lead should refer to the name as in the title, and there should be a brief note about the slightly different name of the commune. Any opinions? Imaginatorium (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mont Saint-Michel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100113215212/http://www.l-co.co.jp:80/times/log/09/090522/28.html to http://www.l-co.co.jp/times/log/09/090522/28.html

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Smithsonian magazine source

This might be a useful source for some of the questions about the economy, government, and other things: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/massive-controversial-attempt-preserve-one-worlds-most-iconic-islands-180951441/ Cloveapple (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mont Saint-Michel. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081218070040/http://www.i-newswire.com:80/pr233899.html to http://www.i-newswire.com/pr233899.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mont-Saint-Michel/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs reference citations and references. Badbilltucker 01:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 00:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Is Mont Saint Michel Really In France?

No! It's in Normandy! Everyone thinks of it as French territory, however, it isn't!!! --Fixwizard (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to break this to you, but Normandy has been French territory since 1204, with a brief seizure by the English. Ogress 17:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Size seems wrong

How can this be 0.97 km², the island is only about a quarter km in diameter? The area is off by at least a factor of ten. In the St Michael's Mount article, it is claimed that St Michael's Mount is smaller, but it is in fact bigger, not smaller! The measurement (allegedly "French Land Register data") must either include areas not part of the mount, or the two islands are measured differently. It cannot possibly be the geographical area of the mount itself. Edit: sorry, I didn't see the comment above. Still, it's a pointless measurement, which leads to the wrong assumption that St Michael's Mount is smaller, obviously based on this "administrative area" or whatever it is, which has nothing to do with the size of the actual islet.

2.108.158.80 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There's somehow now a link below this to the French article. It clearly states that the island itself is 7ha, which is 0.07 km². That is the area of the mount itself, relevant when comparing with the British mount (for example). Both measures should be included in the article, because in the article it is written as if the 0.97 km² is the area of the island. The commune itself is much bigger than 0.97 km², that number isn't even in the French article at all, that article says it's 387ha. There are two Mont Saint Michel articles in French, one about the commune (Le_Mont-Saint-Michel) and one about the mont (Mont_Saint-Michel). In the article about the mont, there's only one size mentioned, 7ha. Edit: it just dawned on me that 9 is awfully close to 0 on a keyboard. It is curious that the number is 0.97 km², when the real size in 0.07 km². I suspect that it could be a simple misprint. 2.108.158.80 (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I have updated this to 4.00 square kilometres, as I suspect the 29 population figure refers to the commune as a whole, too, and it makes sense to be consistent. Squajar (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mont Saint-Michel. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306104458/http://www.miyajima-arimoto.co.jp/information/2009/05/post_27.html to http://www.miyajima-arimoto.co.jp/information/2009/05/post_27.html

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) 15:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Visitors

Are visitors allowed? When is the best time to visit? How much does it cost to visit? How far drive to the nearest town? 68.3.235.60 (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Buildings

I need pictures of the buildings. Are there restaurants? Are there hotels? Are there some kinds of bigger buildings? I want to know. 2A00:1D50:3:0:90A9:3530:1FC1:62FD (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Oldest known likenesses of Mont St Michel?

When did depictions of Mont St Michel first appear in print/paintings/drawings/early film and early photography? 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:C599:16AB:8915:7F65 (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

In Popular Culture: Cinema

Should be added that the 1990 movie Mindwalk is set in its majority in M-S-M 77.124.169.59 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia please learn how the English language works

Just before I typed this I found "This made the mount definitively part of Normandy, and is depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, which commemorates the Norman Conquest." in this article. The word "This" referred to a event in 933AC. The verbs "made" and "is depicted" both have "This" as their subject. So, the sentence can be expanded to "This EVENT made the mount definitively part of Normandy, and THIS EVENT is depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, which commemorates the Norman Conquest.". But that's hooey. The event that occurred in 933AC is most definitely NOT depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, according to the article on the Bayeux Tapestry. Mont Saint-Michel IS depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, but when you type that sentence in this article that is NOT what you're saying. In the sentence "This made the mount definitively part of Normandy, and is depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, which commemorates the Norman Conquest.", the word "mount" is NOT the subject of the verb "is depicted". That's just not how sentences work. If the event made the mount definitively part of Normandy, and if the mount is depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, you can't do this "and is depicted" jazz as if the event and the mount are the same thing. It should be "This made the mount definitively part of Normandy, and the mount is depicted in the Bayeux Tapestry, which commemorates the Norman Conquest." Using "the mount" as the subject of the verb "is depicted" DOES NOT needlessly/redundantly reiterate/duplicate "the mount" as subject, because before that clause mount WAS NOT the subject. The word "This" standing in for the 933AC event was the subject. "The food made my dog sick and threw up" is not how English works. The FOOD didn't throw up. You can't chain the object of one clause into being the subject of another clause and then say "it's redundant" and leave it out. When you change horses in the middle of the stream, you have to mention both horses. This is stuff that my HIGH SCHOOL ENGLISH TEACHER would have sat and explained to you patiently. And if you got into college without that, then I know many college professors who'd explain it to you patiently. But they were getting paid. I'm not. If you don't get this about grammar, please stop putting your ill-formed sentences into a source where I'm eventually going to end up reading them. This comment is stuff you should have learned in HIGH SCHOOL, but didn't, and didn't learn in college, and here you go typing stuff anyway. Please run it by someone's cold eyes before you paste it in.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson