Miscellaneous desk
< July 1	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 2

Ville Radieuse and Ville Contemporaine

What countries were these two cities planned to be built in? I am categorising Category:Unbuilt buildings and structures into their country subcategories, but neither the article or a Google search makes their planned country obvious. Ollieinc (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The French article on Ville radieuse (unlinked to the English one), here [1], says the design was for a neighborhood in the city of Meaux, in France. As for the Ville contemporaine, the Le Corbusier foundation [2] states it was a theoretical project not designed for a particular location (critics claimed he was planning for a city to be built on the moon, i.e. that the design was not at all practical). --Xuxl (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax tip: fr:Projet de ville radieuse à Meaux —76.121.122.152 (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about eBay feedback system

I have two questions about the feedback system on eBay. (1) Is it true that a seller can only give a buyer positive feedback (and never any negative feedback)? I thought that I had read this somewhere at one time. (2) If you give another person feedback, can you later rescind, retract, or delete it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) is true: [3]. (2) You can't change feedback later [4]. RudolfRed (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (1) Any idea what the rationale is that all buyers must always receive positive feedback? That seems to make no sense. Clearly, all buyers are not "perfect", and some buyers will be problematic and have issues that others should be aware of. If a member only buys (and never sells), he will always have a perfect 100% rating. What's the point of that essentially meaningless score/rating? (2) Your second link actually states that a person can in fact later revise/edit feedback. (See the third bullet point down.) No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that the rational for (1) is that they don't want sellers to be able to retaliate for bad reviews from buyers by giving those buyers bad reviews, in turn. So, they've decided that having accurate reviews of sellers is more important than of buyers. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that rationale somewhat makes sense. It would seem a better idea to have no ratings for buyers at all, as opposed to a meaningless ratings system where the only rating possible is "100% perfect / good buyer". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, that's something like the smiley face a teacher puts on a student's homework, it's just there to make them feel good, not to be an accurate rating system. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]