This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi, I'm hoping to do a little work adding some refs here and there to this article. Anyway, if anyone would like to do a little colloboration that'd be great. I also tagged the following as spam: "The architectural joint-venture team of SANAA of Tokyo and the New York-based IMREY CULBERT LP were awarded the project on September 26, 2005.SANAA, Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa with Tim Culbert and Celia Imrey / IMREY CULBERT LP [3]) SANAA is a widely recognized Japanese architectural firm, noted for its ethereal designs. IMREY CULBERT is a US/French architectural firm, specializing in museum and exhibit designs, with offices in New York and Paris. Tim Culbert, project architect that led the team's submission for the Louvre-Lens project, was previously an associate-partner of I.M. Pei, architect of the Pyramid of the Louvre." Lazulilasher ( talk) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
ALSO! I'm going to move this discussion to the article's talk page so that other editors can join in the discussion if they happen to run into it...always looking for more colloborators! Lazulilasher ( talk) 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the map is a good idea, but the text in that section needs to be longer for the layout to work. Perhaps we could add a bit more to the Location and access section. Finetooth ( talk) 04:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>I would never do that, but I see a non-sentence that needs fixing in the last paragraph of the "19th century after Napoleon" section. It begins right after the word "majolicas". I can't fix it because I can't be sure what you had in mind. Finetooth ( talk) 21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm just starting on the Departments section. I've made minor MOS tweaks only. I see a problem with this sentence in the Egyptian antiquities section: "In fact, Egyptian artifacts taken from the royal collections were displayed earlier and although the department was opened in 1826 following a decree by King Charles X who had been impressed by the collection of Jean-François Champollion, who was appointed director." I don't think this is actually a sentence, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Finetooth ( talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I fixed a couple more citations this evening and rewrote the Abu Dhabi paragraph. The existing link to Time was dead, and the New York Times piece said almost the same thing. More tomorrow. Finetooth ( talk) 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The money quantities in the article are generally expressed in modern $US or euros; I've been converting and adding whichever of these two is missing and putting euros first. I don't know what to do with "135 pieces at a cost of 720,000 francs" in the Napoleon section because inflation would make that number bigger in today's francs and because francs are neither euros nor US$. It doesn't do the reader much good to know the 720,000 number without having something familiar to compare it to. Got any preferences about how to handle this? Finetooth ( talk) 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>I hasten to add that the map you've made is an improvement. Finetooth ( talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I hate to be a wet blanket, but I doubt that the Reference section gadget will survive any reviews. I haven't found anything yet in the MOS about it, but I've never seen an FA or GA with this device. My personal feeling is that it makes the references harder to edit because it interferes with checking the whole set at a glance for consistency. Finetooth ( talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>I'm barely out of kindergarten in map-making, but I like maps a lot. I like yours, both of them, and they are good additions to the page. As was the case with Shackleton, you are the content expert, and I am the assistant familiar with the dark arts of citations and comma splices. I think we make a good team doing it this way, and I'd be glad to help in the same way with the Tuileries Garden or other articles. I have one big project going on for which I'm the main writer, and it's nice to go back and forth between different jobs and roles. Finetooth ( talk) 04:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I found a couple of English-language sources for the first paragraph of the Lens-Louvre material and the last two sentences (about the architects) of the second paragraph. I had to modify the first paragraph to fit the source, but I didn't have to change it a lot. I have been unable to find a source for the statistics in the first part of the second paragraph of this section, starting with "The new satellite museum, funded by the local regional government... " Maybe you can find one in French; that would be better than no source. Finetooth ( talk) 03:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Is "Sarcophagus of a married couple" the same as Sarcophagus of the Spouses ?
I thought it was, and a redirect was needed, but on checking on the web I found reference to two very similar works.
But the Louvre site itself, at http://www.louvre.fr/llv/activite/detail_parcours.jsp?CURRENT_LLV_PARCOURS%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673416588&CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673418994&CURRENT_LLV_CHEMINEMENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673418994&bmLocale=en shows info on one with a picture of the other.
Need an art expert to confirm/deny they are one and the same, and perhaps then a redirect (and a link from the Louvre article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Something is missing from a sentence in the first section after the lead. "In 1546, removed the medieval keep... " lacks a subject. Finetooth ( talk) 00:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Gonna review for GA -- Intothewoods29 ( talk) 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Good job. I'm thinking it passed. I really liked how it was organized, good thinking. I fixed a few minor grammer things... Some suggestions for FA: I'd get rid of or move the reference to the Davinci code in "Third Empire to Present"... and I'd make sure to look reread it yourself, in case there's anything I missed. I'd also like a picture in the Paper section, since it's the only art section without a visual example.
GA PASS REQ.S:
1. It is well-written and is easy to read. Grammer is correct. It has an informative lead section, is free of jargon, thoroughly explains any little-known historical events, etcetera etc.
2.has references for everything, backs up any info. Contains no original research.
3.It stays on topic.
4.Totally NPOV
5.stable (pretty much lazulilasher, good job)
6.plenty of images that help a lot, with copyright tags and captions
Congrats. Now go out there and make this an FA! Intothewoods29 ( talk) 20:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I saw your request on the Articles Needing Copy Edit page, and I figured I'd give it a go. I probably won't post the changes until tomorrow or (hopefully not) later. I'm going to print the article out and spend some quality time with a red pen for now, and I'll put up the changes soon.
If anyone here is interested in joining the battle against bad grammar and general violations of the MoS, head on over to WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit. -- Peacheshead ( talk) 00:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've posted the update. This is a nice article you've got going here. Just a reminder, though: you should only wikilink to something once in an article. That was probably the most tedious part of copyediting this. There must have been, like, 10 links each for the French Revolution and Venus de Milo. Otherwise, like I said, it's a nice article. I'd like to see it get featured, so keep up the good work. :D
If you have any questions about what I've done, you can go to my talk page or head over to WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit. Once again, if anyone's interested in joining, we could always use some help. -- Peacheshead ( talk) 01:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I just archived the talk page with discussion from 2003-2007. The old conversations are located in the archive box above. Lazulilasher ( talk) 17:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I note the discussions above, and admit I am one of the 15 people on the planet who find this interesting. However I am not sure it belongs in the lead. Mcewan ( talk) 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought 3 possible explanations were too many (and all seemed a bit implausible), until I looked at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palais_du_Louvre#Origine_du_nom, which a small dissertation on the subject. I haven't fully researched yet, but it seems to me that the most likely and quite widely held opinion is that the name came from Lupara which was on the deeds from the 12th Century. Variously reported as meaning kennels in Latin, or a place name related to lupus, wolf. Mcewan ( talk) 21:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Whilst it is fine in Firefox, the layout is broken for me with IE7 on a PC. Large areas of whitespace where the text floats below a picture (e.g. Napolean in the history section), and several pictures that display partially or not at all (e.g. the diadem (partial) and the plan (not at all). Could be transitory Mcewan ( talk) 21:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded a bit on the controversies section, and I see that you've fixed up a few of the minor mistakes and flaws in the article. More than a few, in fact. The article is definitely improving, and is slowly nearing completion. I think that pretty soon it'll be ready for Featured article nomination. I'll see if I can find any errors or technical problems in the text of the article, although I'm plesed to say they are becoming fewer and fewer. Keep up the good work. Jor dan Contribs 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is another discussion from my talk page. This time regarding moving the building history to the Palais du Louvre article, as per WP:SUMMARY.
I must agree with you. The size of the article is a problem, and is prohibitive to most readers. The fact is simple: the article needs to be broken into more sections. The French Wikipedia has an article on the Louvre Museum seperate from the whole Louvre article in general. It would be prudent to split the article, thus making the article clearer and more concise, and narrowing down the scope a bit. It would be easier for a casual user to find or research information on the museum itself if the information were in a seperate article. However, consensus must be accheived before this change can be initiated. Jor dan Contribs 21:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I find I did not express myself clearly enough. Clearly, the article is about the museum. However, could we not split it into timeframes? The Palais du Louvre refers to the Louvre as the formal royal palace, during a specific period of time. Could the same not be done with some of the history sections in the Louvre article? Jor dan Contribs 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through the whole article again, and I'm finding less and less to grumble about. Here's a list of two things undone that might be done.
The article keeps getting better and better. Good job. Finetooth ( talk) 03:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. by Frania Remnants of the fortress are still visible in 2nd par. of introduction is repeated: remnants are still visible in the crypt, in 1st sentence of History, which is a more logical place for it. I suggest its removal fm introduction. Frania W. ( talk) 03:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes! And a question. As we move forward with this article, what does everyone think about the "weight" given to each section (history/administration/collection)? Are we overly detailed in any areas, and lacking in others? Would the "neophyte" reader find himself missing a big part of the picture? Lazulilasher ( talk) 06:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The top image in this article is simply massive on my browser. (Firefox run on Mac OSX) By massive, I mean that it's so big that it takes up the entire screen, and then some. It really needs to be resized. The entire layout of the page is messed up for me. I'd do it myself, but I have no clue how and I'd hate to make it even worse. -- ChandlerH ( talk) 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed this from the page next door for several reasons.
Also, for all the major works, each has its own page, and doesn't require more info than the basic, unless it is really relevannt to the museum itself. Amandajm ( talk) 12:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed these words from the section Painting because Francis never acquired a Michelangelo painting. He doesn't appear to have owned the "slaves" because they belonged to Anne de Montmorency, then Cardinal Richelieu. Francis may well have persuaded Mighty Mick to part with a drawing or two. I followed the references and it led to the Louvre website. However, the writer (on that site) who says that Francis acquired works by Raphael and Miichelangelo fails to state what it was that he acquired. Raphaels are fairly plentiful, an amazing thing, considering his short life, but Michelangelos (unless we are talking drawings) are only slightly more common than hen's teeth, and his major pictorial works are all attached to walls. People think of Michelangelo as a famous painter, but sometimes don't realise that apart from the Sistine Chapel, there is only one single bonafide Michelangelo painting in existence Doni Tondo, another that probably is, (the Deposition) and one that just might be an early work or pupil's work, (Manchester Madonna). For this reason, I'm desirous to know what work Francis succeeded in acquiring. Was it a statue that has since disappeared? I spose I'll have to check the provenance of everything.... Amandajm ( talk) 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Second pararaph: "In 1750, Louis XIV authorized his paintings to be transfered from the quarters of the royal financial administrator to the Spanish infanta's former apartment in the Louvre. " Louis XIV was dead at the time. So... whats up with thaaaat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.214.190 ( talk) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to move this article to Musée du Louvre (like fr) because it is the actual and accurate name. -- Scriberius ( talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
While I have no doubt that the Louvre is the most visited *art* museum in the world, I'm not sure that it's the most visited museum. I've seen a couple sources point to Washington DC's National Air and Space Museum as most visited museum ( [3]. Lots of things [4] seem to cite 9 million annual visitors there which is more than the Louvre gets. But if you google around you'll find lots of lower numbers as well, down to 6 million or lower. I believe NASM itself doesn't have an official count. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntler ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two references which cite a "Simon" (currently refs 26 and 27). What book is this? It does not appear in the Works cited section. - RunningOnBrains( talk) 13:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Paris July 2011-27a.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC) |
The article states in its introduction that the official name of the museum is Grand Louvre which seems to me to be an error. As i searched the official website of the museum I haven't found the mention of this name at all. Instead every image and every logo has the name "Musée du Louvre" (Louvre museum) on it. Also, when there is a mention of copyright the name used for it is Musée du Louvre. But actually I did not found a page clearly saying that "Musée du Louvre" is the official and sole name of the museum. But I am almost sure that Grand Louvre is not the official name of the whole museum but only the name used for the extension project of the museum that begun under the presidency of François Mitterand in the 80's and that led to its actual form with the Grande pyramide etc (see fr:Grand Louvre on French Wiki)... So, I think that we should remove this information unless someone can prove with a document stating it that "Grand Louvre" is the official name of the museum. -- Tancrede ( talk) 19:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe it should be mentioned that before The Louvre became such an immense structure it was comprised by 2 separate palaces: Le Palais du Louvre (Louvre Museum today) and the Palais des Tuileries (Palace of Tiles, nonexistent). This second palace was built, or comissioned, on the West side, by Catherine de Medici. The 2 palaces were later connected by a passage which we know today as the Grand Galerie, the longest Galery within the Louvre Museum. In later centuries, I believe the 19h century, the Palais des Tuileries was set on fire and destroyed by a Communard during the Paris Commune, never to be restored. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuileries_Palace) Instead, its ruins were demolished entirely, giving the Louvre the openness needed to include les Jardins des Tuileries (the Tuileries Gardens) as part of its complex to the West. ( Simbelmyne9 ( talk) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC))
Bourbon Palace ? v_atekor ( talk) 22:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
"Musée du Louvre" sounds like French. This isn't French Wikipedia and we shouldn't use (until isn't very necessary) the French expressions. May I rename this article to Louvre Museum to undo this fundamental language error. Alex discussion 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be headed under "Louvre Museum" instead of "Musée du Louvre"? Gryffindor ( talk) 06:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to The Louvre ( non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Musée du Louvre → The Louvre – This was moved back in 2010 because Musée du Louvre is the "official name". Wikipedia does not use the official name, it uses the common name used in English language sources. "The Louvre" or possibly just "Louvre" is clearly that common name. Ryan Vesey 06:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Up to several months (maybe a year) ago, one could hear the name "Louvre" pronounced. It was useful - even here, in Washington, DC do the otherwise great classical radio announcers mispronounce the name as one syllable, rhyming with "move". Svato ( talk) 15:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The Louvre → Louvre – The definite article "the" is not part of the name. See, for example, this page (in English) at the museum's web site. "The" is not capitalized in running text, as in for example: "Support the Louvre", and therefore should not be part of the Wikipedia article title according to WP:THE. Robert.Allen ( talk) 05:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to expand upon the role of Napoleon I in the development of the Louvre by bringing many works of art back to Paris as a result of several military campaigns. Francefans1791 ( talk) 16:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I was told the security system at the Louvre runs on an Origial IBM PC computer from the early '80s because it can't be hacked or get viruses?
Any truth to this or just urban legend?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 ( talk) 22:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I was going to erplace the image of the Louvre Palace under "conservation", but according to Freedom of Panaroma, in France, that's none-existant and you must have licence to take pictures of public buildings featuring artwork, historical significance. The picture i was going to replace was the picture of the Louvre Palace in CONSERVATION. Here is my picture: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Le_Louvre_ext%C3%A9rieur%2C_Paris%2C_France_-July_2014.jpg/640px-Le_Louvre_ext%C3%A9rieur%2C_Paris%2C_France_-July_2014.jpg |
So, could i replace it, or would that be breaking French laws? However, I would be uploading the image in USA lands which has Freedom of Panorama in affect. If not, do I need permission from the Louvre? MonsieurNapoléon ( talk) 19:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice for some high ranking Wikipedia users to reply to our requests. You can not blame us for an unapproved edit since no one official approved it. Just saying.
MonsieurNapoléon ( talk) 19:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 14 external links on
Louvre. 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:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
For this user, a visit to the Louvre enlightens their day ! |
If you like Louvre museum like me, you may put this Userbox on your userpage like this: {{[[User:UBX/Louvre]]}} --
Tangopaso (
talk)
16:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Call me naiive but an ouvre-bouteille in French is a bottle opener. The Louvre is situated where the river seine opens wider around the ile de la cite and ile st Louis. Should Louvre actually be L'ouvre - the opening or widening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex-the-grate2 ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Louvre. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Louvre. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Louvre. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello - there seems to be an error in the Louvre page linking. When the cursor is run over the link, the map image appears from the info box when it should be the photograph. I am not sure how to fix this, perhaps someone else can resolve it? Regards 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 18:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
There have been two recent edits on the "pyramid photos":
I feel that the second edit (the more recent) is not an improvement over the first, because it made the photos overpowering WRT the rest of the article. It is of course a matter of taste. What do y'all think?
-- Roger Hui ( talk) 12:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
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) 03:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
In other articles, hovering on a link to this article, the image one gets is not the expected iconic frontage with glass pyramid but instead the map of Paris. I came here to switch the images so that the picture is first, but it is already in that order. The preview should be the picture, not the map but I cannot see how to fix it. Can someone tweak the infobox so the correct preview shows onhover please? Cheers, Captainllama ( talk) 20:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the title "Louvre" is a little strange; nobody anywhere calls it "Louvre". I would vote for "Louvre Museum", which seems closest to the official name.
I also think we should use a different image for the infobox; this new one is difficult to recognise, since its taken from an odd point of view. I would go for the traditional image with the pyramid and the courtyard. the pyramid, like it or not, is an integral part of the museum, and the primary entrance for most museum visitors. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 19:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Although ‘the’ is almost always used with the name, it is never capitalized and therefore not part of the name. Robert.Allen ( talk) 04:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I want some lines on la louvre 27.58.122.201 ( talk) 11:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Paris, France/Musees/Louvre and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 6#Paris, France/Musees/Louvre until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hi, I'm hoping to do a little work adding some refs here and there to this article. Anyway, if anyone would like to do a little colloboration that'd be great. I also tagged the following as spam: "The architectural joint-venture team of SANAA of Tokyo and the New York-based IMREY CULBERT LP were awarded the project on September 26, 2005.SANAA, Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa with Tim Culbert and Celia Imrey / IMREY CULBERT LP [3]) SANAA is a widely recognized Japanese architectural firm, noted for its ethereal designs. IMREY CULBERT is a US/French architectural firm, specializing in museum and exhibit designs, with offices in New York and Paris. Tim Culbert, project architect that led the team's submission for the Louvre-Lens project, was previously an associate-partner of I.M. Pei, architect of the Pyramid of the Louvre." Lazulilasher ( talk) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
ALSO! I'm going to move this discussion to the article's talk page so that other editors can join in the discussion if they happen to run into it...always looking for more colloborators! Lazulilasher ( talk) 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the map is a good idea, but the text in that section needs to be longer for the layout to work. Perhaps we could add a bit more to the Location and access section. Finetooth ( talk) 04:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>I would never do that, but I see a non-sentence that needs fixing in the last paragraph of the "19th century after Napoleon" section. It begins right after the word "majolicas". I can't fix it because I can't be sure what you had in mind. Finetooth ( talk) 21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm just starting on the Departments section. I've made minor MOS tweaks only. I see a problem with this sentence in the Egyptian antiquities section: "In fact, Egyptian artifacts taken from the royal collections were displayed earlier and although the department was opened in 1826 following a decree by King Charles X who had been impressed by the collection of Jean-François Champollion, who was appointed director." I don't think this is actually a sentence, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Finetooth ( talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I fixed a couple more citations this evening and rewrote the Abu Dhabi paragraph. The existing link to Time was dead, and the New York Times piece said almost the same thing. More tomorrow. Finetooth ( talk) 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The money quantities in the article are generally expressed in modern $US or euros; I've been converting and adding whichever of these two is missing and putting euros first. I don't know what to do with "135 pieces at a cost of 720,000 francs" in the Napoleon section because inflation would make that number bigger in today's francs and because francs are neither euros nor US$. It doesn't do the reader much good to know the 720,000 number without having something familiar to compare it to. Got any preferences about how to handle this? Finetooth ( talk) 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>I hasten to add that the map you've made is an improvement. Finetooth ( talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I hate to be a wet blanket, but I doubt that the Reference section gadget will survive any reviews. I haven't found anything yet in the MOS about it, but I've never seen an FA or GA with this device. My personal feeling is that it makes the references harder to edit because it interferes with checking the whole set at a glance for consistency. Finetooth ( talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
<outdent>I'm barely out of kindergarten in map-making, but I like maps a lot. I like yours, both of them, and they are good additions to the page. As was the case with Shackleton, you are the content expert, and I am the assistant familiar with the dark arts of citations and comma splices. I think we make a good team doing it this way, and I'd be glad to help in the same way with the Tuileries Garden or other articles. I have one big project going on for which I'm the main writer, and it's nice to go back and forth between different jobs and roles. Finetooth ( talk) 04:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I found a couple of English-language sources for the first paragraph of the Lens-Louvre material and the last two sentences (about the architects) of the second paragraph. I had to modify the first paragraph to fit the source, but I didn't have to change it a lot. I have been unable to find a source for the statistics in the first part of the second paragraph of this section, starting with "The new satellite museum, funded by the local regional government... " Maybe you can find one in French; that would be better than no source. Finetooth ( talk) 03:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Is "Sarcophagus of a married couple" the same as Sarcophagus of the Spouses ?
I thought it was, and a redirect was needed, but on checking on the web I found reference to two very similar works.
But the Louvre site itself, at http://www.louvre.fr/llv/activite/detail_parcours.jsp?CURRENT_LLV_PARCOURS%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673416588&CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673418994&CURRENT_LLV_CHEMINEMENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673418994&bmLocale=en shows info on one with a picture of the other.
Need an art expert to confirm/deny they are one and the same, and perhaps then a redirect (and a link from the Louvre article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Something is missing from a sentence in the first section after the lead. "In 1546, removed the medieval keep... " lacks a subject. Finetooth ( talk) 00:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Gonna review for GA -- Intothewoods29 ( talk) 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Good job. I'm thinking it passed. I really liked how it was organized, good thinking. I fixed a few minor grammer things... Some suggestions for FA: I'd get rid of or move the reference to the Davinci code in "Third Empire to Present"... and I'd make sure to look reread it yourself, in case there's anything I missed. I'd also like a picture in the Paper section, since it's the only art section without a visual example.
GA PASS REQ.S:
1. It is well-written and is easy to read. Grammer is correct. It has an informative lead section, is free of jargon, thoroughly explains any little-known historical events, etcetera etc.
2.has references for everything, backs up any info. Contains no original research.
3.It stays on topic.
4.Totally NPOV
5.stable (pretty much lazulilasher, good job)
6.plenty of images that help a lot, with copyright tags and captions
Congrats. Now go out there and make this an FA! Intothewoods29 ( talk) 20:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey. I saw your request on the Articles Needing Copy Edit page, and I figured I'd give it a go. I probably won't post the changes until tomorrow or (hopefully not) later. I'm going to print the article out and spend some quality time with a red pen for now, and I'll put up the changes soon.
If anyone here is interested in joining the battle against bad grammar and general violations of the MoS, head on over to WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit. -- Peacheshead ( talk) 00:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've posted the update. This is a nice article you've got going here. Just a reminder, though: you should only wikilink to something once in an article. That was probably the most tedious part of copyediting this. There must have been, like, 10 links each for the French Revolution and Venus de Milo. Otherwise, like I said, it's a nice article. I'd like to see it get featured, so keep up the good work. :D
If you have any questions about what I've done, you can go to my talk page or head over to WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit. Once again, if anyone's interested in joining, we could always use some help. -- Peacheshead ( talk) 01:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I just archived the talk page with discussion from 2003-2007. The old conversations are located in the archive box above. Lazulilasher ( talk) 17:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I note the discussions above, and admit I am one of the 15 people on the planet who find this interesting. However I am not sure it belongs in the lead. Mcewan ( talk) 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought 3 possible explanations were too many (and all seemed a bit implausible), until I looked at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palais_du_Louvre#Origine_du_nom, which a small dissertation on the subject. I haven't fully researched yet, but it seems to me that the most likely and quite widely held opinion is that the name came from Lupara which was on the deeds from the 12th Century. Variously reported as meaning kennels in Latin, or a place name related to lupus, wolf. Mcewan ( talk) 21:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Whilst it is fine in Firefox, the layout is broken for me with IE7 on a PC. Large areas of whitespace where the text floats below a picture (e.g. Napolean in the history section), and several pictures that display partially or not at all (e.g. the diadem (partial) and the plan (not at all). Could be transitory Mcewan ( talk) 21:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded a bit on the controversies section, and I see that you've fixed up a few of the minor mistakes and flaws in the article. More than a few, in fact. The article is definitely improving, and is slowly nearing completion. I think that pretty soon it'll be ready for Featured article nomination. I'll see if I can find any errors or technical problems in the text of the article, although I'm plesed to say they are becoming fewer and fewer. Keep up the good work. Jor dan Contribs 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Here is another discussion from my talk page. This time regarding moving the building history to the Palais du Louvre article, as per WP:SUMMARY.
I must agree with you. The size of the article is a problem, and is prohibitive to most readers. The fact is simple: the article needs to be broken into more sections. The French Wikipedia has an article on the Louvre Museum seperate from the whole Louvre article in general. It would be prudent to split the article, thus making the article clearer and more concise, and narrowing down the scope a bit. It would be easier for a casual user to find or research information on the museum itself if the information were in a seperate article. However, consensus must be accheived before this change can be initiated. Jor dan Contribs 21:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I find I did not express myself clearly enough. Clearly, the article is about the museum. However, could we not split it into timeframes? The Palais du Louvre refers to the Louvre as the formal royal palace, during a specific period of time. Could the same not be done with some of the history sections in the Louvre article? Jor dan Contribs 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through the whole article again, and I'm finding less and less to grumble about. Here's a list of two things undone that might be done.
The article keeps getting better and better. Good job. Finetooth ( talk) 03:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. by Frania Remnants of the fortress are still visible in 2nd par. of introduction is repeated: remnants are still visible in the crypt, in 1st sentence of History, which is a more logical place for it. I suggest its removal fm introduction. Frania W. ( talk) 03:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes! And a question. As we move forward with this article, what does everyone think about the "weight" given to each section (history/administration/collection)? Are we overly detailed in any areas, and lacking in others? Would the "neophyte" reader find himself missing a big part of the picture? Lazulilasher ( talk) 06:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The top image in this article is simply massive on my browser. (Firefox run on Mac OSX) By massive, I mean that it's so big that it takes up the entire screen, and then some. It really needs to be resized. The entire layout of the page is messed up for me. I'd do it myself, but I have no clue how and I'd hate to make it even worse. -- ChandlerH ( talk) 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed this from the page next door for several reasons.
Also, for all the major works, each has its own page, and doesn't require more info than the basic, unless it is really relevannt to the museum itself. Amandajm ( talk) 12:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed these words from the section Painting because Francis never acquired a Michelangelo painting. He doesn't appear to have owned the "slaves" because they belonged to Anne de Montmorency, then Cardinal Richelieu. Francis may well have persuaded Mighty Mick to part with a drawing or two. I followed the references and it led to the Louvre website. However, the writer (on that site) who says that Francis acquired works by Raphael and Miichelangelo fails to state what it was that he acquired. Raphaels are fairly plentiful, an amazing thing, considering his short life, but Michelangelos (unless we are talking drawings) are only slightly more common than hen's teeth, and his major pictorial works are all attached to walls. People think of Michelangelo as a famous painter, but sometimes don't realise that apart from the Sistine Chapel, there is only one single bonafide Michelangelo painting in existence Doni Tondo, another that probably is, (the Deposition) and one that just might be an early work or pupil's work, (Manchester Madonna). For this reason, I'm desirous to know what work Francis succeeded in acquiring. Was it a statue that has since disappeared? I spose I'll have to check the provenance of everything.... Amandajm ( talk) 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Second pararaph: "In 1750, Louis XIV authorized his paintings to be transfered from the quarters of the royal financial administrator to the Spanish infanta's former apartment in the Louvre. " Louis XIV was dead at the time. So... whats up with thaaaat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.214.190 ( talk) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to suggest to move this article to Musée du Louvre (like fr) because it is the actual and accurate name. -- Scriberius ( talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
While I have no doubt that the Louvre is the most visited *art* museum in the world, I'm not sure that it's the most visited museum. I've seen a couple sources point to Washington DC's National Air and Space Museum as most visited museum ( [3]. Lots of things [4] seem to cite 9 million annual visitors there which is more than the Louvre gets. But if you google around you'll find lots of lower numbers as well, down to 6 million or lower. I believe NASM itself doesn't have an official count. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntler ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
There are two references which cite a "Simon" (currently refs 26 and 27). What book is this? It does not appear in the Works cited section. - RunningOnBrains( talk) 13:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Paris July 2011-27a.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC) |
The article states in its introduction that the official name of the museum is Grand Louvre which seems to me to be an error. As i searched the official website of the museum I haven't found the mention of this name at all. Instead every image and every logo has the name "Musée du Louvre" (Louvre museum) on it. Also, when there is a mention of copyright the name used for it is Musée du Louvre. But actually I did not found a page clearly saying that "Musée du Louvre" is the official and sole name of the museum. But I am almost sure that Grand Louvre is not the official name of the whole museum but only the name used for the extension project of the museum that begun under the presidency of François Mitterand in the 80's and that led to its actual form with the Grande pyramide etc (see fr:Grand Louvre on French Wiki)... So, I think that we should remove this information unless someone can prove with a document stating it that "Grand Louvre" is the official name of the museum. -- Tancrede ( talk) 19:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I believe it should be mentioned that before The Louvre became such an immense structure it was comprised by 2 separate palaces: Le Palais du Louvre (Louvre Museum today) and the Palais des Tuileries (Palace of Tiles, nonexistent). This second palace was built, or comissioned, on the West side, by Catherine de Medici. The 2 palaces were later connected by a passage which we know today as the Grand Galerie, the longest Galery within the Louvre Museum. In later centuries, I believe the 19h century, the Palais des Tuileries was set on fire and destroyed by a Communard during the Paris Commune, never to be restored. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuileries_Palace) Instead, its ruins were demolished entirely, giving the Louvre the openness needed to include les Jardins des Tuileries (the Tuileries Gardens) as part of its complex to the West. ( Simbelmyne9 ( talk) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC))
Bourbon Palace ? v_atekor ( talk) 22:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
"Musée du Louvre" sounds like French. This isn't French Wikipedia and we shouldn't use (until isn't very necessary) the French expressions. May I rename this article to Louvre Museum to undo this fundamental language error. Alex discussion 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be headed under "Louvre Museum" instead of "Musée du Louvre"? Gryffindor ( talk) 06:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move to The Louvre ( non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Musée du Louvre → The Louvre – This was moved back in 2010 because Musée du Louvre is the "official name". Wikipedia does not use the official name, it uses the common name used in English language sources. "The Louvre" or possibly just "Louvre" is clearly that common name. Ryan Vesey 06:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Up to several months (maybe a year) ago, one could hear the name "Louvre" pronounced. It was useful - even here, in Washington, DC do the otherwise great classical radio announcers mispronounce the name as one syllable, rhyming with "move". Svato ( talk) 15:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The Louvre → Louvre – The definite article "the" is not part of the name. See, for example, this page (in English) at the museum's web site. "The" is not capitalized in running text, as in for example: "Support the Louvre", and therefore should not be part of the Wikipedia article title according to WP:THE. Robert.Allen ( talk) 05:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I would like to expand upon the role of Napoleon I in the development of the Louvre by bringing many works of art back to Paris as a result of several military campaigns. Francefans1791 ( talk) 16:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I was told the security system at the Louvre runs on an Origial IBM PC computer from the early '80s because it can't be hacked or get viruses?
Any truth to this or just urban legend?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 ( talk) 22:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I was going to erplace the image of the Louvre Palace under "conservation", but according to Freedom of Panaroma, in France, that's none-existant and you must have licence to take pictures of public buildings featuring artwork, historical significance. The picture i was going to replace was the picture of the Louvre Palace in CONSERVATION. Here is my picture: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Le_Louvre_ext%C3%A9rieur%2C_Paris%2C_France_-July_2014.jpg/640px-Le_Louvre_ext%C3%A9rieur%2C_Paris%2C_France_-July_2014.jpg |
So, could i replace it, or would that be breaking French laws? However, I would be uploading the image in USA lands which has Freedom of Panorama in affect. If not, do I need permission from the Louvre? MonsieurNapoléon ( talk) 19:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It would be nice for some high ranking Wikipedia users to reply to our requests. You can not blame us for an unapproved edit since no one official approved it. Just saying.
MonsieurNapoléon ( talk) 19:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 14 external links on
Louvre. 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:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
For this user, a visit to the Louvre enlightens their day ! |
If you like Louvre museum like me, you may put this Userbox on your userpage like this: {{[[User:UBX/Louvre]]}} --
Tangopaso (
talk)
16:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Call me naiive but an ouvre-bouteille in French is a bottle opener. The Louvre is situated where the river seine opens wider around the ile de la cite and ile st Louis. Should Louvre actually be L'ouvre - the opening or widening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex-the-grate2 ( talk • contribs) 10:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Louvre. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Louvre. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Louvre. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello - there seems to be an error in the Louvre page linking. When the cursor is run over the link, the map image appears from the info box when it should be the photograph. I am not sure how to fix this, perhaps someone else can resolve it? Regards 80.229.34.113 ( talk) 18:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
There have been two recent edits on the "pyramid photos":
I feel that the second edit (the more recent) is not an improvement over the first, because it made the photos overpowering WRT the rest of the article. It is of course a matter of taste. What do y'all think?
-- Roger Hui ( talk) 12:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
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) 03:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
In other articles, hovering on a link to this article, the image one gets is not the expected iconic frontage with glass pyramid but instead the map of Paris. I came here to switch the images so that the picture is first, but it is already in that order. The preview should be the picture, not the map but I cannot see how to fix it. Can someone tweak the infobox so the correct preview shows onhover please? Cheers, Captainllama ( talk) 20:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the title "Louvre" is a little strange; nobody anywhere calls it "Louvre". I would vote for "Louvre Museum", which seems closest to the official name.
I also think we should use a different image for the infobox; this new one is difficult to recognise, since its taken from an odd point of view. I would go for the traditional image with the pyramid and the courtyard. the pyramid, like it or not, is an integral part of the museum, and the primary entrance for most museum visitors. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 19:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Although ‘the’ is almost always used with the name, it is never capitalized and therefore not part of the name. Robert.Allen ( talk) 04:40, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I want some lines on la louvre 27.58.122.201 ( talk) 11:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Paris, France/Musees/Louvre and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 6#Paris, France/Musees/Louvre until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)