This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arc de Triomphe 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 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 28, 2005, January 28, 2006, January 28, 2007, July 29, 2011, July 29, 2012, July 29, 2014, July 29, 2015, and July 29, 2017. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the original French version. If anyone wants it, it can be found (now in slightly improved form) in the French wikipedia (see http://fr.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Arc_De_Triomphe). -- Zundark, 2001 Nov 7
How can the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Paris have 'inspired' the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Westminster Abbey? They were both done at the same time. Antsnest ( talk) 12:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Unless someone can find a citation that Jacqueline Kennedy was inspired by the eternal flame at the arc de triomphe, we should consider this coincidence and it should be removed. This isn't fact, but theory, pretty much urban legend. 74.135.11.200 ( talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it right to say 'the' tomb of the Unknown soldier, shouldn't that be the the French tomb of the Unknown soldier or the tomb of the Unknown soldier in France? -Adrian.
I'm severely tempted to say I don't know.
I like the idea of being more specific about which Tomb of the Unknown. I believe in the United States the Tomb is in Arlington National Cemetary, but I don't know if the tomb is of a soldier killed in the first world war, the second, or the civil war, or what. I guess one soldier is enough, its the idea that counts.
Regardless, being specific that it's the French Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, is a good revision, do it.
"Upon its completion, the Arc de Triomphe was so far from the center of town almost no one showed up for the opening ceremony. " Since the Champs-Elysées was already lined with grand 18th century private houses, I removed this assertion here. Woman 01:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"...the first eternal flame lit since the Vestal Virgins' fire was extinguished in 492 CE"
...
"Their sacred fire was treated, in Imperial times, as the Emperor's household fire. It burned until AD 391, when the Emperor Theodosius I's decreees forbade public pagan worship, had the fire extinguished, closed the Temple of Vesta and disbanded the Vestal Virgins."
Which is correct? Demiurge 14:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Demiurge 15:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Theodosian decrees of 391 prohibit all pagan observances, punishable with huge fines: Theodosian Code 16.10.10 and 11 - Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code (1952). These two decrees are framed generally, but would have covered the observances of the Vestals. I can't see a comparable decree in 394. These decrees were issued, respectively, at Milan (Spain) on 24 February 391 and Aquileia (Italy) on 16 June 391, so may be presumed to have been effective in Rome before the end of that year. However, effectiveness of imperial decrees is a matter of speculation. Maybe the extinguishment didn't happen until after 391. So I have changed the dating to simply "the fourth century". In the present context, the exact date is surely unimportant. -- Wikiain ( talk) 02:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia also indicates that a fire was kept burning in Ireland for St Brigid until at least the 12th century, and possibly until the dissolution of the monasteries in the 16th century. /info/en/?search=Eternal_flame#Extinguished_flames — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9EBA:7400:B88B:FD3F:AE01:9552 ( talk) 20:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
We should add something noting that the list of 'victories' on the AdeT are in some cases clearly wrong and in others certainly questionable. The list reflects political considerations as much as a calm asessment of the military reality. I would give as examples Corunna, Oporto, Toulouse and fuentes d'onoro. Alci12 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
where is it? maybe coordinates? 70.190.180.166 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Reading the article, it seemed odd to me that there was no mention of the Nazi troops parading through it when they invaded Paris. There were more than a few psychological reasons for this action. Now as I was searching the web for a reliable source about it, nothing turned up. Maybe we'll have to go to the books? Do others think this incident is noteworthy for inclusion?-- Rockero 19:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It was deleted? Any reason why? 'Cause it looks like vandalism that was never reverted... RobertM525 08:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems hard to get exact dimensions that agree with each other; two sources below gives different heights but same depth. So I thought I put the depth in. If anyone know the exact dimension that would be great.
http://www.answers.com/topic/arc-de-triomphe?cat=travel https://www.parisdigest.com/monument/arc-de-triomphe.htm
maybe it use to be shorter, then they build upon it? Pseudoanonymous ( talk) 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
could somebody please add information about access with a wheelchair? Is it possible, possible with an assistant or not possible?
Cheers, Bunny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.215.16 ( talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hiya this is casey from the ps3 network im wondering what is the name fo this ... con... well i so not know can anyone help- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.83.155 ( talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
allo je suis Thom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.168.46 ( talk) 11:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There is an elevator to the top, but the wait is terrible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.144.133 ( talk) 00:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
there is a similar arch in somalia, "victory Arch" http://www.canadianptsd.com/images/Somalia%2093/Beledweyne1.jpg Should there be any mentioin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.30.31 ( talk) 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
To avoid future "over-imaging", I'll copy-paste the guidelines from the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding images ( MOS:IMAGES)
thumb
"), or another size may be fixed. The default thumbnail width is 220 pixels; users can adjust this in their
preferences. An option such as "|300
px|
" resizes the image to the specified width in pixels, and "
upright=1.2
" (or "|
frameless|upright=1.2
" for
plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8
") wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use; an image can be wider if it uses the "
center
" or "
none
" options to stand alone. The {{
Wide image}} and {{
Tall image}} templates display images that would otherwise be unreasonably wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:
300px
" ("upright=1.35
").|alt=
parameter. See
WP:ALT for more information.Regards, -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The image is one of the most famous historic photographs of the Arc de Triomphe, and fits the context perfectly. It is apparently being repeatedly removed because of historic grudges. Consensus should not be determined by patriotic sentiment, or by attempts to glorify one's own history by censoring-out all defeats. In other words, I cant imagine any objective justification for replacing this photograph with yet another generic image of the Arc de Triomphe - in the history section - because some user finds it offensive. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 19:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh for the love of... Frania, we all know the Allies won WWII, there is no need to further demolish this article's layout by cramming too many images of Allied soldiers. Read MOS:IMAGES on too many images in an article. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 15:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Frania Wisniewska, I would be much indebted to you if you would finally begin to understand the concept of IMAGE LAYOUT. Replace the lead nighttime image with the daylight one if you want, but please do not push TWO lead images and ruin the entire image layout of this encyclopedia article because you've still to come to terms with the fact that France was ocupied in 1941... --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 09:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
here are the facts : The history of the Arc de Triomphe starts in 1806. We have 3 pictures for this section, all in the 20th century. For the sake of page setting, this section should have only 2 pictures, otherwise text sandwiching will occur.
Therefore to I replaced the 3 images by 2 images, one showing the initial project of the Arc. This seems to me way more valuable for this article than pictures from the battle of France, the Liberation of Paris or the exploit of Godefroy. The second is the return of the remains of Napoleon, instigator of the project. Again, this is more valuable than any of the pictures previously found in this section.
Feel free to modify the images by others that you consider carrying more history. See Commons:Category:Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile by decade.
Badzil ( talk) 12:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
1. Being extremely busy outside Wikipedia, I have not been & still am not able to get involved into a lengthy discussion; however, I did take the time to reinstate the discussion on my talk page hoping the archiving bot will not rush to archive it again.
2. May I point out that when I put the French flag in more evidence on 11 November, I did not remove the marching naz, as says the summary of my revsion:
Also, as for the picture at the Battle of France, here is what my summary says:
3. Direktor, it is impossible for some of us not to take as a kind of harassment [1] or antagonism aimed at the French your placing of this photograph on several France-related articles within six minutes on September 23. However, as it is such a "great historical find", I will ask you to please note that I did not remove it, just changed its place.
To loosely quote Badzil, the history of the Arc de Triomphe should be more on its construction, based on a blueprint by its architect, than on an oversized naz propaganda photograph which uses the Arc de Triomphe as a backdrop.
I am curious to see what reaction Direktor would get placing that picture as the main & most telling one at de:wiki article Westfeldzug [2].
4. As for Direktor's last comment at the discussion page of the Battle of France, responding to the idea of a collage, while I suggested a map would be the appropriate image, thus bringing to an end a discussion that is going no where
the obvious hatred, name-calling & false accusations leave me outraged and speechless.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 15:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Excerpt from my talk page written by Direktor:
I beg to differ, in the 20th-century history of France, the Battle of Verdun ranks as high, if not higher, and to many "the event of 20th century French history which had the greatest impact on world history" was not naz marching by the Arc de Triomphe, but D-Day.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
2 pictures are required to illustrate the History section of this article and contributors (including me) have problems deciding which pictures should be chosen. External input on this matter is welcome as the current discussion only involves 3 contributors. Badzil ( talk) 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
To summarize, 5 pictures have been notably added to the History section, and here they are:
Badzil ( talk) 21:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The reason why the image was taken by the Germans is not the issue at all. Nobody is trying to support Nazi Germany here.
The whole purpose of the Arc was to serve as the arch for parading armies. The photograph of the Arc is not only 1) famous and significant in and of itself, 2) not only depicts one of the most infamous and monumental historical events in the history of the Arc, 3) not only fits the section perfectly, but 4) also shows the Arc in its main function as a triumphal arch for a military parade.
Now, the image is being removed by a number of patriotic Frenchmen because they intensely dislike the fact that France was defeated in 1940. :P It was added, it was accepted by consensus, and now it is being presented in a very clever way with the object of removing it. The agenda is very clear from correspondences on user talkpages (I invite users to have a look if there is any doubt regarding this fact). This should certainly be taken into consideration. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimaRatio ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. Back to the agenda. Several people mentioned a gallery, not all in the same way. Being young and bold, I tried this option with a selection of 6 images. They depict key events of the Arc de Triomphe. The images are sorted in chronological order. Tell me if this solution suits you. DIREKTOR, I am still waiting for you to correct your false allegations and apologize to me. Badzil ( talk) 14:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to support DIREKTOR on the number of pictures. There is no need to display more than one image per key event related to the Arc de Triomphe. Frania, if you think that an image is more suited to illustrate one of the events currently shown, feel free to perform a substitution. DIREKTOR, I accept your apology but I would also advise you to consider contributors as individuals and not as national groups. Also rereading WP:CIVIL would be a good thing. Badzil ( talk) 16:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Great, now that's over we can start discussing the introduction of this pic? Its a good image, probably the most significant event in the 19th century history of the Arc, plus we've got a huge gap between 1811 and 1919 ;)))
But seriously, we could use a better pic of the WWI victory parade. One with French forces? -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Back to the article. If we add the Bismarck pic and find a photograph of French forces parading after WWI, along with the French passing through it after WWII that would really complete the military history of the Arc and create a piece of work to copy/paste to other Wikis. Greek troops is all well and good, but WWI was won by the French primarily... I couldn't find a WWI French marching photo on Commons, and I can't imagine where to start looking for one, perhaps you fellas can lend a hand? -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 17:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not think there is a "standard" way of creating galleries. There are several ways described in the help, see Picture tutorial. I do prefer using the template instead of the gallery tag because I think that it looks better. I was also planning to write alt texts for each picture which only the gallery template allows you to do.
Also Mathsci, I do not understand what the problem with the captions is. Could you please elaborate on that?
Finally could we stop reverting each other, discuss this and decide on a solution. Badzil ( talk) 21:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The Arc is a military monument. Since it was built, France participated in three major wars. We've got Bismarck for the Franco-Prussian War, two pics for WWII, and we need one for WWI. Greek troops are good but we need to find something better. I found the Bismarck image on Commons, but nothing for French troops WWI. If we can't find anything we can use the Greek painting but still... -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 01:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody on the spot please clarify the "Access" section? From memory:
-- Wikiain ( talk) 22:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
the lift is officially for handicapped use, though this is not enforced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.134.167 ( talk) 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The section "The design" states:
But the article on Falguière says:
Maybe he began it in 1881 and it was installed in 1882, but what is the correct name for it?
Also, the image captioned "1840: Napoleon's ashes return to Paris" shows a huge installation on top of the Arc, which looks very like a quadriga. The caption accurately reflects the image's filename "Retour des cendres (Return of the Ashes)" and the date is right for that event - it also corresponds to the article Retour des cendres, which has the same image. So, was there a quadriga in 1840 which Falguière's sculpture replaced? Possibly there was something temporary, perhaps of wood and plaster, erected for the occasion: it could have matched the figures on the cortège. But such an installation is unlikely to have survived nearly 50 years, or probably even one year, in an extremely exposed location - compare Louisiana Purchase Exposition, "Buildings". It is not there in the photograph taken in 1871. What seems more likely is that it was remembered as a good idea and Falguière was commissioned to produce something permanent. -- Wikiain ( talk) 00:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
What is this monument made of? Maybe I overlooked it, but I can't figure out whether this was made out of marble vs concrete vs other. Mauvila ( talk) 02:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't Washington Square Arch be in the See Also section? - JAF1970 ( talk) 02:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The measurements must be wrong as a meter is larger than a foot. How can it be more meters than it is feet? 2603:8081:7001:1F8:B4A8:C604:2B13:301B ( talk) 16:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
50 metres (164 ft), width of 45 m (148 ft) and depth of 22 m (72 ft), while its large vault is 29.19 m (95.8 ft) high and 14.62 m (48.0 ft) wide. The smaller transverse vaults are 18.68 m (61.3 ft) high and 8.44 m (27.7 ft) wide. Height 50 m (164 ft) Wide: 45 m (148 ft)
Deep: 22 m (72 ft) ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
While we’re at it, how can a 60 meter arch height possibly be considered only “slightly” higher than 50 meters of height? An increase of 20% deserves at least a “moderately” or “somewhat“ yes? Article is locked so leaving comment instead, FWIW, regarding the section discussing other arches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.144.28 ( talk) 19:10, 15 January 2022 (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) 01:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Article mentions La Grande Arche in La Défense as the tallest arch in the world? The Gateway Arch in St. Louis is on the line and would like a word… 113.252.231.146 ( talk) 07:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Arc de Triomphe 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 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 28, 2005, January 28, 2006, January 28, 2007, July 29, 2011, July 29, 2012, July 29, 2014, July 29, 2015, and July 29, 2017. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the original French version. If anyone wants it, it can be found (now in slightly improved form) in the French wikipedia (see http://fr.wikipedia.com/wiki.cgi?Arc_De_Triomphe). -- Zundark, 2001 Nov 7
How can the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Paris have 'inspired' the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Westminster Abbey? They were both done at the same time. Antsnest ( talk) 12:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Unless someone can find a citation that Jacqueline Kennedy was inspired by the eternal flame at the arc de triomphe, we should consider this coincidence and it should be removed. This isn't fact, but theory, pretty much urban legend. 74.135.11.200 ( talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it right to say 'the' tomb of the Unknown soldier, shouldn't that be the the French tomb of the Unknown soldier or the tomb of the Unknown soldier in France? -Adrian.
I'm severely tempted to say I don't know.
I like the idea of being more specific about which Tomb of the Unknown. I believe in the United States the Tomb is in Arlington National Cemetary, but I don't know if the tomb is of a soldier killed in the first world war, the second, or the civil war, or what. I guess one soldier is enough, its the idea that counts.
Regardless, being specific that it's the French Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, is a good revision, do it.
"Upon its completion, the Arc de Triomphe was so far from the center of town almost no one showed up for the opening ceremony. " Since the Champs-Elysées was already lined with grand 18th century private houses, I removed this assertion here. Woman 01:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"...the first eternal flame lit since the Vestal Virgins' fire was extinguished in 492 CE"
...
"Their sacred fire was treated, in Imperial times, as the Emperor's household fire. It burned until AD 391, when the Emperor Theodosius I's decreees forbade public pagan worship, had the fire extinguished, closed the Temple of Vesta and disbanded the Vestal Virgins."
Which is correct? Demiurge 14:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Demiurge 15:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Theodosian decrees of 391 prohibit all pagan observances, punishable with huge fines: Theodosian Code 16.10.10 and 11 - Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code (1952). These two decrees are framed generally, but would have covered the observances of the Vestals. I can't see a comparable decree in 394. These decrees were issued, respectively, at Milan (Spain) on 24 February 391 and Aquileia (Italy) on 16 June 391, so may be presumed to have been effective in Rome before the end of that year. However, effectiveness of imperial decrees is a matter of speculation. Maybe the extinguishment didn't happen until after 391. So I have changed the dating to simply "the fourth century". In the present context, the exact date is surely unimportant. -- Wikiain ( talk) 02:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia also indicates that a fire was kept burning in Ireland for St Brigid until at least the 12th century, and possibly until the dissolution of the monasteries in the 16th century. /info/en/?search=Eternal_flame#Extinguished_flames — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9EBA:7400:B88B:FD3F:AE01:9552 ( talk) 20:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
We should add something noting that the list of 'victories' on the AdeT are in some cases clearly wrong and in others certainly questionable. The list reflects political considerations as much as a calm asessment of the military reality. I would give as examples Corunna, Oporto, Toulouse and fuentes d'onoro. Alci12 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
where is it? maybe coordinates? 70.190.180.166 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Reading the article, it seemed odd to me that there was no mention of the Nazi troops parading through it when they invaded Paris. There were more than a few psychological reasons for this action. Now as I was searching the web for a reliable source about it, nothing turned up. Maybe we'll have to go to the books? Do others think this incident is noteworthy for inclusion?-- Rockero 19:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It was deleted? Any reason why? 'Cause it looks like vandalism that was never reverted... RobertM525 08:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems hard to get exact dimensions that agree with each other; two sources below gives different heights but same depth. So I thought I put the depth in. If anyone know the exact dimension that would be great.
http://www.answers.com/topic/arc-de-triomphe?cat=travel https://www.parisdigest.com/monument/arc-de-triomphe.htm
maybe it use to be shorter, then they build upon it? Pseudoanonymous ( talk) 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
could somebody please add information about access with a wheelchair? Is it possible, possible with an assistant or not possible?
Cheers, Bunny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.215.16 ( talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hiya this is casey from the ps3 network im wondering what is the name fo this ... con... well i so not know can anyone help- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.83.155 ( talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
allo je suis Thom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.151.168.46 ( talk) 11:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
There is an elevator to the top, but the wait is terrible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.144.133 ( talk) 00:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
there is a similar arch in somalia, "victory Arch" http://www.canadianptsd.com/images/Somalia%2093/Beledweyne1.jpg Should there be any mentioin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.30.31 ( talk) 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
To avoid future "over-imaging", I'll copy-paste the guidelines from the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding images ( MOS:IMAGES)
thumb
"), or another size may be fixed. The default thumbnail width is 220 pixels; users can adjust this in their
preferences. An option such as "|300
px|
" resizes the image to the specified width in pixels, and "
upright=1.2
" (or "|
frameless|upright=1.2
" for
plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8
") wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use; an image can be wider if it uses the "
center
" or "
none
" options to stand alone. The {{
Wide image}} and {{
Tall image}} templates display images that would otherwise be unreasonably wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:
300px
" ("upright=1.35
").|alt=
parameter. See
WP:ALT for more information.Regards, -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The image is one of the most famous historic photographs of the Arc de Triomphe, and fits the context perfectly. It is apparently being repeatedly removed because of historic grudges. Consensus should not be determined by patriotic sentiment, or by attempts to glorify one's own history by censoring-out all defeats. In other words, I cant imagine any objective justification for replacing this photograph with yet another generic image of the Arc de Triomphe - in the history section - because some user finds it offensive. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 19:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh for the love of... Frania, we all know the Allies won WWII, there is no need to further demolish this article's layout by cramming too many images of Allied soldiers. Read MOS:IMAGES on too many images in an article. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 15:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
User:Frania Wisniewska, I would be much indebted to you if you would finally begin to understand the concept of IMAGE LAYOUT. Replace the lead nighttime image with the daylight one if you want, but please do not push TWO lead images and ruin the entire image layout of this encyclopedia article because you've still to come to terms with the fact that France was ocupied in 1941... --
DIREKTOR (
TALK) 09:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
here are the facts : The history of the Arc de Triomphe starts in 1806. We have 3 pictures for this section, all in the 20th century. For the sake of page setting, this section should have only 2 pictures, otherwise text sandwiching will occur.
Therefore to I replaced the 3 images by 2 images, one showing the initial project of the Arc. This seems to me way more valuable for this article than pictures from the battle of France, the Liberation of Paris or the exploit of Godefroy. The second is the return of the remains of Napoleon, instigator of the project. Again, this is more valuable than any of the pictures previously found in this section.
Feel free to modify the images by others that you consider carrying more history. See Commons:Category:Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile by decade.
Badzil ( talk) 12:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
1. Being extremely busy outside Wikipedia, I have not been & still am not able to get involved into a lengthy discussion; however, I did take the time to reinstate the discussion on my talk page hoping the archiving bot will not rush to archive it again.
2. May I point out that when I put the French flag in more evidence on 11 November, I did not remove the marching naz, as says the summary of my revsion:
Also, as for the picture at the Battle of France, here is what my summary says:
3. Direktor, it is impossible for some of us not to take as a kind of harassment [1] or antagonism aimed at the French your placing of this photograph on several France-related articles within six minutes on September 23. However, as it is such a "great historical find", I will ask you to please note that I did not remove it, just changed its place.
To loosely quote Badzil, the history of the Arc de Triomphe should be more on its construction, based on a blueprint by its architect, than on an oversized naz propaganda photograph which uses the Arc de Triomphe as a backdrop.
I am curious to see what reaction Direktor would get placing that picture as the main & most telling one at de:wiki article Westfeldzug [2].
4. As for Direktor's last comment at the discussion page of the Battle of France, responding to the idea of a collage, while I suggested a map would be the appropriate image, thus bringing to an end a discussion that is going no where
the obvious hatred, name-calling & false accusations leave me outraged and speechless.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 15:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Excerpt from my talk page written by Direktor:
I beg to differ, in the 20th-century history of France, the Battle of Verdun ranks as high, if not higher, and to many "the event of 20th century French history which had the greatest impact on world history" was not naz marching by the Arc de Triomphe, but D-Day.
-- Frania W. ( talk) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
2 pictures are required to illustrate the History section of this article and contributors (including me) have problems deciding which pictures should be chosen. External input on this matter is welcome as the current discussion only involves 3 contributors. Badzil ( talk) 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
To summarize, 5 pictures have been notably added to the History section, and here they are:
Badzil ( talk) 21:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The reason why the image was taken by the Germans is not the issue at all. Nobody is trying to support Nazi Germany here.
The whole purpose of the Arc was to serve as the arch for parading armies. The photograph of the Arc is not only 1) famous and significant in and of itself, 2) not only depicts one of the most infamous and monumental historical events in the history of the Arc, 3) not only fits the section perfectly, but 4) also shows the Arc in its main function as a triumphal arch for a military parade.
Now, the image is being removed by a number of patriotic Frenchmen because they intensely dislike the fact that France was defeated in 1940. :P It was added, it was accepted by consensus, and now it is being presented in a very clever way with the object of removing it. The agenda is very clear from correspondences on user talkpages (I invite users to have a look if there is any doubt regarding this fact). This should certainly be taken into consideration. -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimaRatio ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
OK. Back to the agenda. Several people mentioned a gallery, not all in the same way. Being young and bold, I tried this option with a selection of 6 images. They depict key events of the Arc de Triomphe. The images are sorted in chronological order. Tell me if this solution suits you. DIREKTOR, I am still waiting for you to correct your false allegations and apologize to me. Badzil ( talk) 14:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to support DIREKTOR on the number of pictures. There is no need to display more than one image per key event related to the Arc de Triomphe. Frania, if you think that an image is more suited to illustrate one of the events currently shown, feel free to perform a substitution. DIREKTOR, I accept your apology but I would also advise you to consider contributors as individuals and not as national groups. Also rereading WP:CIVIL would be a good thing. Badzil ( talk) 16:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Great, now that's over we can start discussing the introduction of this pic? Its a good image, probably the most significant event in the 19th century history of the Arc, plus we've got a huge gap between 1811 and 1919 ;)))
But seriously, we could use a better pic of the WWI victory parade. One with French forces? -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 16:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Back to the article. If we add the Bismarck pic and find a photograph of French forces parading after WWI, along with the French passing through it after WWII that would really complete the military history of the Arc and create a piece of work to copy/paste to other Wikis. Greek troops is all well and good, but WWI was won by the French primarily... I couldn't find a WWI French marching photo on Commons, and I can't imagine where to start looking for one, perhaps you fellas can lend a hand? -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 17:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not think there is a "standard" way of creating galleries. There are several ways described in the help, see Picture tutorial. I do prefer using the template instead of the gallery tag because I think that it looks better. I was also planning to write alt texts for each picture which only the gallery template allows you to do.
Also Mathsci, I do not understand what the problem with the captions is. Could you please elaborate on that?
Finally could we stop reverting each other, discuss this and decide on a solution. Badzil ( talk) 21:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The Arc is a military monument. Since it was built, France participated in three major wars. We've got Bismarck for the Franco-Prussian War, two pics for WWII, and we need one for WWI. Greek troops are good but we need to find something better. I found the Bismarck image on Commons, but nothing for French troops WWI. If we can't find anything we can use the Greek painting but still... -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 01:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Can somebody on the spot please clarify the "Access" section? From memory:
-- Wikiain ( talk) 22:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
the lift is officially for handicapped use, though this is not enforced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.134.167 ( talk) 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The section "The design" states:
But the article on Falguière says:
Maybe he began it in 1881 and it was installed in 1882, but what is the correct name for it?
Also, the image captioned "1840: Napoleon's ashes return to Paris" shows a huge installation on top of the Arc, which looks very like a quadriga. The caption accurately reflects the image's filename "Retour des cendres (Return of the Ashes)" and the date is right for that event - it also corresponds to the article Retour des cendres, which has the same image. So, was there a quadriga in 1840 which Falguière's sculpture replaced? Possibly there was something temporary, perhaps of wood and plaster, erected for the occasion: it could have matched the figures on the cortège. But such an installation is unlikely to have survived nearly 50 years, or probably even one year, in an extremely exposed location - compare Louisiana Purchase Exposition, "Buildings". It is not there in the photograph taken in 1871. What seems more likely is that it was remembered as a good idea and Falguière was commissioned to produce something permanent. -- Wikiain ( talk) 00:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
What is this monument made of? Maybe I overlooked it, but I can't figure out whether this was made out of marble vs concrete vs other. Mauvila ( talk) 02:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't Washington Square Arch be in the See Also section? - JAF1970 ( talk) 02:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The measurements must be wrong as a meter is larger than a foot. How can it be more meters than it is feet? 2603:8081:7001:1F8:B4A8:C604:2B13:301B ( talk) 16:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
50 metres (164 ft), width of 45 m (148 ft) and depth of 22 m (72 ft), while its large vault is 29.19 m (95.8 ft) high and 14.62 m (48.0 ft) wide. The smaller transverse vaults are 18.68 m (61.3 ft) high and 8.44 m (27.7 ft) wide. Height 50 m (164 ft) Wide: 45 m (148 ft)
Deep: 22 m (72 ft) ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
While we’re at it, how can a 60 meter arch height possibly be considered only “slightly” higher than 50 meters of height? An increase of 20% deserves at least a “moderately” or “somewhat“ yes? Article is locked so leaving comment instead, FWIW, regarding the section discussing other arches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.168.144.28 ( talk) 19:10, 15 January 2022 (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) 01:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Article mentions La Grande Arche in La Défense as the tallest arch in the world? The Gateway Arch in St. Louis is on the line and would like a word… 113.252.231.146 ( talk) 07:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)