This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Palace of Versailles 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 |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 6, 2005, May 6, 2006, May 6, 2007, and May 6, 2008. |
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's " European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
I'm pretty confused on this, and ENGVAR should never be changed without good reason. British English is used here and there (centre once in the lead, metres in the Convert templates), but otherwise I didn't notice tell-tale signs of British English (armour, draught). I've been rewriting the article in a sandbox, in American English, and would like to know the consensus or thoughts of previous authors like SiefkinDR ( talk) and anyone watching this page. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 12:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I see that some British English has been added, but it was written predominantly in US English. There is also a strong US tie with the subject; France was the first US ally, an alliance made at Versailles, and it was restored with US funds after World War I. so I think it should continue in US English. cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 12:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe this article, because of its exceptional length, needs a "Key Dates" section, a brief chronology, where a reader can find quickly the dates of major events. My experience is that very few readers read a whole article from beginning to end. Many are just looking for one date or fact or information about one period, and don't want to have to read through the whole history to find it. It also helps them identify the period where they might find the information they want. It gives a lot of information in very little space. You find these sections in Notre-Dame de Paris and other articles on major cathedrals. It makes it more user-friendly and doesn't take up much space. I think the deleted "Key dates" should be restored. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk)
You find these sections in Notre-Dame de Parisis a bit misleading - you added it there, so it's not as though you're following a precedent, you're trying to create one. I understand that you think it might be helpful to the reader, but generally those kinds of lists are not appropriate within articles because the whole purpose of the article is to present and explain a subject in detail, not to give a bullet-point summary. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Would it work for you if the chronology or list of key events is in a box or a separate section further down in the article? I think it's too long for the infox. It could fit after the history section. I think it would be very useful for readers who just want a particular date without having to search the entire article. They're found, alongside complete text, in the guidebooks of the Palace.
Again, thanks for your good work improving and focusing this article.Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 15:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@ SiefkinDR: Do you have a URL for the reference in this edit? – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Vami - this is the URL for the information you requested.
https://chroniques.amisdeversailles.com/le-rapport-dactivite-2020-du-chateau-est-en-ligne/
Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 17:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The Massie text about the role of the Pavlovsk restoration as a model for Versailles is very reliable. I know Pavlovsk, the book and Ms. Massie; she's an excellent historian and the top expert on Pavlovsk. The text could probably be shortened some, but it's reliable. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 20:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I respectfully think the lead montage needs some changes. The current images are too remote and just show you roofs. They should show the chateau from a human perspective, not as viewed from an airplane. I think it should have: (1) a good picture of the garden facade; (2) The interior - the current Hall of Mirrors picture (which I think is great); (3) a garden\ picture from human perspective that shows a fountain and/or flower beds. That captures the essence. The aerial view can be incorporated later in the text, if needed. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 19:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Why is the first image in the lead collage a picture of the roof of the Palace from an airplane? What is the architectural or historic interest of the roof? I think that first image should be an exterior view that visitors can actually see, such was the garden facade, without having to take an airplane. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 13:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I added the very important... built by King Louis XIV. 75.74.170.70 ( talk) 16:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I respectfully suggest that we should not use the official logo of the Palace in our opening montage; it's confusing our page with the official page of the Palace. I also don't really see why we need to give the name of the page three times; the subject is very clearly stated. Can't we simplify this? Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 17:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Cited author has been misspelt throughout as SPAWORTH and should be SPAWFORTH. I tried correcting large sections but have not succeeded nor do I have time to finish. Also imprint in his 2008 book is St Martin's Press (not Macmillan, as cited - larger publishing group though NOT the imprint inside the book) but I cannot see where to change that. Hope somebody else might complete the task. 217.155.200.241 ( talk) 04:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here, don't you think "château" is a well assimilated loanword? Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 13:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
In this particular case, we are not using "château" in the broad English derived sense of "chateau/château", but the narrow, original French " château" sense tied to the historical French nobility. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
If an English speaker invites you to their chateau (even if they get fancy and add the diacritic, which is unlikely), it will not be a château.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Palace of Versailles 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 |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 6, 2005, May 6, 2006, May 6, 2007, and May 6, 2008. |
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Europe's " European 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
I'm pretty confused on this, and ENGVAR should never be changed without good reason. British English is used here and there (centre once in the lead, metres in the Convert templates), but otherwise I didn't notice tell-tale signs of British English (armour, draught). I've been rewriting the article in a sandbox, in American English, and would like to know the consensus or thoughts of previous authors like SiefkinDR ( talk) and anyone watching this page. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 12:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I see that some British English has been added, but it was written predominantly in US English. There is also a strong US tie with the subject; France was the first US ally, an alliance made at Versailles, and it was restored with US funds after World War I. so I think it should continue in US English. cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 12:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I believe this article, because of its exceptional length, needs a "Key Dates" section, a brief chronology, where a reader can find quickly the dates of major events. My experience is that very few readers read a whole article from beginning to end. Many are just looking for one date or fact or information about one period, and don't want to have to read through the whole history to find it. It also helps them identify the period where they might find the information they want. It gives a lot of information in very little space. You find these sections in Notre-Dame de Paris and other articles on major cathedrals. It makes it more user-friendly and doesn't take up much space. I think the deleted "Key dates" should be restored. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk)
You find these sections in Notre-Dame de Parisis a bit misleading - you added it there, so it's not as though you're following a precedent, you're trying to create one. I understand that you think it might be helpful to the reader, but generally those kinds of lists are not appropriate within articles because the whole purpose of the article is to present and explain a subject in detail, not to give a bullet-point summary. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Would it work for you if the chronology or list of key events is in a box or a separate section further down in the article? I think it's too long for the infox. It could fit after the history section. I think it would be very useful for readers who just want a particular date without having to search the entire article. They're found, alongside complete text, in the guidebooks of the Palace.
Again, thanks for your good work improving and focusing this article.Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 15:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@ SiefkinDR: Do you have a URL for the reference in this edit? – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Vami - this is the URL for the information you requested.
https://chroniques.amisdeversailles.com/le-rapport-dactivite-2020-du-chateau-est-en-ligne/
Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 17:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The Massie text about the role of the Pavlovsk restoration as a model for Versailles is very reliable. I know Pavlovsk, the book and Ms. Massie; she's an excellent historian and the top expert on Pavlovsk. The text could probably be shortened some, but it's reliable. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 20:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I respectfully think the lead montage needs some changes. The current images are too remote and just show you roofs. They should show the chateau from a human perspective, not as viewed from an airplane. I think it should have: (1) a good picture of the garden facade; (2) The interior - the current Hall of Mirrors picture (which I think is great); (3) a garden\ picture from human perspective that shows a fountain and/or flower beds. That captures the essence. The aerial view can be incorporated later in the text, if needed. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 19:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Why is the first image in the lead collage a picture of the roof of the Palace from an airplane? What is the architectural or historic interest of the roof? I think that first image should be an exterior view that visitors can actually see, such was the garden facade, without having to take an airplane. Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 13:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I added the very important... built by King Louis XIV. 75.74.170.70 ( talk) 16:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I respectfully suggest that we should not use the official logo of the Palace in our opening montage; it's confusing our page with the official page of the Palace. I also don't really see why we need to give the name of the page three times; the subject is very clearly stated. Can't we simplify this? Cordially, SiefkinDR ( talk) 17:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Cited author has been misspelt throughout as SPAWORTH and should be SPAWFORTH. I tried correcting large sections but have not succeeded nor do I have time to finish. Also imprint in his 2008 book is St Martin's Press (not Macmillan, as cited - larger publishing group though NOT the imprint inside the book) but I cannot see where to change that. Hope somebody else might complete the task. 217.155.200.241 ( talk) 04:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your edit here, don't you think "château" is a well assimilated loanword? Jean-de-Nivelle ( talk) 13:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
In this particular case, we are not using "château" in the broad English derived sense of "chateau/château", but the narrow, original French " château" sense tied to the historical French nobility. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
If an English speaker invites you to their chateau (even if they get fancy and add the diacritic, which is unlikely), it will not be a château.