| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notre-Dame de Paris 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: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Notre-Dame de Paris is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This Notre-Dame de Paris has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 | This article was selected as the article for improvement on 29 July 2013 for a period of one week. |
 | 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! |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Access to Cathedral
editThe article should mention that, unlike the past,, all visitors must now have an on-line reservation to enter the cathedral. . This is a very big change and very few people know about it. , ~~~ SiefkinDR (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you need an on-line reservation - as far as I can see, visitors can turn up and queue to be admitted as before, but you are advised to book in advance to avoid the queue. To quote the official web site [1] "Notre-Dame Cathedral is open to all, freely and without charge. To reduce your waiting time at the entrance, you can, however, book a free access online a few hours or days before your visit." Herbgold (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Very good point - Thanks for the correction. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Today the Cathedral website says that reservations are obligatory for visitors through December 15th. I think they're a bit overwhelmed. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Splitting?
editIs it worth splitting this article into a post fire article and pre-fire article as they would be technically two different churches as it was rebuilt?
I don’t think so, since the basic elements are the same. there can be a section on what’s new and different. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, they are not "technically two different churches" at all, as most of the fabric is the same (just cleaner). As with many other churches, the 19th-century makeover was probably more drastic, & I don't know of any example where we have two articles as a result. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Strikingly, our article Coventry Cathedral covers both the cathedrals in the city dedicated to St Michael, but not the earlier one dedicated to St Mary. In this case, the two later cathedrals are separate buildings, on different sites, from different centuries, in radically different idioms. I would support a split there (and a proper write-up of the gothic building, which doesn't get the coverage here it deserves). But that would be my benchmark. Notre-Dame de Paris is essentially the same building in site, structure, and usage. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- OPPOSE. It's the same cathedral. There are thousands of other old buildings which have been restored, especially after substantial damage, including almost total destruction (unlike Notre-Dame). Two articles would cause confusion, and I foresee a future proposal to amalgamate them into one. Masato.harada (talk) 08:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- SUPPORT. The article is long enough now. The "Key dates" and "history" sections (including the fire events) should be moved to a new article History of the Notre-Dame de Paris. 152.132.14.7 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose this proposed split - it's absolutely a false premise, and as Johnbod correctly notes, Viollet-le-Duc's restoration was far more drastic than this one. Neutral on the different split proposed (unintentionally?) by 152.132.14.7, as it potentially has merit but would need some development before I'd feel confident knowing if it was worth supporting. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the article is rather long, and there may be a case for moving some of the stuff on the latest restoration to Notre-Dame fire (where i suspect some is already duplicated). My main issue with the article is that it lacks a coherent architectural overview and assessment. But so do the vast majority of our articles on cathedrals and churches. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Comments
editThis important article is a mishmash and a mess. It has many galleries, a timeline, and the History section is dominated by the fire that happened five years ago. There is much repetition of material. We describe in Wikipedia's voice the "relics" it claims to hold, but I don't think anybody who has studied the matter believes they are, or even could be, real. The crown of thorns they have is of a species which doesn't grow in the Middle East, for example. Any suggestions for improving it? Much of the 2019 material could be spun off into the daughter article, for starters. John (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Too long
editThis article is certainly extremely lengthy. TrueMoriarty (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)