Talk:Notre-Dame de Paris/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mary I's marriage to Francois II

I edited the date on which Mary Stuart married Francois II - the page said 1588, but by then, Mary had been executed over a year before, and Francois had died around 1560. The correct year is 1558, which is what I changed it to.

Hunchback of Notre Dame

Shouldn't this page have at least a mention of The Hunchback of Notre Dame? The book's influence helped to preserve the cathedral in its original state. TheCoffee 18:06, 17 Feb 2005(UTC)

I agree. It's a crime not to mention it! ApsbaMd2 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

More correctly, perhaps, Victor Hugo's book gave impetus to the building's restoration from the sad condition that the revolution had left it. According to Italic text Decadent Enchantments Italic text by Katherine Bergeron, the book made it fashionable among middle-class Parisian readers to be conversant with the details of Gothic architecture, and they shamed the authorities into doing something about the cathedral. Around this time as well, a historical consciousness arose to enable construction, or reconstruction, in an antique style. But Viollet-le-Duc was aware that his work of "restoration" envisioned an idealized state of the building somewhat different from anything that had ever actually existed. This approach contributed to the controversy surrounding the project.Paul Emmons (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Paul Emmons

Failed GA

Looks OK but is insufficiently referenced. No inline citations and only four general references, two of which are about art and one is a travel guide. It's unlikely that those sources are adequate for the level of detail given in this article. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 12:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The fisrt sentance mentions that the gates of the church face west. Is there any reason why this is stated, partucularly in the first sentance?

intro

The fisrt sentance mentions that the gates of the church face west. Why is such a seemingly irrelevant fact stated in the introduction? Is there some reason to this? (there is no mention of it in the article).

Sign your posts. What is your problem with this? It's on the east side of the isle and it faces west. How is that irrelevant? Why shouldn't it be in the first paragraph? Maybe you should explain why you think it is so undeserving of mention, or where you think it should be mentioned. As for not being mentioned elsewhere, why does it need to be? The church faces west. That hardly requires elaboration. 12.22.250.4 17:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If not irrelevant, that point was perhaps unworthy of such prominence since, nominally at least, all Churches (excepting a few derived from the Lateran rite) face West. However, to avoid controversy I've amended it to say it faces "westwards towards the Royal Palace" - something which was highly relevant to its original spatial relationship with the rest of Medieval Paris. StuartLondon (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Churches face east, not west: the main entrance is on the west. (See recent comment at Orientation [1])

--Frania W. (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

werfdxgfcf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.221.36.165 (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The first and second sentences give the impression that the Cathedral is owned by the Roman Catholic Church, which is not true, according to my sources, and ought be vetted for greater precision. By French law regarding separation of Church and State (1905),inter alia, all cathedrals that were built with French funds are legally property of the Caisse Nationale des Monuments Historiques (the National Historical Monument Trust), an agency of the Republic of France. This includes Notre Dame de Paris. The cathedral is now technically managed, including tourist access, by the Trust, the Catholic Church does not control tourist access. It is a "Roman Catholic" building only in the sense that the Republic has designated that church as the religious group permitted to use the building for religious services. I suggest that the first and second sentences be restructures so as to indicate that the Republic/Trust owns the building and controls its use (sencond sentence would be appropriate for this). I am not sure whether this means that the Trust/Republic is paying for the restoration. See Wiki's own article Centre National Monuments and the Trust site re its control of "tours et la crypte archéologique de Notre-Dame" this translates to the "towers" and to the underground dig sites and museum (under the square (parvix) in front of the West facade. (SteveO1951 (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

• 1st sentence: Notre Dame de Paris (in English: Our Lady of Paris), also known as Notre Dame Cathedral, is a Gothic, Roman Catholic cathedral on the eastern half of the Île de la Cité in the fourth arrondissement of Paris, France.
• 2nd sentence: It is the cathedral of the Catholic archdiocese of Paris: that is, it is the church that contains the "cathedra", or official chair, of the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal André Vingt-Trois... The part I underlined makes it clear that ND is the Archbishop's "cathedra", which does no imply that it belongs to the Church.
• 3rd sentence: The fact that ND does not belongs to the Church could be mentioned immediately after the second one, directing readers to the Centre des monuments nationaux article. Ownership of ND & who pays for repair & restoration should then have its own section at the end of the article, or be the subject of a sub-article, but not developed in the lead.

--Frania W. (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

130 or 90 meters tall?

In this page it says this cathedral has 90 meters, and at the notredame page it says 130. which one is right???? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_church_towers

Sign your posts. Read it again. Both articles state that the cathedral is 90 metres tall. This article also states that the cathedral is 130 metres long. 12.22.250.4 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Links

In link, you keep "Stained glass Madonna with fleur-de-lis at Notre Dame de Paris" On that page, there is alomost nothing about Notre Dame. on the other side, you reject our link to our page (http: // france.jeditoo.com /IleDeFrance/Paris/4eme/Notre_Dame.htm) reserved to Notre Dame seen by painters with 62 paintings reproductions! So we don't understand your choice !

Dan

jeditoo has been extensively discussed on fr.wikipedia.org, and you know that it is considered spam. You are trying to add the link repeatedly, from an IP address, in many parts of wikipedia. There is no point in trying to rename the web site to avoid spam detection. The link you are referring to is not a commercial site, and has encyclopaedic content, without any ad, so it is considered acceptable. If you disagree, feel free to propose its removal. Vincent Lextrait 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Offending sentence in the article?

Hi all, I've just read the article and was quite surprised to find an offending sentence just after the construction timeline. I think it should be removed.

Removal of Line

I just happened to stop by looking for a picture and saw this ending sentence in the paragraph. I removed it -- unless someone happens to think it should belong. ;)) 71.244.62.36 00:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Notre Dame de Paris was one of the first Gothic cathedrals, and its construction spanned the Gothic period. Its sculptures and stained glass show the heavy influence of naturalism, giving them a more secular look that was lacking from earlier Romanesque architecture.it was the first sex place that was held for goths.

Notre-Dame de Paris vs. Notre Dame de Paris

I think a lot of people are going to confuse this with Victor Hugo's Notre-Dame de Paris, or Hunchback of Notre Dame as is the English title. We should probably include this somewhere at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.106.64 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I've rarely heard an American pronounce it as Noter Dayme. That indignity is usually reserved for the university. We may sometimes be provincial, but we're not all completely uneducated. Why not just give the French pronunciation. The article on Iran, for example, doesn't say that people in the US pronounce it as Aye Ran.

I have to agree with the unknown commentator above me. "Noter Dayme" is what we call the University in Indiana in the US. It's pronounced correctly when referring to this structure. My point: the "US" pronunciation seems OR. --MPD ^{T / C} 21:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. I live on the Kentucky border, the area most likely to pronounce it incorrectly, and I've only ever heard the French pronunciation unless we're speaking specifically about the university. In fact, that's often how we differentiate the two. --74.137.224.33 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be left as the French say it. --Ntncorntastic (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the 2 1/2 month-old discussion consensus seems to be that the "US" pronunciation claim is not right in the context of the Cathedral (as opposed the University), I will remove it from the article. If it is reinserted, it should be cited and sourced. --MPD ^{T / C} 18:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact-checking needed

A quick comparison of dimensions given here with those given in the French Wikipédia article reveals discrepancies, so some fact-checking appears to be in order.

There are also at least a couple of blatant mistranslations from French, but I don't have time to copyedit the article right now. Awien (talk) 11:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I revised the dimensions section to reflect the information on the official site of the cathedral [2]. PhilSC (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Louis Vierne - dates

The section about the organ shows Vierne taking the position in 1900, but the timeline shows him taking the post in 1937, then dying the same year. I think the timeline is wrong Dunstan ^talk 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Portals pic

Beautiful picture! Does any smart person know how to tweak its position so that it's not obscuring a line of text? Awien (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that you try a different browser client. The one that I use shows no such obscuring.Jarhed (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Devoir de réserve

I do not speak French, so please bear with me. In the concluding paragraph of the Significant events at Notre Dame section, the subject French phrase is stated as being an obligation of foreigners. However, an English translation of the French Wikipedia article on Devoir de réserve (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devoir_de_r%C3%A9serve) seems to make it pretty clear that the principle is with regard to French citizens only. A knowledgable person needs to straighten this out. I recommend a flat delete of the sentence, but an explanation of Devoir de réserve in the context of the sentence would be sufficient. In English, this phrase means nothing (many French phrases make sense in English, but not this one). This sentence needs a complete cleanup or a flat delete.Jarhed (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the Petit Robert, the devoir de réserve is the devoir des agents de l'état d'exprimer leurs opinions avec discrétion, that is, the duty of public sector employees to be discreet in expressing their opinions. In other words, it is a general principle regarding the behaviour of public servants, has nothing to do specifically with Notre Dame, and was being misused and misinterpreted here. I, a knowledgable person, support Jarhed's deletion. Awien (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Time-line

There seems to be some confusion on the construction dates. It says at one point that the construction of the west front began in c1200 BEFORE the construction of the nave, and yet the timeline says the nave was completed in 1196 - though it does agree that the west front was begun about 1200. Could some knowledgeable person clarify this, please? 81.79.110.38 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The nave was certainly not completed in 1196. Date of commencement of west facade is largely speculative. Have tided up chronology a bit but will clarify further when I get time. StuartLondon (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Candle removal?

The text says In the late 90's one of the holy candles was removed from the church. a crime penaty faces 20 years. Is this referring to an ordinary wax candle, or does candle refer to something else here? Can anybody explain or provide any reference for this? This seems hard to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.225.40.170 (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

the notre dame

i think that they sould have definetly metioned about the hunback of notre dame its a very good book that was influenced the notre dame!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.208.40 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

New file File:Notre Dame, Paris by David Roberts, RA.jpg

Recently the file File:Notre Dame, Paris by David Roberts, RA.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. The date is unknown, but it's apparently a 19th-century work. Dcoetzee 01:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Never finished?

Right at the bottom of the article it mentions that it was never finished. Can I get a yes/no/bullshit on whether or not this is true? --Aergoth (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it certainly could be considered unfinished, because the towers conspicuously lack spires of their own. Gothic architecture was pretty big on spires, however, I'm in no position to tell if their absence in this instance is by design or not. --Martcx (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Infringement

Material pasted into this article from Polish-Lithuanian State has been truncated and revised in accordance with Wikipedia's copyright policy. If restoring any of that text, please be sure either to rewrite it completely in your own words or to handle it in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Orientation

Hello, StuartLondon.

A couple of observations about your edit: "with its main entrance facing westwards towards the Palais de la Cité" and your explanation that "this is highly relevant to its original function"

- as far as possible, all churches have their main entrance on the west, so there is nothing remarkable about Notre Dame being oriented this way

- Notre Dame doesn't face the Conciergerie, it's offset from it, fairly close but not in any obvious relationship

So I'm not clear about the relevance of this edit, but am prepared to be instructed . . . Awien (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Awien, Sorry - I didn't express myself very clearly. To be honest I see no reason to mention that a church faces west at all since that's the default. However, I noted that there had previously been a disagreement about whether to include this obvious fact in the introductory section and was trying to be diplomatic (see my comment in the earlier bit of the talk page). Feel free to remove it if you wish. My main concern is with the historical and architectural details in this article which I fear are in need of some work. For the record, when N-D was built the Conciergerie wasn't there, leastways not in anything like its present form (most of which echoes the later Valois remodelling). Instead there was just the rambling Merovingian palace (with its entrance facing east) dominating the western end of the Isle with the cathedral at the eastern end facing (obviously) west. They 'faced' each other in that sense alone - as you say, they weren't on the same central axis. It has been argued that this splitting of the isle into secular west and clerical east created a conscious relationship/opposition between church and state (at this time the Palais de la Cite, rather than the Louvre was the main royal residence in Paris) - though for the life of me I can't remember who argued that! StuartLondon (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi StuartLondon.

Terrible how real life gets in the way of one's work on WP, isn't it? ^_-

I've removed the sentence about the west end facing west.

I'm no historian, but the 12th century seems awfully early for there to be any sense of needing to separate church and state. My sense is that they were totally in cahoots, just competing as to which was the senior partner. Interesting thought, though - filing it in the back of my mind. Pls let me know if you remember who said it. Best,

Awien (talk) 12:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite so. I remembered who was arguing about the axis of power on the Isle de la Cite - but it was a conference paper and is unpublished, so it's OR in WP terms and hence verboten. Popular misconception about church and state being in cahoots - for much of the 12th-13th centuries it's probably closer to say they were two separate states coexisting within the same territories and not always in a particularly friendly fashion. Elizabeth Hallam's book on Capetian France is particularly good on such things (and very readable even if one isn't an historian!) Cheers, StuartLondon (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Barging in on an old discussion: arguing the separation of Church & State in the 12th & 13th centuries (?) in relation to the entrance of Notre Dame facing west, you are totally off course. The reason the main entrance faces west is that it leads to the altar that must face east. A Christian church or cathedral represents a ship, navire in French, also nef (nave in English), which is the name of the part of a church from the rear entrance to the altar, the altar being the bow of the ship (proue du navire), facing east, sailing toward the rising sun, i.e. the resurrection of Christ. --Frania W. (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Stephen's

Do we have a picture of the earlier cathedral? Should it have its own article. What notable events are associated with it? Drutt (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are drawings, but probably not "d'époque". --Frania W. (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Catalog of organ stops

I've removed the lengthy list of organ stops again. Sorry, but this is information that is essentially completely meaningless to anyone but an organ specialist, and it takes up an undue amount of space in an article about such an important church. Wikipedia isn't a directory of all possible information, and this is a prime example of the type of trivia that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. The current text of the organ section does a sufficient job of explaining that the organ "has 7,800 pipes, with 900 classified as historical. It has 111 stops, five 56-key manuals and a 32-key pedalboard."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fortunate are those who know French and, by clicking on "Français" for French wiki, are able to read its splendid article with great description of organ, which, by the way, as a musician, I find ridiculous to call "trivia", when one knows the importance of such an instrument in such an "important church".

--Frania W. (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true. However, what I removed is not a "description," it was a contextless, unexplained list making up something like 20% of the entire article's length. As a musician myself who is around church organs with some frequency, I can tell you flat out that a catalog like that is impenetrable to probably 99% of Wikipedia readers. You're free to disagree, of course--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Glen, for the 1% who might be interested, why not keep a detailed section of the organ with "piccolo", "bourdon", "flûte" and other trivia, as a sub-section? Since you're an expert, you'd be the perfect author for that section. --Frania W. (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with the removal of the stop list from the organ section either. This is an extremely important organ, not only in France (where it is the largest organ by number of stops) but also in the world. Please remember that Wikipedia is here to inform and perhaps also educate, and this very interesting information should have been retained. And I completely agree with Frania W, the French article on NDdeP is excellent, far better than the sad and 'butchered' version we have in English. Fortunately, my French is quite good.Ds1994 (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ds1994: I agree with you that "Wikipedia is here to inform and perhaps also educate..."; therefore, why not put that information back? It's easily retrievable. Where else can we find information on this splendid organ if not at its "home" article?

As to another important reason for removing it as expressed by contributor Glenfarclas:

• "and it takes up an undue amount of space in an article about such an important church.", which brings a smile to my face after checking on the following & noticing the importance "culture" takes in the en:wiki:

• With 23,983 bytes in English wiki (against 177,316 in French wiki), Notre Dame de Paris lags behind:
• 28,149 - Levi Johnson
• 29,333 - Pumpkin Yes! the pumpkin is more important than Notre Dame de Paris!
• 32,231 - Halloween
• 39,707 - McDonald's
• 40,421 - Brigitte Bardot
• 40,936 - Garfield
• 59,070 - Jack the Ripper
• 64,086 - Disneyland
• 66,297 - Mickey Mouse
• 154,181 - Sarah Palin
• 169,608 - Elvis Presley
• 179,711 - Michael Jackson

Has anyone ever brought up undue amount of space in the redaction of the above?

Before the organ "undue weight" was removed, the article was 24,765 bytes. The organ "weight" was 3,148 bytes, and if this was added to article as it stands now, with a total of 27,913 bytes, the article would still weigh less than the 28,149 of Levi Johnson...

--Frania W. (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything you say and the logic of your argument Frania W. I am also concerned that the tremendous importance of this instrument is merely being overlooked, the provision of the specification in itself would emphasise the grandeur of this world-renowned instrument. I also think that a majority of people are perhaps more informed and indeed a little more intelligent than Glenfarclas suggests. When I last went to Notre Dame for an organ recital 10 years ago the cathedral was packed and everyone I noticed sat in awe as they listened to this magnificent instrument. And how can we broaden the exposure of this Grand Organ without the relevant information?

I shall take two examples to support this argument:

1) The mutation stops on the Grande Pedale (Quinte 10 2/3, Tierce 6 2/5, Quint 5 1/3 and Septieme 4 4/7) are the genius of Aristide Cavaille-Coll himself and are quite unique in France, if not the world. Pierre Cochereau himself when requiring a rich mezzo-forte effect on the Pedale invariably used the combination of Contrabasse 16 and Septieme 4 4/7. This had a unique effect and was likened to a chorus of double basses in a grand orchestra. The Septieme 4 4/7, being a mutated flat twenty-first effectively in the 32' register, provided sub-harmonics when coupled to the 16' stop to 32' feet and below.

2) The current battery of five independent en chamade reeds (the three earlier reeds provided by Robert Boisseau in the 'Spanish' style, and the two more recent chamades provided by his son Jean-Loup Boisseau in the 'Cavaille-Coll' style) are unique in France.

Without the specification, how can anyone either fully appreciate this instrument, or even begin to do so if not acquainted with the information in the first place? Basically, the French article has got it right (the entire French version is right), and the English version is its poor cousin. Perhaps we should put the specification back?

In doing so, perhaps we should use the French version, which is presented in a very tidy 'tabular' format, whereas the format of the erased English version was in itself perhaps a little untidy? (and hence perhaps did not help its cause in the first place?) Ds1994 (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ds1994: Since you are the one who originally had put the information, you should put it back & use the French wiki version[3], making it readable to English-speaking readers.

--Frania W. (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Hauptorgel at German wiki[4]

Thank you for your consensus Frania W. However I did not originally insert the specification (although I did make minor adjustments as several of the stop entries were incorrect). It would be good to have consensus from Glenfarclas, as I see no point in ping-pong deletion and re-insertion - there is too much of this going on in Wiki anyway. P.S. Yes German wiki has it the same way as the old English version. Oh well, the French and the Germans are 'with it' and the Anglo-Saxons are trailing behind as usual (hah hah). Also the photo of the organ in German wiki is much better than the one in the English version. Is it easy to change the one for the other? Ds1994 (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Ds1994, I agree with you that we should have consensus, although I do not believe that the article should remain amputated of one its vital "organs" - said "organ" should be treated in the "body" where it belongs, that is to say that of "Notre Dame de Paris".

Yes, if you prefer another photograph that you see in another article, the one here can be changed.

On another subject, I also do not understand the reason of making space for this photograph[5], which belongs more in the article on the rose, while leaving out this one [6], or not including this [7] at the place of this one [8] in which Notre Dame is leaning at almost the same angle as the Tower of Pisa.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree FraniaW. Would you be happy to perform the changes? I think you may be more adept at this than me! Regards, David. Ds1994 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have provided an 'External Link' in the article which provides a history of the Organs in Notre Dame, together with very comprehensive specifications of the Grande Orgue and the Orgue de Choeur. Ds1994 (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The only way I could perform the changes would be to "pick" the section off the French wiki article & place it at en:wiki NDdP - then wait for someone to "venir nous sonner les cloches". Pouvu que ce ne soit pas avec le "Bourdon"[9] (!)

--Frania W. (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The organ pipes information is important and should be included in the encyclopedia somewhere. (I don't think it is OK to say that this can just be linked externally. In that case one could argue that much of the Wikipedia should be deleted.) I would suggest that since the organ is a specialty interest, most of the organ information, including the lists of organists and organ ranks should be split off into a separate article, e.g., Notre Dame organ or Organ of Notre Dame with a link to it from a short paragraph on the organ in this article. --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Robert Allen, but would suggest the title Organ of Notre Dame de Paris as there are other organs in other "Notre Dames" that may be notable enough to warrant an article. Kind regards, Danmuz (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In fact, it just occured to me that there are more than one organ in Notre Dame, so the best solution may be Organs in Notre Dame de Paris or even Organs and organists of Notre Dame de Paris (though the latter may be too long). Danmuz (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Origin of Notre Dame (ND)

From all my research there was a place referred to as the cathedral school of Notre Dame, perhaps originating after Charlemagne's educational edicts. A cathedral simply means there is a Bishop running it, not necessarily a grand structure. St. Dennis is not a cathedral for example. But I digress. My inquiry is some scholarship on the cathedral school of Notre Dame. It may have been near St. Stephen's, the heavy Merovingian structure apparently sprawling with a large roof that gave way at times. Torn down to make room for ND. Markbeaulieu (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It may well be older but I've never seen any references to the Cathedral School of N.D. prior to the tenure of William of Champeaux as Magister at the start of the 12th Century. Most post-Carolingian cathedrals certainly had 'schools' attached to them but a lot were fairly minor affairs. I suspect the fame of the School of N.D. is at least partly a 19th century invention resulting from the over-romanticisation of Peter Abelard's time there - certainly in the 12th Century the School of the Abbey of St Victoire (i.e. the Victorines) was far more influential. As for the architecture, Cathedral/Abbey schools were not generally separate physical structures like later medieval colleges. Instead teaching tended to take place in the generic space of the cloister. If you're looking for details of the area surrounding the cathedral (or anywhere else in Paris), the wonderful "Atlas de Paris au Moyen Âge" by Phillippe Lorentz and Dany Sandron is a good starting point. Good luck with your research. StuartLondon (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro photo

The introductory photo should be changed. That photo was taken from too far away - the Cathedral is too small in it, and shown at an angle. The photo further down depicting Notre-Dame illuminated at night is better. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

fire on church

this church has had accidental fire apr 15th 2019. so the article must be updated to add info about the fire add this info: the spire was knocked off during the fire according to a recorded video — Preceding unsigned comment added by R32 nissan skyline (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

video broadcated by el pais. The current hour may be wrong and need to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.38.234.34 (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

IT's ON FiRE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4A:8100:AE40:301E:1B77:22A1:E7E (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Dedicatee

We seem to have just blindly assumed that Notre Dame is a reference to the mother of Jesus. Is it not just as likely that it refers to Mary Magdalen? Her cult in France was massive. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There's only one Notre Dame: the mother of Jesus. The church isn't Sainte-Marie, which could be ambiguous. Awien (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

!

If consecrated to Marie Magdalen, then it would have been named Sainte Madeleine, not Notre Dame, as Notre Dame in France is the Holy Virgin.

"Her cult in France was massive." So was that of the mother of Jesus. No comparison between the two.

• http://www.immaculata.ch/Archiv/nd_france_hamon1.htm
• http://www.notredamedeparis.fr/Portail-de-la-Vierge
• http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mxdFa4_-lKEJ:www.salve-regina.com/Histoire/La_Sainte_Vierge_et_la_France.htm+cons%C3%A9cration+de+Notre+Dame+de+Paris+%C3%A0+la+Sainte+Vierge&cd=8&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

--Frania W. (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

But I think it would improve the article to talk about the dedicatee, or at least have a separate article about her. I am surprised that there doesn't seem to be a Wiki page about this devotion. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Musical

How to best add a disambiguation notice to the french musical Notre-Dame de Paris (musical)? Debresser (talk) 13:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Another user added a regular hatnote, and also asked the question, whther three hatnotes isn't a sign it would be best to make a disambiguation page. Opinions? Debresser (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would vote against. Actually, I'm a little surprised that the link to Victor Hugo's book is a hatnote in the English WP rather than only an item in the "See Also" list. In the English-speaking world the book is much better known as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", rather than by its original title - so it's very unlikely that an english-speaking user would arrive at this page by mistake when searching for the book. Since the musical is just an adaptation of the book I wouldn't see that as any reason to have a disambiguation page either - though paradoxically it probably does merit a hatnote even if the book doesn't! Ultimately, the other entries that would appear on such a disambig page are all secondary to the cathedral, from which they take their names. In terms of WP's disambiguation policy, the cathedral is clearly the Primary Topic. StuartLondon (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

View from Notre Dame across Paris

Hello, I would like to add a line about the view from the Cathedral as it is known for being one of the best views across Paris. Can you please guide me and suggest an appropriate place to add it? I also have some photographs of this view to upload. Please be kind to me, this is my first post on editing a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.72.217 (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess it would be useful to be signed in. Hopefully you can see my user name now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unlikelyusername (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Bells

There are several potential inaccuracies / contradictions in the bell section. As I am unable to reconcile the differences I have created this talk section rather than edit myself. It would be helpful if someone with more specific information could reconcile these issues.

The article states: The bells were once rung manually, but are currently rung by electric motors. When it was discovered that the size of the bells could cause the entire building to vibrate, threatening its structural integrity, they were taken out of use.

Which is correct "currently rung by electric motors" - or "taken out of use". Perhaps this should be some of the bells were taken out of use as per this article in the Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203814/Ding-Dong-New-bell-cast-Paris-cathedrals-850th-anniversary-centuries-previous-torn-French-Revolution.html Assuming they were rung by electric motors and then taken out of use at a later date (February 2012 for taken out of use?) then this should have the relavant dates. It also requires citations for these events.

The Notre Dame website also appears to be out of date, but there is an article by the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-bells-the-bells-why-notre-dame-is-ringing-the-changes-7440657.html This article contracticts Wikipedia. It states that the bells have been sent for scrap and that the new bells will be replicas. There is no mention of recasting the bells to make the new ones - citation needed if they are recasting the new bells from the old ones.

A more recent article from the Guardian suggests that the old bells have not yet been scrapped "The four grandes dames are currently at the French bell foundry Cornille-Havard" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/12/ding-dang-notre-dame-bells . PenguinTutor (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Emmanuel Bell Frequency

In the Bells section, Emmanuel is assigned two different frequencies. The original as Eflat, whereas the table says F#2. Someone more knowledgeable about this than I am may like to look into this and provide some clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyburns (talk • contribs) 07:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 20 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

---

Notre Dame de Paris → Notre-Dame de Paris – Consistency with proper name and article text juju (hajime! | waza) 22:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This should probably be discussed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support very surprised to see no hyphen. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose both are used, last 20 years of n-grams shows an increase of the hyphenated version in the 90s and then a nearly equal usage now with the hyphen barely winning out [10]. If you want to extend the n-grams to the 1800s, the lack of hyphen used to be the largely predominate version, changing in the latter years of the 20th century. The official website uses the hyphen on anything that is graphically designed, but on any plain text it is unhyphenated in the English version [11]. With roughly equal usage and mixed usage on the English version of the official site, but defaulting to not hyphens for the plain text, I am inclined to say keep it as the long standing title and make a note of hyphen as an alternate name in the text. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

? The n-gram shows the correct spelling predominating. ? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Beside which WP:FRMOS applies, so the hyphen is covered by that. If the phrase has "de" in it, it is a French name, which means correct French on en.wp, not misspelled French. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The n-gram shows about equal current usage, hyphen has more, but it certainly isn't the predominant spelling. WP:FRMOS says to look for the official name used in English-language publications from the organization. When using English-language text on their website, they almost exclusively use the hyphen free title, the exception being graphically designed images used on multiple language versions of the website and the postal address. With roughly equal usage in English and the hyphen-free version being the version used by the organization, I don't see a good reason for a move. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I'd say, all French, with hyphen, or something in English, such as Notre Dame, Paris, but not the present mix. I am not inclined to take the subject's website as relevant, knowing too many organizations whose translations of their own name to English are inadequate, sometimes misleading. In case of doubt, I'd go for the original name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I could support a move to Notre Dame, Paris per Gerda, and WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. When you do the n-gram [12] for "Notre Dame cathedral" in both hyphenations and Notre-Dame de Paris in both hyphenations, Notre Dame cathedral is the most used of the four, and if you combine the non-hyphenated versions, they are significantly more used than both of the hyphenated versions in the English corpus. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• User:TonyBallioni's idea is sound (but cf. Notre-Dame Basilica (Montreal) with a parenthetical). However, this conflicts with the format of other similar articles, e.g. Notre-Dame de Nice. —  AjaxSmack  02:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• Relisted. Please could other editors help to find consensus by commenting on the following — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
  1. Hyphen or no hyphen?
  2. "de Paris" or ", Paris"?

• Support. Given it's the French name in full and not just Notre Dame, we should use the French name correctly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support either the hyphen or ", Paris" over the current title. —  AjaxSmack  16:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is English Wikipedia. Yes, the hyphen is correct French, but not current English usage. Andrewa (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Either it should reflect correct French usage, or else translate as "Our Lady" etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Translation is not an option. We don't for example move the Nippon Maru article to Japanese Circle (which is the translation), it's not even a redirect and would be a useless one. The question is simply, how is this name, which is commonly used in English, to be formatted in English? Andrewa (talk) 18:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support Since it's in French, it should be correct French.Awien (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Andrewa, since usage in English is more or less equally divided between the hyphenated and unhyphenated versions (and slightly in favour of hyphenated), there's no way you can claim that unhyphenated is the standard usage in English. The cathedral's website is no help because a) it's all over the place, and b) English is not their first language so their English isn't authoritative. That being said, the versions I can get behind are:

- Notre-Dame de Paris

- Notre Dame Cathedral, Paris

- Notre Dame, Paris

- Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris

Awien (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation of the website was that they used no hyphen when they were writing English prose, but hyphenated it on the graphic designed parts that didn't change languages... Basically they were too cheap to get the graphic artist to make new designs for each language, but changing the prose you can do pretty easily by paying a summer intern to do it. Just conjecture there, but I do think prose is a better guide on the website than the designed or multi-lingual pieces. My preference would be Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris, but am open to any of the non-hyphenated options. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris might be a good solution. It's certainly an acceptable disambiguation of Notre Dame using natural disambiguation. Then disambiguating Cathedral of Notre Dame geographically isn't strictly necessary at present at least; If there are other potential articles that could have this name we don't yet have them. And it's a shame that we need to make allowances for those who want to push a linguistic POV, which is what this RM has become, and it doesn't seem to address their concerns anyway.

But from the point of reader experience, Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris is a perfect title, so if it can get support, it's worth a try, and perhaps we can move on. Andrewa (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support It's a name, and that name, especially for the monument this article is about, is always hyphenated for placenames in its country of origin. 'Translating' (which removing the hyphen is not) someone's/something's name for the convenience of one's own habits is an expression of ignorance... and even a touch of arrogance, IMHO. And no, other (foreign) examples of that ignorance is not 'evidence' of anything (but that ignorance)... one must look at the whole picture, not just the 'convenient bits'. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

And no, I'm not French ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

See #Discussion. Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

The support !votes seem to all rely on the principle that we should follow correct French usage. No. We should follow current English usage. Andrewa (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

One above even now says Since it's in French, it should be correct French.

No. It's not French, it's a borrowing (but our treatment of borrowing seems to apply only to loanwords, while this is a phrase... we must fix that).

We follow English usage. We do not attempt to correct it. That is a firm policy, so note wp:not counting heads.

The more general argument that we should use correct French (or Ukranian of Finnish or I forget whatever other languages) should really be listed as a perennial proposal. It's often similarly argued that diacritics should always be added if they're used in the original language. No, we only add them if they are normally added when the name occurs in English. Andrewa (talk) 06:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a name, and that name, especially for the monument this article is about, is always hyphenated here. Where?

'Translating' (which removing the hyphen is not) someone's/something's name for the convenience of one's own habits is an expression of ignorance... and even a touch of arrogance, IMHO. A curious piece of logic... criticising others for wanting to do something that you then say is not what they're wanting to do. And it seems to me that this post itself shows more than a touch of arrogance.

And no, other (foreign) examples of that ignorance is not 'evidence' of anything (but that ignorance)... one must look at the whole picture, not just the 'convenient bits'. Another curious piece of logic... a plea to ignore parts of the picture, in order to better understand the whole. Indeed?

And no, I'm not French Thank God! Because I am, partly... although I call myself an Australian Born Scot. The legendary French arrogance is mostly confined to Paris, in my experience, and as my favourite Frenchman once told me, "Paris n'est pas la France".

I'll be interested to see how this one closes. I can't do it of course, I'm involved. Andrewa (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"A plea to ignore parts of the picture, in order to better understand the whole."

I am not 'pleading', and I never said 'ignore'; 'consider the whole' is not that.

"Notre-Dame de Paris" is a French name, in French, and, like any name, it should be spelled correctly whenever possible, especially when presented in its language of origin. Now, if we wanted to move it to "Notre-Dame cathedral, Paris", there would be toe-room for hyphen-hysteria ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but this is the English Wikipedia, and we use English whenever there is a common English-language form, not because we want to be linguistic imperialists, but because we want it to be easy for anglophones to find the article and see a title in their language and its forms when they open a page. This is not part of the manual of style, it is part of our policy on article names. Its why we have Eiffel Tower instead of Tour Eiffel, even though most educated anglophones would know what the latter is. An encyclopedia should be titled in the language of the people reading it. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Vague-selective wikilawyering aside (and that game could be played more precisely ; ), I don't really understand how you don't see it, but the 'Notre-Dame de Paris' title is like your 'Tour Eiffel' example: both are French names, in French. For your argument to make sense, you would have to move the article to an English title (say, 'Notre Dame Cathedral')... but even there, you may face opposition because 'Notre-Dame' is still a name. The article title as-is, unhyphenated, is neither English nor French. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Tony (and Andrew?), *de* Paris isn't English, and Notre Dame de Paris is a mish-mash of the two languages. Awien (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I'm Wikilawyering, use of English is our policy when there is an established usage in English, and appealing to the broad consensus the community has set there was my intent. I'm familiar with the French names page, and have addressed it above. @Awien:, yes, other users above have pointed that out, and that's why Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris or Notre Dame, Paris would be my preferred usage. I agree one way or the other is best, but feel pretty strongly that the English Wikipedia should use the English name. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, don't bring feelings to a fact-fight ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Another tack

Let me try another tack... If I wanted to refer to the rose window in English, I might say "Notre Dame's famous rose window", adding the s to Notre Dame to form the possessive. I would not say "the famous rose window de Notre Dame" or "the famous de Notre Dame rose window" or even "the famous rose window de Notre-Dame", all of those are horrible confusions that some English speakers would find out of place, while they have no trouble with the construction "Notre Dame's".

So when we use the phrase Notre Dame in English, it follows the rules of English grammar, does it not? Andrewa (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The two aren't comparable. Possessive "de" doesn't exist in English, whereas hyphenation does. Your antipathy towards the hyphen is ill-founded. Awien (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Where to now

I thought of WP:MR on the grounds that while it's 7:2 in favour of the move, the support !votes should be discounted for various reasons, for example the first one just reads very surprised to see no hyphen. The first step to doing this would of course be to discuss with Primefac on their talk page of course.

But on reflection, 7:2 with some very experienced RM regulars on the support side isn't likely to be overturned at MR. So see WT:AT#Notre Dame, and comments there welcome. Andrewa (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

Cathedral of Notre Dame caught on fire on the afternoon of April 15th. As of now, there is no known cause or reason to what caused this fire. This is one of the busiest weeks for the Cathedral because of Easter.

Rick-James33Chains (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

References

 Already done- MrX 🖋 18:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

the functional status should be changed since it is burning down ATM Marius137 (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Thank you - MrX 🖋 18:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

Number of towers: 1 (previously 2) DimitryKrakitov (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@DimitryKrakitov: Source? StudiesWorld (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC) (modified: StudiesWorld (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC))

Semi-protected Edit Request on April 15 2019

The copper statues were actually removed from the spire three days ago and were not on the spire during its collapse, as suggested by the article. It is unclear from sources whether they were on display inside the cathedral or offsite.

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/tourists-stunned-as-notre-dame-cathedral-statues-fly-above-paris/ar-BBVS8mt Chelsea99 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Creative commons

Due to the fire, I plan on releasing most of the following photos of Notre Dame into CC as part of preservation. However, it may take me time to get to. If any of the photos are of immediate use, let me know and I will prioritize. photos.app.goo.gl/7WacjSHeUPy8ViAYA ResultingConstant (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. It's hard to say what images would be priorities at the moment, but I'm sure many of them will be useful eventually.- MrX 🖋 20:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019

63.144.233.246 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
We need to point out that the external supports known a Flying Butresses may prevent the collapse of the walls as the roof has been destroyed and most of the contents. 63.144.233.246 (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Also, be sure to include a source or two. - MrX 🖋 22:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Past tense and categories

I know this is still going on, but sentences need to be changed to the past tense afterwards and the article should be added to ruin categories. It currently states that the fire has only "caus[ed] significant damage", which is as much as an assumption likely turning out to be wrong. --94.134.89.24 (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the firefighters have given preliminary statements just a few minutes ago that the interior has been largely destroyed.  :-( The loss to Western Civilization is tremendous. 104.169.29.171 (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Leave the tenses alone, and skip the ruin business. There's plenty of time to adjust appropriately once the damage has been assessed. Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Images of the Spire

None of the images on Commons shows details of the ornaments of the spire. Is there any possibility to get some that show the ornaments and especially the figures in the lower part that were not removed? The same applies for among many other details the rose windows that, according to rumors, were damaged. -- Liberaler Humanist (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Destruction

Just saw in the news that a fire has devastated the structure. No word yet on whether it's terrorism or accident. Given the severity this probably needs its own section correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.71.102 (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a whole article that covers all of that: Notre-Dame de Paris fire, linked in this article. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

World Heritage Site?

Apparently not, although one wonders why. There are other cathedrals in France that are. One thinks that if it were, the cathedral would attract more worldwide donations to help in its reconstruction. JohnClarknew (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What has this got to do with improving this article, which is the purpose of this talk page? Railfan23 (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a good question, and if it were a World Heritage Site and that was missed on the page then it would be a major improvement. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A bit of digging revealed the cathedral is part of a WHS covering the entirety of the Seine as it flows through Paris. This information has, appropriately, been added to the infobox. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 04:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Protect This Article

Vandals are spamming it every few minutes, and it has reached the point where a few news sites have done articles on the vandalism (such as this page). You guys should lock it to stop it. 09:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:AD3C:200:CDBF:DF71:5081:A063 (talk)

Someone requested it, but it got declined Wikipedia:Requests for page protection § Notre-Dame de Paris.

ThomasBur (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: It's now semi-protected for 12 hours.

ThomasBur (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Cats

I added Category:2019 fires and Category:Monuments historiques in Paris to the article. Both have been removed for no good reason that I can see. Should they be restored? Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The fire category would go on the page about the fire. I don't know about the other. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The building is a Monument Historique, so there's no good reason that it shouln't be categorized as such. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2019

{{subst:trim|1=

}Spelling error} Faisal8488 (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Faisal8488 where is the spelling error?- MrX 🖋 11:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

"the first time" in info box

Adding "the first time" following the year of completion of construction seems awkward and unnecessary. Take, for example, the article on Reims Cathedral. It suffered similar significant damage during Word War I and was repaired, but it doesn't have a "the first time" and a "the second time." Just seems like unnecessary and un-encyclopedic language resulting from emotion instead of fact. 66.26.135.7 (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2019

Sadedtiter (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

change "is" to "was" a cathedral

 Not done: Nope, it's still is. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

restoration

https://www.pcgamesn.com/assassins-creed-unity/notre-dame notre dame to be restored using help from assassinscreed video game 37.254.85.236 (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2019

In 1793, during the French Revolution, the cathedral was rededicated to the Cult of Reason, and then to the Cult of the Supreme Being. During this time, many of the treasures of the cathedral were either destroyed or plundered. The twenty-eight statues of biblical kings located at the west façade, mistaken for statues of French kings, were beheaded. Many of the heads were found during a 1977 excavation nearby, and are on display at the Musée de Cluny. For a time the Goddess of Liberty replaced the Virgin Mary on several altars. The cathedral's great bells escaped being melted down. All of the other large statues on the facade, with the exception of the statue of the Virgin Mary on the portal of the cloister, were destroyed. The cathedral came to be used as a warehouse for the storage of food and other non-religious purposes.

Please include that the original bells were melted during the French Revolution.

In 1793, during the French Revolution, the cathedral was rededicated to the Cult of Reason, and then to the Cult of the Supreme Being. During this time, many of the treasures of the cathedral were either destroyed or plundered. The twenty-eight statues of biblical kings located at the west façade, mistaken for statues of French kings, were beheaded. Many of the heads were found during a 1977 excavation nearby, and are on display at the Musée de Cluny. For a time the Goddess of Liberty replaced the Virgin Mary on several altars. The cathedral's great bells were melted down. All of the other large statues on the facade, with the exception of the statue of the Virgin Mary on the portal of the cloister, were destroyed. The cathedral came to be used as a warehouse for the storage of food and other non-religious purposes. 2601:447:4101:5780:5029:A1A3:66FE:7F63 (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I don't think eutouring.com is a reliable source. The other source (BBC) is ambiguous, but the way I read it is that some of the smaller bells were melted down for cannon balls. It does not seem to support the proposed change: "The cathedral's great bells were melted down." - MrX 🖋 20:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Visitation rate

The puff statistic:

12 million people visit Notre-Dame annually, making it the most visited monument in Paris.

Needs to become:

Before the fire, 12 million people visited Notre-Dame annually, making it the most visited monument in Paris.

But the fire isn't mentioned yet, so this also requires a restructuring. — MaxEnt 21:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank You!

My thanks and compliments to those who made such timely updates in wake of the fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcottay (talk • contribs) 21:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

American or British English?

Which dialect of English should be used for the writing of this article? I, as an American, am partial to American English myself. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:RETAIN, we should be using the existing format, which seems to be American English (several instances of -ize, center, color, etc). SounderBruce 02:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"Towers..." statement re bells is inconsistent; "Bells" section needs work

This statement:

The ten bells of the cathedral are located in the south tower. (see Bells below)

seems inaccurate, as the Bells section discusses bells in the north tower, too, among the Cathedral's largest. The entire Bells section seems to need better organization, as it is unclear to me (a layperson, not a scholar) how many bells in total and where some are. The section also needs rhetorical review for matters such as verb tense ("was being produced"), encyclopedic tone ("unfortunately") and clarity (e.g., taken literally, "a new set of eight bells for the North Tower of Notre-Dame Cathedral was being produced, along with a Grand Bell for the South Tower," suggests that all but one of the cathedral's bells is being replaced.) Eplater (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2019

There is an objectionable photo in the top right side of the page. The photo is probably taken from a porn site and I do not see any connection of the photo with this article. Please remove the photo. 158.144.12.140 (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed the image. I'm not sure how that happened. The sad thing is it's still featured elsewhere on the English Wikipedia as well.

Dpm12 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 Note: Closing this request as the issue seems to be fixed. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 05:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Someone keeps replacing the images in the infobox with porn images

Why? It's starting to get frustrating deleting all of them! Dpm12 (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how they did it either cause the page is semi protected, and all of the recent edits have been from registered users, not anons. --PatrioticProletarian (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, the files are on Wikimedia Commons. The vandal uploaded another version of the file there. I have blocked them and deleted the versions. Jianhui67 ^T★C 05:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Electrified pigeon deterrent wiring switching duqu Stucksnet risk

It’s difficult to see past the renovation scaffolding, but the pigeon wiring was electrified, according to earlier versions of the article. Unless a stand-alone power supply was used, the wiring,switching,and circuitry of the anti-pigeon system would have been vulnerable to a stuxnet or duqu-like cybercrime. It’s not clear in the fire videos because the scaffolding. Belvoir49.104.1.41 (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Damage has been assessed by the fire now

The fire was declared extinguished on the morning of the 16th of April, damage includes the main spire, the roof, further assesment is still occurring Sophiepangal997 (talk) 09:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

You are saying it has been assessed now, but it is still being assessed. Your statement has no value. --94.134.89.73 (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Not a destroyed landmark

This page is in the category "Destroyed landmarks", but it has not been destroyed. David G (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It is destroyed. The new church will be different and also appeal to people who are not Catholic. The Notre-Dame as we know is gone forever. --94.134.89.73 (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Why use French spelling of "facade"?

Why use the french spelling of "facade"? It's a very common English word with the same meaning. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk)

"Façade" and "facade" are both valid spellings in English: [13]. Ham II (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Façade is a common English spelling - the word commonly autocorrects in English word processor software to the cedilla version, and our cedilla article mentions its common usage in English. Apart from that, it's an article on a French subject. Acroterion (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Saint-Étienne Cathedral

Does the English article Saint-Étienne Cathedral have anything to do with the cathedral mentioned in the history section? Notre Dame is mentioned in this article, but it's because of the association with Pierre Bossan. Clovermoss (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, or it would have been linked. Follow the ILL to the French article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Out-of-date images

Ought we not to update the infobox images to show the present state of the cathedral, and move the out-of-date ones to somewhere like history? Even if the roof and spire are rebuilt à l'identique, that's not going to happen for years or decades. Awien (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

No thanks. We usually like to show buildings at their best - see World Trade Center (1973–2001). Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Johnbod. Please keep the images as they are. Despite the damage, the the main features of the cathedral (windows, towers, facade, sculpture) still look the same. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I argee with Johnbod and SiefkinDR thanks ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit Request: Cathedral is no longer accurate

The building should not be refered to as a cathedral as that is the name of a christian place of worship. There are plenty of other religious groups who live in Paris France such as Muslims and Jews. Many of whom worship in and around the building despite not being easter worshipers.

For the sake of modernism, we should refer to the building as a place of worship (instead of a cathedral) to represent the post modern identity of not only the center of worship, but also the changing face of france. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B03A:556E:E5A4:9268:1DFC:5954 (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A Cathedral is a church contains the cathedra of a bishop; the seat of a diocese. Notre-Dame de Paris is the seat of the Archdiocese of Paris and thus the Archbishop. Notre-Dame is a Cathedral. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Vami IV. No question that Notre-Dame is by definition and fact a cathedral. SiefkinDR (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The sentence: "It was speculated that the fire it was linked to ongoing renovation work." occurs in the first paragraph of the fire section. Obviosly, there should be no "it" between the words 'fire' and 'was'. I therefore ask that this mistake be removed. TheLuigiBrother (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Bells

The first sentence in the "Bells" section is a run-on, and the entire first paragraph is a bit sprawling and messy (from some of the syntax, I kinda suspect it might have been translated from an original French source without accounting for English grammar). Will someone with permissions please take a moment to correct the run-on and perhaps divide the paragraph into shorter sentences?

Done, I hope it's an improvement. Thanks for the heads-up. TP ✎ ✓ 17:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2019

This page is semi-protected, so it needs the code

{{pp-protected|small=yes}}

at the very top. Also, replace the line

{{About||the Victor Hugo novel|The Hunchback of Notre-Dame}}
{{Other uses|Notre Dame (disambiguation)|Notre Dame de Paris (disambiguation)}}

with

{{About||the Victor Hugo novel|The Hunchback of Notre-Dame|other uses|Notre Dame (disambiguation)|and|Notre Dame de Paris (disambiguation)}}

this produces a single note:

For the Victor Hugo novel, see The Hunchback of Notre-Dame. For other uses, see Notre Dame (disambiguation) and Notre Dame de Paris (disambiguation).

100.12.186.112 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done – A most astute notice, thank you. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Topic of "Crypt" Section

This discusses the Crypte archéologique de l'île de la Cité located underneath the Parvis Notre-Dame – Place Jean-Paul-II – outside of Notre-Dame Cathedral. You can see several pictures of this crypt on Commons. But I think there is also another crypt located inside the Cathedral. This second crypt is sort of like the Cathedral's "basement" and I presume is where there are people buried. I found a photo of this crypt here while searching the cathedral map.

Does anyone know if this is correct? Are there really two separate crypts, or do they connect somewhere? I don't know because I have not been there. But if so, are we confusing the two here? It seems to me this section should belong on the article about the Parvis, and there should be other information here about Notre-Dame's crypt. Pigby2 (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 September 2018 and 6 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kkatiekrue, Emanel2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lord James Lyon

There's a line about a quote from Lord James Lyon de Wales-- "Lord James Lyon of Wales noticed the grand scale of the process for constructing the cathedral in one of his most famous quotes: Ayo cuh that's crazy. — James Lyon de Wales, Creame de Coffee" But, uhm... Who the heck is this guy? It seems like an odd and rather sophisticated bit of vandalism, since I can find nothing anywhere about this guy. "One of his most famous quotes"? He has others? 147.226.215.92 (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

France

Nothing 2409:4063:4284:4BE9:0:0:9BB:70A5 (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• ZuccaParis11.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Flèche, spire or spirelet?

Anyone got any thoughts on which of these terms should be used for the timber construction which was destroyed in the 2019 fire? I am inclined to go for flèche (see Flèche (architecture)). Spire suggests a heavy stone Gothic construction of great height. Within that article, it says that the spirelets often built atop the crossings of major churches in mediaeval French Gothic architecture are called flèches. SInce the one in question is in Paris, I suggest flèche is the appropriate word. Masato.harada (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, or "spirelet", not "spire" for sure. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)