Talk:Notre-Dame fire/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Vigils

Currently the article says, "Multiple groups gathered in vigils for Notre-Dame." There seem to be a fairly sizable vigil happening now, so I'm wondering if this should be fleshed out a bit more, especially if there are sources offering crowd sizes. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 19:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe that current vigil is still happening, but once there are news articles with crowd sizes I don't see why not. There seems to be a fair number of people at it. As long as enough RS cover it. QueerFilmNerdtalk 19:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone know what hymns were being sung during the vigils & if their are reliable sources for that? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I think last night I saw on social media that they sung Ava Maria at least, don't know if RS reported on the ones last night though (and I don't know what the RS are in France). I don't know my hymns very well sadly. QueerFilmNerdtalk 20:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
On a side note, at least one group holding a vigil outside the Saint-Julien-le-Pauvre was reported to be singing a continuous communal hymn (unfortunately not identified) mostly in the form of a cappella, but with occasional accompaniment by a pair of violins. Source Ceannlann gorm (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Some references to use

Feel free to add more to the list so they can be used to expand the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Becauae the question will (and should) be asked: CATHOLIC CHURCHES ARE BEING DESECRATED ACROSS FRANCE—AND OFFICIALS DON’T KNOW WHY, Brendan Cole, Newsweek, 21 March 2019. Keeping always in mind that La Fenice, the oldest opera house in Europe, was re-built using footage from “Senso”, Paris sera toujours Paris, et nous avons traversé une période pire, n'oublions jamais Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please delete the two videos I just uploaded

I migrated them from VOA on YouTube on my phone and didn’t see the Reuters watermark. Please delete them!! Victor Grigas (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't fair use apply in this situation? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. They were uploaded to Commons, and fair use doesn't apply there. They've been tagged for speedy deletion as copyright violations. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
And even if they were uploaded to en.wiki, NFC would not allow them as we have several other photos and videos of the fire as free versions; nothing that requires a non-free image or video to see yet. (Only thing I would be eyeing at this point is the damaged interior as that's definitely not possible to access as a civilian and likely will be cleaned up before civilians can re-enter. --Masem (t) 21:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any alternative video clips of the spire collapse over at the Commons at the moment unfortunately. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There is File:Notre_dame_Cathedral_de_paris_on_fire_april_15_2019.webm. --Masem (t) 21:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thought that was the same video? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Burning of Saint Suplice church

The burning of Saint Suplice church exactly one month before Notre Dame should be mentioned, as it's an almost irrefutable proof that it wasn't accidental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.241.175.56 (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@86.241.175.56: Unless a reliable source is making the connection in more than a passing way, there's no reason to include it here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
"almost irrefutable proof" Poppycock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump

Trump's uneducated opinion about urban firefighting and his complaint about how this affects his plans for the day are not pertinent to the article. This line should be removed. – bradv🍁 20:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It's an international response. Ergo it should be kept in the international response section. puggo (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
To embarrass him? Or for some other reason? What value does this add? – bradv🍁 20:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Bug2266, Perhaps Trump's comment should be mentioned in some way, but his firefighting expertise (or lack thereof) is not necessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Another Believer Bradv Why include statements from Merkel or the Vatican? It's because they're relevant leaders who spoke on the issue. It's not a matter of political agenda, it's of documentation. puggo (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Bug2266, Think longterm. Years from now, no one will care about Trump's tweet in relation to the history of the cathedral or this disaster. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
A few major leaders who have expressed an opinion have been mentioned. Trump is certainly noteworthy amongst them. Is it just that you don't like him? Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Mtaylor848, Of course I don't like Trump, but that's not why I want to remove. I'm not opposed to covering his response in some way, but is "Perhaps flying water tankers could be used to put it out. Must act quickly!" really that helpful to this article? I yield to editor consensus, I just think we don't need to record every tweet verbatim. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems I'm not alone in my thinking. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Trump's comment is not important. It's sufficient to say that he expressed condolences like other world leaders.- MrX 🖋 20:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. First, Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to archive Trump tweets. Second, we're talking about a fire in one of the most visited landmarks in the world... for the love of all that is medieval and sacred, can we finish at least one article without a tangent involving US politics?Canute (talk) 02:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, the comments have been responded to by French firefighters. puggo (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems good. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Trump is currently mentioned in the "Firefighting effort" section. Appropriately? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Most people have overlooked Trump's followup tweet. EEng 15:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Paris Fire Brigade robot.

The Times among others have mentioned the COLOSSUS firefighting robot made by Shark Robotics that was successfully used by the Paris Fire Brigade during their battle to save the Cathedral. I don't have time at the moment to properly add it to the article, so I'll leave some material here in case someone wants to add it in the meantime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDbvBPgoO6c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WcbIPRGXM0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptmfG4nA5w0

Not sure what happened to the sig in my original post. Anyway, didn't get back to this in time, so I'll work on it sometime tomorrow. Night! Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Notre Dame could take 40 years to rebuild

The replacement roof at Chartres

This is an interesting source I found from CBS here. The wood needed from the oak trees could possibly be replaced from the Baltic according to one expert. The cost to re-build is also estimated at 7 billion euros. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It should be noted that a nearly identical event happened at Chartres Cathedral in 1836. The roof structure there, also called le forêt, was replaced in cast iron (and the stained glass survived the fire). This happened fairly often. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
And at Rheims Cathedral in WWI. I made a stub at Construction and renovation fires, but maybe we need List of cathedrals destroyed by fires spreading from the charpente. HLHJ (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
There was a similar fire in York Minster in 1984. That building is of similar age and size to Notre-Dame de Paris and lost its roof and vaulted ceiling as well as glass. The restoration of that took four years and apparently cost around £2.5 million (less than €10 million today). -- DeFacto (talk). 08:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I've started a spottily sourced draft in my userspace at User:Acroterion/church fires. It will take some time and specialist sources to properly flesh out. Acroterion (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
That's brilliant, Acroterion. Given the topicality, I'd favour shoving it into the mainspace as-is; it's hardly BLP, and people will see it and help flesh it out (my article is pretty scant, too, and I had help: source Jnestorius found and added there, which you might want[1]). Maybe throw in some images like the Charpente de Fer too. HLHJ (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I've moved it into article space at List of fires at major places of worship. References need work, and i's far from complete. Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I added that CBS source to augment the rebuild period to 20-40 yr, plus it mentions that cost constraints left the building uninsured. --Masem (t) 14:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

CEST

Why are we writing out Central European Summer Time in the lead, surely if people don't know CEST they can just click on it to see what it means. Govvy (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. It earlier said CEST and linked to the article. I've restored that for now. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
First time an abbreviation is used that's not common, it should be spelled out. CEST may be common to Europeans, but I have a feeling not to the rest of the world (I'm USian and even then I had to blink to think of what it stood for). --Masem (t) 14:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Currently, the times are also in the "a.m./p.m." format in the lead-in, whereas the 24-hour clock is the standard in France, at least, according to Date and time notation in France. I'd say that while time format is not a unit per se and English is not an official language in France, we should still respect national ties in this case... --Koveras (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure this article started with 24-hr clock times. Per DATERET they should be kept like that. --Masem (t) 14:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, it did start out with 24 hour times. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
C'est slightly amusing that a France-related subject uses CEST. EEng 03:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Determination to not use planes or helicopters to dump water on the building"

I'm not sure about this, but shouldn't this just be put under the firefighting effort? Pie3141527182 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC) I think that this should be removed unless we intend to add Trump's tweet because currently it is unclear why anyone would think that they should have. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It has been pushed into the existing sections. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
and I just merged it more into the statement already made, just adding about the "tons of water" aspect. Definitely didn't need to be separate. --Masem (t) 21:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz:, why did you revert my change? Currently, there is no explanation of why it is relevant that they did not use aerial firefighting. The statement explains why it was being discussed. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

StudiesWorld, which change. I don't remember removing this information, I thought it was removed by someone else (and here I just commented on the removal by another editor). Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: diff. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
StudiesWorld, that was not me. The edit I made which was reverted here was a copyedit to remove a space between the citation and sentence (diff). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I misinterpreted. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
StudiesWorld, no hard feelings. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 22:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@StudiesWorld I'm sorry but what difference does it make what Trump tweeted? That has no weight in the article since it is about Paris and their cultural icon. Americans are obsessed with pointing fingers at Trump and that kind of behavior does not write articles. Politicizing whether or not his idea was good or bad has nothing to do with the cathedral's fire. Please stick to the subject and the subject alone not why Trump's decision to make a tweet.MagnoliaSouth (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Magnoliasouth: I don't think that he is relevant, but I also don't think it is relevant what the Paris firefighters said they were not doing if it would not be expected or standard practice for them to do something. If the only reason that they made a statement was because of Trump, which is how the media reports it, then we should include that explanation in our article. I don't care whether he was right or wrong, but we should include an explanation of WHY they firefighters said that they were not using aerial firefighting. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that aerial firefighting was even considered? It seems that any comment on it by French authorities was a response to an impractical (and fatuous) suggestion by an uninformed person. In the absence of any authority for a contention that it was actually considered, it should not be in the article. Kablammo (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Before and After"

@B dash and Alvaro Marques Hijazo: Do we really need an illustration that's watermarked with "Before" and "After"? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Before and After GIF

Hi, @MTWEmperor:. Great work on the GIF showing the structure before and after. However, I feel that the image is changing too fast. Could it be slowed down to half its current speed. Would help a lot. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I hate it. Blinks like a distracting ad. If it can't slow down, can it be activated by a mouse hover instead? Having it reverse rather than jarringly start over might be nice, too, if feasible. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree; and have removed it, for the above reasons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I have replaced this w/ two static images for before and after. --Masem (t) 14:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I uploaded a new version of File:Notre-Dame-Fire.gif with the requested changes, but submit it for review before putting it back into the article. --Lasunncty (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Renovation works

This doesn't seem like a term we would use in the United States. I assume another type of English is being used because this is happening in Europe and there is a definition for this term which would make it acceptable?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

This is proper English, including US, although it sounds stilted and formal. See Public_works for example. ResultingConstant (talk) 20:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I see at some point the term was changed, which is good. We ought to all be able to understand what is written.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, but Americans won't know what it means.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm an American and I understood it perfectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.190.183.221 (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Controversy aka Youtube

As @Bug2266: mentionined in their edit summary, it should stay. It is directly relevant to the event. However, the section should ideally be separate, and not under reactions, controversy is fine IMO, now removed by @Ruyter:. However, I don't see why it would compromise the neutrality of the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @159753:, @Bkatcher: and @Black Kite: here. Discuss and then go forward. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No, it shouldn't stay. It's irrelevant trivia. If we put every incident of YouTube algorithm fails in our articles, there'd be tens of thousands. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Should be removed. A minor issue from a website that's consistently buggy. Bkatcher (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Should be kept, is a relevant part of coverage. puggo (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete it, per Black Kite's rationale. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Certainly don't need a separate "Controversies" section heading... ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove. More details will be coming in and the article expanded, and we will likely find this to be a little temporary issue not worth mentioning indefinitely. Reywas92Talk 19:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Unrelated. It has nothing to do with the article. It shouldn't stay. I agree with Black Kite. Maxforwind (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I was was just pointing out the news networks in question. 159753 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • completely irrelevant —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

New articles are continuously being written about this, that should point towards its relevancy. puggo (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I will note I added this on the Youtube page (its 100% fair game criticism there), so its not being ignored. Just that I haven't seen serious outrage over the linkage since YT swooped in to deal with it. (Contrast that to the shooter's video for Christchurch; controversy on how social media sites allow that is still ongoing). --Masem (t) 15:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"a fire broke out on the roof"

The article currently states "a fire broke out on the roof." Fires don't break out on roofs because they need fuel to burn. They frequently break out under roofs. Several sources, like The Guardian, state that "flames burst through the roof,"[2] meaning the fire was burning below the roof and then went through the roof. This Wikipedia article invariably will be extensively revised but clarity should always be the goal when describing how and where a fire burned.--Siberian Husky (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Damgé, Mathilde; Dagorn, Gary; Durand, Anne-Aël (16 April 2019). "Nantes, Lunéville, Windsor... les derniers grands incendies de bâtiments historiques". Le Monde (in French). Retrieved 17 April 2019.
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/15/notre-dame-fire-paris-france-cathedral
A fire can easily break out ON a roof. It's happened many times. Either from burning debris falling on it (say in a forest fire) or some mishap due to human activity on a roof, like breaking a heating-oil line (which has happened many times.) That said, this article should be left alone for a few hours until officials can give a press conference on what actually happened. 104.169.29.171 (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
You stated "from burning debris falling on it." Then the fire didn't break out on the roof. Material that was already on fire -- burning debris -- fell on the roof and then ignited the roofing material. This can happen from an adjacent building. You stated "like breaking a heating-oil line." In that case, either the fuel oil itself acted like an accelerant or the roofing material itself became saturated with the fuel oil, but neither of those two events would be the ignition. They were the fuel. Something had to light that fuel on fire.--Siberian Husky (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
That's extremely silly semantics - drop the stick.104.169.29.171 (talk) 02:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I've a feeling I know who this person is. It is anything BUT "silly semantics", my friend. This is supposed to be factual and the point has been made that the roof itself may not have caught fire, at least until after the fire started and this too may change soon. Let us say for a moment that it started in the men's room. Then is it still correct to say that the roof started the fire? No, if we said that it would be a bald faced lie. Your silly semantics are instead iron clad facts and what is factual is what belongs, nothing else no implications, conspiracies, etc. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Never saw your User before, and this is really beating a dead horse silly. Tempest in a teacup. Disagree completely with your analysis.21:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.29.171 (talk)
Upside-down fires are easy to build, and easy to start all on their own, especially with all the scaffolding (read kindling) on the cathedral. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndonnv8iHhU ResultingConstant (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
It originally said that the fire broke out in the roof area. I reworded it to say on the roof. And fires can break out on the roof. The roof was on fire. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
"It originally said that the fire broke out in the roof area." You should have kept that, which was more accurate.--Siberian Husky (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
You stated "especially with all the scaffolding." If the fire started in the scaffolding, then that should have been stated, not that it started on the roof. You are correct that scaffolding is a frequent ignition point for fires -- a piece of equipment may spark being used by a worker on that scaffolding and then start a trash fire with then spreads to the scaffolding material itself. However, the fire in such a situation would "break out" in the scaffolding, not on the roof. This is a question of accuracy. And while it is true that so-called "upside down" fires may occur, if such an act were to occur, then that should have been what was written. The structure in question, however, has a lead-clad roof, so an upside down fire would not be possible because the outer layer of the roof provides no flammable fuel. The video with the campfire is not illustrative because that's not a structure fire. --Siberian Husky (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
In that case, please be bold and change it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

A plea

In the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and all the saints and apostles, can everyone PLEASE stop writing that this or that happened "in the fire" and "during the fire" and "because of the fire"? Examples:

This picture shows Notre Dame during the fire
  • No one was killed in the fire
  • The windows weren't damaged in the fire
  • The spire collapsed because of the fire
  • Lots of water was used during the fire
  • Lead on the roof melted in the fire (or, even more delicious, because of the heat of the fire)
  • Firemen arrived to fight the fire

We get it. The fire. This is an article on the fire. The reader will know, without our saying it over and over, that we're narrating events of the fire and discussing the effects of the fire. See WP:Principle of Some Astonishment. EEng 01:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Need others pictures ?

Hello. There is three others pictures if needed to insert in the english version of the page (they are available on french version of the page) :

  • "Notre-Dame en feu, 20h01.jpg" : The fire is decreasing. Picture took from Sully bridge. You can see other people on Tournelle bridge.
  • "Notre-Dame en feu, 20h06.jpg" : the fire is suddenly increasing with flammes twice high, with strange yellow clouds.
  • "20190415 11 La foule Pont de la Tournelle Wiki.jpg" : People on Tournelle bridge, hundred of still and silent people.

--GodefroyParis (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the info, GodefroyParis. We formerly had a version with more images of that sort, but they were removed. I would personally favour re-adding at least the one of the steel scaffolding, which I think shows the geometry very clearly and contrasts with the nearby same-angle photo from just before the spire fell, but I will see what others think. I suspect that a gallery section (that is, a section titled "== Gallery ==") is likely to be controversial. HLHJ (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Vault collapse map

Could we re-add the improved version of the old vault collapse map, or this image (see gallery below), with decent sourcing (they now have a source on Commons)? Photos here[1] seem to show a small hole at the arris crossing, too, as if just the boss and keystone fell out. Wikpan and Lämpel, you made these images; views?

OpenStreetMap will have a 3D model of Notre Dame, which might be useful to illustrators. HLHJ (talk) 06:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Framing images

  • Collapsed areas of vaulting
    Collapsed areas of vaulting
  • Wood frame supporting bells in belfry; nearly caught, which would have brought down the towers.[1][2]
    Wood frame supporting bells in belfry; nearly caught, which would have brought down the towers.[1][2]
  • Framing at the base of the spire, inside the roof crossing.
    Framing at the base of the spire, inside the roof crossing.
  • Framing of the top of the spire
    Framing of the top of the spire
  • Model of some of the framing
    Model of some of the framing

Could we consider adding some of these images? I think they illustrate points about how the structure burned (and just about escaped burning). I would also like to argue for the restoration of content on how the vault, walls, and towers could have easily collapsed; the effects of this fire would have been different had the cathedral never been in real danger, and the closeness of total destruction is an important long-term piece of information about the fire. HLHJ (talk)

Oversized images

@EEng: I'd like to see an explaination as to why File:NotreDame20190415QuaideMontebello (cropped).jpg, File:NDonFire 8773 (edited).jpg, File:Statues and Tower at Notre-Dame, Paris (3588003043).jpg, File:Incendie Notre Dame 21h00.jpg, File:Chartres roof space the Charpente de Fer.jpg need to be blown up to a large size. Your explanation that "imgs in art and architecture articles are routinely larger than most images because of the high level of detail" doesn't address the fact that all the images are perfectly legible at the default size. It's more than obvious that the images are a building on fire, water being sprayed on a building on fire, statues on a roof, people on a riverbank with a building on fire in the background, and the interior of a building. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Your edit summary links MOS:IMGSIZE, but you don't seem to have read it: For example: upright=1.3 might be used for an image with fine detail ... Short, wide images often call for upright of 1 or greater. These images are mostly short and wide, and show a subject almost defined by the fineness of its detail: a Gothic cathedral.
The function of an image -- these images especially -- is not just to make it possible for readers to perceive (make it "obvious", as you say) that they show "a" building on fire, statues on "a" roof, and the interior of "a" building, but for them to actually see this particular building, these statues on this roof, and the interior of this cathedral. That's why, as already mentioned, images depicting works of art and architecture are typically presented at larger sizes than are many other images. EEng 03:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
@EEng: You still seem to not recognise that people can still see the subjects at the images' default size, which was my point. If you want to specify a specific building or roof or cathedral, that's what captions are for. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
If you think a caption replaces being able to actually see the detail of a 1000-year-old cathedral, then you don't understand the function of an image. My point is that MOS calls out two reasons that images might qualify for larger presentation, and these images satisfy both of them. Of course, this is ultimately a question of subjective judgment so I suggest we await input from others. EEng 04:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Until we have pics of close up details of damage. I don't think this article qualifies as needing larger images sizes that would be otherwise used in architecture articles. It is the saddening spectacle of the fire. Not the beauty of the church, that is the focus. --Masem (t) 04:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Judas.
But seriously: what's the reader supposed to get from this image at this size?
EEng 05:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea why we have that pic in the article in the first place given we have no idea of its fate yet. I know there's concern about losing those works, but until we can see before or after, it doesn't seem necessary. --Masem (t) 05:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, to add, I'm fine with oversized images where it is the art/architecture that is the focus, but most of the images of the fire and firefighting effort aren't about those features. That is, not all images need to be oversized. --Masem (t) 05:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I agree with all that that too, but the point remains. How about this:
Statues of the Apostles had been removed for conservation days before the fire
I mean, sure, with the help of the caption you can indeed decode that, hmm, OK I see that's an aerial view of a roof and there are some teensy statues too, but why not make the reader's task easier?
Statues of the Apostles had been removed for conservation days before the fire
There was a day when the job of a thumbnail was to let you decide whether actually seeing the image was worth an expenditure of precious bandwidth and load time, but that day is long past. Just the fact that these are landscape-format images augers for upright > 1. EEng 05:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Not disagreeing that in that photo's specific case, the larger image helps to resolve what they are, but from the Commons cat, there are better images that are less ... artistic but more practical that show a much better contrast of the bronze against the dark roof at thumbnail size to get the point across that these bronze statues were NOT damages because they had been removed earlier. --Masem (t) 13:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that there is no need to use sizes other than the default for these general images (which is why I changed them back to that less than a day ago). If the reader wants to see them bigger they can click on them. At the moment the page is overpowered by overly large images. MOS:IMAGESIZE is clear on this: "When specifying upright= values greater than 1, take care to balance the need to reveal detail against the danger of overwhelming surrounding article text." -- DeFacto (talk). 06:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Shit, I think I wrote that. Hoist with my own petard. EEng 06:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The thing is, we don't all have huge screens - but we do all (mostly) have the option to click on a picture if we want to see it bigger. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Jesus and Religiously-inspired Pareidolia

The citation from the Huffington Post includes the following:

"Although some people find the image inspirational, it may be more of an example of “pareidolia,” than a message from God.
"Kang Lee, a psychologist at the University of Toronto who released a study of face peridolia earlier in 2014, told HuffPost that “human brains are uniquely wired to recognize faces, so that even when there’s only a slight suggestion of facial features, the brain automatically interprets it as a face.”"
Moye, David (April 17, 2019). "People Claim To See Jesus In Flames Engulfing Notre Dame Cathedral". Huffington Post.

So this is not WP:OR. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

That's not what you put in the article though. You added: Some observers say they saw an image of Jesus in the flames, that being an example of face recognition pareidolia. To assert the opinion of the scientist as a fact definitely is OR. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree. But you changed it already. So what is your point? Quoi?
I also added miracle language.
WP:Dead horse. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My point is that what we write needs to be verifiable from reliable sources. What you wrote was not. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
We can put the quotation into the citation, if that suits you better. I think it is gilding the lilly over a minor point, but your mileage may vary. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
It's fine since my change, which introduced the word "may" and attributed the opinion. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with DeFacto ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Do we need the table of "list of known donations"?

I don't think we do, which is why I removed it (but was rapidly reverted by RaphaelQS). As I said in my edit summary, I think it contraves WP:UNDUE (which says: Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery.) because it disproportionately dominates the article, it is way too big and too prominent in relation to other more pertinent stuff in the article and has too much irrelevant information in it. By nature it is always incomplete and always out-of-date as donations are being continually made. It could easily be replaced by a few lines of general prose, which is preferred to tables anyway per MOS:TABLE#Prose: Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that table listing donors and how much they pledged is totally inappropriate and should be removed, replaced by a few sentences indicating the existence of the fund and the total pledged amount. It was removed once but the author put it back. I would have removed it myself, as controversial and needing discussion, but I can't do it on my phone. But really: Are we really going to accommodate every billionaire who jumps on the bandwagon in hopes of a little publicity? And how are we going to decide which donations get listed and which don't? Only donations over a certain amount? Only donations by people who meet some kind of famousness criterion? How long before this overwhelms the article? My opinion, speaking as just another editor, is that we should not have a table or any other kind of list of names of donors. MelanieN alt (talk) 08:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Oops, we both wrote at the same time. My opinion stands. MelanieN alt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, undue attention to obviously attention-seeking donors. M!dgard (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree. Drop the table. Gives undue weight to some people. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
A list is fine as long as we are using secondary/third-party sources to identify who contributed (this avoids being promotional), and perhaps set a lower bound of whom should be recognized (to prevent it being excessive). Groups putting in 10s or 100s of millions of Euros make sense, the guy dropping 1 euro note in a bucket is not. --Masem (t) 14:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Undoubtedly this is notable and can appear in the article in some form.
But I am surprised at the remarkable criticism of the pledgors, as shown in the discussion above. What insight do we have into the motivations of the donors? Are wealthy people immune to eleemosynary motivations, patriotism, appreciation of art, or spirituality? Does our duty to assume good faith end when dealing with people other than wikipedians? Kablammo (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the fund is notable, but I don't think it should be presented in such an overpowering way (a huge and space-inefficient table) and I don't see the need to list each individual donor for whom a source can be found. -- DeFacto (talk).
That make sense. Perhaps a mention in the text, accompanied an efn with a list, similar to footnote b? Kablammo (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I think is is notable information, and a relevant list, regardless of what the motives are. The amounts will have a significant effect on the rebuilding efforts... L.tak (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@L.tak: why do you think we need this high-impact list rather than the prose that is generally preferred? -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that a few lines of prose would be better than the table. I don't know if this is a factor, but it does take up a lot of space, and is about one whole mouse-wheel scroll in length, if that is a standard unit of measurement. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the list. It is easier to take in the information than if it were in prose, and the ability to sort by columns is very useful. A separate question might be who to include/exclude from the table. I think a donation should have to be at least $/€ 10 million. TDBs should be omitted altogether. - MrX 🖋 21:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
A separate option is to drop the table format , eliminate the "private/public" line and the nation line, and just use div cols (probably 3 of them) to list the donator and amount. Reduces wasted whitespace) --Masem (t) 21:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Large donations are notable and should be included, and a table is the easiest way to convey the information. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

DROP TABLE donors; Or make it collapsable. Reduce the footprint somehow (how would the "div col" suggestion above work and look?). And a EUR/USD 10 million cut-off point sounds reasonable: anything below that is chump change for a plutocrat or large corporation. Moscow Mule (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a div col example (w/o links or refs but that wont significantly already this):
  • Arnault family & LVMH (€200M)
  • Bettencourt family & L'Oréal (€200M)
  • Pinault family & Artémis (€100M)
  • Total SA (€100M)
  • Paris city government (€50M)
  • BNP Paribas SA (€20M)
  • Decaux family & JCDecaux (€20M)
  • AXA SA (€10M)
  • Safra family (€10M)
  • Bouygues family (€10M)
  • De Lacharrière family & FIMALAC (€10M)
  • Île-de-France (€10M)
  • Société générale (€10M)
  • BPCE (€10M)
  • Kravis family ($10M)
  • The Walt Disney Company ($5M)
  • Crédit Agricole (€1M)
  • Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes (€1M)
  • Occitanie (€1M)
  • Capgemini (€1M)
  • UiPath (€1M)
  • Ubisoft (€500k)
  • University of Notre Dame ($100k)
  • Ratel family (€50k)
  • Szeged Public (€10k)
  • Apple Inc. (TBD)
  • Autodesk, Inc. (TBD)
Nice and tidy to me. Also adapts with screen size. --Masem (t) 02:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind, Masem -- I added a carefully chosen colwidth. EEng 03:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Nope, there's a few ways to optimize this, just that we can get relevant info to users without wasting whitespae.--Masem (t) 03:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Works for me; much better than the intrusive table. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This is an improvement. But we should list only those above a certain amount, and not include Apple or Autodesk until they announce intended contributions. Kablammo (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I left the full list in, but I do agree a minimum donation level should be established (we just trim the list bottom down). I'd suggest 1M euro/dollars as the level. --Masem (t) 04:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Probably best to go with euros. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Good for me if we use one currency unit (the euro seems the most appropriate) and have a cut-off at €10 million. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like a good line. The Walt Disney Company had its chance to ride this cathedral's good name in 1996. Pulled in $325 million. That's over half a billion dollars today. Untold numbers of children have become adults who think that's a historical account now, or at least close to the book. And they're selling another "reimagining" to those children's children soon. Not to mention all this moolah. I don't know how you repay an incalculable debt like that, but it's at least ten million euros. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
But no donation from the Victor Hugo estate, apparently. EEng 13:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DeFacto. It looks like a "thank you to our sponsors" page at the back of a theatre brochure. Let's summarize it in a few sentences. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

As long as each is sourced to a third-party article, that avoids the issue. Without the references, yes it does look like a patron list, which is not what we want, but the presence of sources helps to show this is a curated list. --Masem (t) 16:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I substituted the list above, for donors equal or greater than 10,000,000 euros. If someone has a diffent view of consensus here, have at it. Kablammo (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Now at Talk:Notre-Dame_de_Paris_fire/Archive_3#Fundraising_~. Kablammo (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

History of reconstructions

User:117.199.83.186, you removed this text. I think the history of past reconstructions ("The form that the reconstruction should take has been debated. In the Middle Ages a ruined cathedral might be rebuilt in a more modern and fireproof style; for instance, the Gothic style which Notre Dame pioneered became popular partially because it was more fireproof than older styles. Past reconstructions of Notre Dame often changed it significantly.") is relevant context for current ones, especially when people are suggesting restoring it to its 13th-century form (which would require ripping out a lot of stuff added since, and replacing whatever was there before, as best we know). Could you explain why you disagree? HLHJ (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:117.199.83.186, comments? HLHJ (talk) 04:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yellow smoke?

The fire at an early stage from the south. The lead-covered spire[2] burns with yellow smoke.

Why was the smoke yellow? At least two editors have tried hard to find a source that answers this (see page history comments), and the best we can do is lots of sources that say the smoke was yellow without saying why. Wood does not generally burn with a yellow smoke, in my experience. Lead (II) oxide is yellow and a plausible oxidation product of the leads, but would it really produce that much of that strong a colour?

Can any experts or journalists reading this offer information (ideally citing a self-published source by a expert, or coverage by a reputable media source, including books etc)? Generic sources on lead oxidation and aerosolization in fires might also be useful. HLHJ (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I've burned wood in the yard that had the exact yellow smoke ... just some mixture of compounds oxidizing.104.169.29.171 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I have looked and never find a affirmed reason why smoke came out yellow, outside of wacky conspiracy theories. It would be OR to even use personal expert knowledge as an editor to try to cause that. --Masem (t) 21:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Apologies to new editors and friendly lurkers, we will now descend into acronym WP:OR. I think I'm at risk of misunderstanding you here, Masem; cause what? I am not suggesting that assertions by Peter ople posting here could be cited in the article (I think, subject to correction, that what you are saying would be WP:OR, and I agree). But they might help us know what search terms to use (for instance, the name of some compound that commonly turns woodsmoke yellow). I'm pretty sure it's not WP:OR to use the personal expert knowledge of anyone to cause the finding of a reliable source . Obviously we'd both like to find a reliable source supporting a reliable statement, so we can put it in the article, and not leave answering "Why was the smoke yellow?" to people employing poor standards of evidence. I'll take even "I've burned wood in the yard that had the exact yellow smoke" as possibly helpful in the search, but I will certainly not cite it.
I've run into this Peter ople in the past and he's not a reliable source. EEng 04:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh yes, Peter ople will say anything, and believe six impossible things before breakfast, despite being generally well-intentioned and helpful. Thanks, autocorrect. HLHJ (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
On which topic, what sort of wood was it? Is it plausible that very well-seasoned oak would burn yellow? Do you have any idea what "mixture of compounds" was oxidizing to yellow stuff? HLHJ (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
The French Wikipedia article has a reference on this: https://etudiant.lefigaro.fr/article/les-compagnons-du-devoir-en-deuil-apres-l-incendie-de-notre-dame-de-paris_ed00c8ac-6033-11e9-8734-715cc24237b7/
It’s not authoritative, but it’s better than nothing.Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 03:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
A fifteen-year-old apprentice woodworker might have expert knowledge about such things, but might not. Out article on backdraft mentions yellow smoke as a sign of incomplete combustion, citing a book on firefighting; if anyone has access to a book on firefighting (your local firehall will be full of such books, and probably some bored firefighters reading them), that would be a good source.
This source (which I found earlier) has a lot of detail, but is slightly off-target: https://www.firefightingincanada.com/structural/trainers-corner-the-science-of-reading-smoke-2139
This source directly answers the question, but is a Quora answer (apparently by a firefighter, tho): https://www.quora.com/Does-the-yellow-smoke-from-Notre-Dame-while-it-was-burning-prove-a-conspiracy
I'd ideally like something a bit more mechanistic than "yellow smoke indicates incomplete combustion (no idea why)". Both because a mere association is not a very satisfying explanation, and because we are involved with a topic of interest to conspiracy theorists here. HLHJ (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

For that matter, would it be worth including a section on the environmental impact of tons of lead, copper, and small particles (PM10s if memory serves) that were in the smoke?Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, methinks. On the basis of this AFP piece being reprinted everywhere, we could say something like :
"The charity Robin des Bois expressed concerns about lead contamination of the site; regular environmental monitoring samples are being analysed by Airparif.[3]"
Feel free to add this or something similar if you see fit. I'm a bit unimpressed by the range of sources used in this AFP article. Since it is being reprinted everywhere, tho, I think we can expect more sources shortly. HLHJ (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah. Apparently some filter analyses are in, and the pollution was very localized, due to wind conditions (source in French). Will add. HLHJ (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lapin, Tamar (15 April 2019). "Photos show center of Notre Dame cathedral miraculously intact". New York Post.
  2. ^ Flynn, Meagan (16 April 2019). "The story behind the towering Notre Dame spire and the 30-year-old architect commissioned to rebuild it". Washington Post.
  3. ^ "Notre-Dame paintings removed amid lead pollution fears". France 24. AFP. 19 April 2019.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Notre-Dame_fire/Archive_2&oldid=1088702899"