Talk:Chapels of Versailles

Removal of Gallery
The gallery, which certainly had problems with dead pics etc, has just been removed entirely - an over-drastic move, it seems to me. The ridiculously long bibliography here should be trimmed drastically, and I would support a rename to the singular, as there was only one chapel at a time (rather oddly - surely there were in fact subsidiary chapels not mentioned here). Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The paintings are pretty and to some extent illustrative. Their major problem was in the gallery arrangement.  They can be seen in the linked Commons category, and I agree that at least some of them should also be brought back into the article but not as a gallery due to the difficulty of properly presenting them in that form and of helping a reader understand their relevance to the text.  Rather those that illustrate a particular historic phase of the chapels should be placed in their particular paragraph.  Of course, this may also create layout problems with the different ways of viewing Wiki pages (different fonts, window widths, netbooks, PDAs, cellphones, and whatever, but seldom as severe as for the old and terribly complex gallery.
 * If an editor wants to display all or most of the pictures, using artful arrangements and descriptive captions, the proper place for that is in a Commons page. And for some of the individual paintings, someone with a good background in relevant topics might want to improve the Commons file descriptions, adding details in more than one language.  On the other hand if someone wants to organize a smaller, neater, better gallery in the present article to replace the ragged old one, that can also be a good thing, but my preference would be for the article to show only those pictures that can be integrated into the text.
 * As for the bibliography it is indeed long, but unlike the pictures those books have no other Wikimedia place for a reader to find them easily. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The gallery set-up was an odd one; there would be no difficulties with a more usual one. Commons is unselected and sorted, and does not display captions, and there is certainly no room in the article text for more images, especially with the default thumb size about to go up to 220px. Unlike some foreign WPs, en-WP does not encourage exhaustive lists of works not actually used, especially in foreign languages.  Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * All the above is true of Commons Categories, and none of it is true of Commons Pages. See Commons:Parc et château de Versailles for a display of pictures that are selected, sorted and captioned, mostly in two languages.  Some Commons pages on other topics use more complex syntax allowing bigger captions and other features.
 * Default thumb will soon be larger? News to me.  Yes, the current historic narrative only has room for about twice as many pictures as are shown at this moment (well, it's that way for my browser and settings but other users will use smaller fonts or wider windows or otherwise differ) and those that are present are not all well associated to relevant text.  I figure a better arrangement of those images and the addition of a few paintings from the former gallery is the way to go, plus a link to a new Commons Page rather than the present Commonscat.  If you think a smaller, neater, simpler version of the gallery would serve the topic better, go ahead and show us the improvement.
 * Perhaps, when I have time. Personally I think Commons pages are the work of the devil, & should be banned. In particular they should not appear before the category, misleading most readers to think these are all the images there are. They are just the personal selection of some ******* and given how few people ever actually edit Commons, rarely scrutinized at all. See here and surrounding sections for the default size debate, now resolved in favour of an increase. With a 300px default, the article is already crowded, even with my taste for large images. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chapels of Versailles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723131539/http://www.chateauversailles.fr/fr/ to http://www.chateauversailles.fr/fr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Objectivity
I think describing the fifth chapel as an "unreserved masterpiece" isn't neutral enoughGlx272727 (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC).