Talk:Palace of Versailles/Archive 1

Largest single page on Versailles or not?
As someone wishing to read about Versailles I find this page daunting. Anyone with any thoughts about cutting it up into smaller pieces? The eye can only take so much black on white on a monitor. (Kevin) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.20.82 (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Palace of Versailles is quite a large building that is symbolically connected with French Culture. So it would make sense for the page to be so long. However, as a symbol, it can represent many different things to many different people depending on your perspective. As someone who comes from an Art Historical background, I see the Palace as a representation of French Baroque Art and Architecture. Personally, I don't know about about the politics that was created within its walls. I wonder, for the sake of clarifying quite a large article, would it be possible to break the page into two, having one being 'Versailles (Art and Architecture)' and the other as 'Versailles (Political Symbol)'? A daunting task for so, but perhaps a rewarding one? OwlOfMinerva7 (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Largest Palace in the World or Not?
I have read at many sources that Istana Nurul Iman is the largest palace and that Versailles is only the largest palace in Europe followed by Caserta and than Buckingham.

Early discussions
Palais or chateau? Wetman 00:53, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The french government officials call it a chateau, and the Web site of this suburban manse is www.chateauversailles.fr.

If somebody wants to split hairs yes, it is technically much more than a simple "chateau" and deserves the term "palais". But palais is not the correct name for it in France. AlainV 04:04, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

The Louvre is a palais because it's in the city, like a palazzo. A chateau is a castle (even when it's very open to the gardens) in the country, like a villa. Goes back to Roman usage I think. In England there's only one "palace" besides royal ones (which are urban), and that's Blenheim Palace: part of the specialness of that national gift to Marlborough. In Germany there's the same distinction: you'd not find a palast in the country, no matter how grand. Schhloss means "closed up" like "chateau". I wonder if I'm right about Germany... we'll soon know... Wetman 04:11, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * My guess, and this is only a guess, is that officially it is a chateau now because calling it a palais would imply that a French monarchy still exists, which it does not. This may seem like splitting hairs, but it is still an issue even after over 200 years, as you probably know. -- Decumanus 04:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the Monarchy is an issue nowadays. However, I think that it's called a château... because that's how the people called it in the times of Louis XVI! David.Monniaux 11:01, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The two thick multivolume encyclopedic dictionaries (Quillet and Larousse) I have on hand make no city-country distinction to characterize "un palais". On the other hand when I do a Google image search on "palais" I get nothing but images of buildings in urban settings, albeit with some spectacular gardens sometimes. AlainV 05:31, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)


 * I've done some disambig at chateau and palace I think is historically accurate. Check for correctness and add to them please. Wetman 20:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to add a German section and a Russian section and a Swedish section, and so on to the chateau article, since Versailles ignited a chateau-building war among monarchs. Alas, I have to get a minimum of sleep before going off to work tomorrow (and take marmot-prevention measures on my little plot of land before that) so the three paragraphs I added at the end of the Chateau de Versailles article will have to do for now. AlainV 02:36, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)


 * Versailles is called in French Château de Versailles. On plans from the 18th century the name appears as Chasteau de Versailles, so this has always been the name that the French used for it. The word palais in French (word of same origin as the word palace in English) is reserved for offcial seats of power, such as a palais royal (royal palace), the palais des papes (palace of the popes), etc. This, I guess, comes from the fact that palais comes from Latin "palatium", which was the name of the palace of the emperor in Rome, seat of the government of the empire, name derived from the hill on which it was located, the Palatium. Now, back to Versailles: as shocking as it may be to many people, Versailles was actually NEVER the royal palace of France. It was the place where the king was living, but France being such a conservative country, the official location of the royal palace was not changed even after the king left to Versailles. The royal palace of France was Le Louvre, inside Paris, now the Louvre Museum. Until the Revolution, the Palais du Louvre was considered the official seat of the monarchy, even if it wasn't actually used. French kings were supposed to stay in Le Louvre for some days after they were crowned, and after they were married, as it was such a symbol. So clearly, in French, Versailles is just a château. Now in English, it really doesn't matter which word is used, as this is not, well, French. The word that should be used is the word that is most common in English to call Versailles. I checked in Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 and they use "Palace of Versailles", so I guess this is the traditional way to call Versailles in English, the one that gained currency over time, and my view is that this word should be used, irrelevant of which word is actually used in French. Hardouin 03:48, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Hardouin should work that into a note for the entry itself. (Imagine Palace of Fontainbleau!) Wetman 04:26, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * With reference to Versailles, usage of the terms château and palais are both correct. Technically, the term palais refers to a structure that is associated with the government — i.e. le Palais Royal (which houses the French Cultural Ministry); le Palais d’Elysée (official residence of the French president); le Palais du Louvre (today an anachronism reflecting when the French Finance Ministry was housed in the palace; today the current term is le Grand Louvre ; etc.).  As it is a constitutional requirement that when the upper and lower houses of the French parliament meet in joint session (e.g. to modify the constitution) the must convene at Versailles.  At those times, Versailles is known as palais; other times it is known as château. E. Lighthart (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Self-confidence trumps information. The Palais-Royal has been called that since it was the residence of the Queen, not because it houses the Ministry of Culture. The Palais du Louvre is not a "palace" because of some resident ministers, nor does Versailles change its name according to the sittinbg of a French "parliament". --Wetman (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC


 * The Chateau of/de Versailles is as entitled to its rightful name as is Castle Howard, or is Wikipedia to overule 300 years of history, decide it knows best and insist that Howard Palace is the correct name? Giano (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Palais in urban area: Palais Cardinal→Palais Royal,  Palais du Luxembourg (at one time Palais Orléans),  Palais du Louvre (at one time a forteresse),  Palais des Tuileries, Palais des Papes à Avignon.


 * Château in rural setting: 'château de Versailles, château de Fontainebleau, château de Blois, château de Chambord, château de Meudon, château de Rambouillet, château de Saint-Cloud, château de Vaux-le-Vicomte, château de Vincennes (also at one time a forteresse'').


 * Finally, château in a bottle: Châteauneuf du Pape... very agreeable to the palais.


 * P.S. And if Louis XIV had decided to call his château at Versailles a chaumière, then that is what we should call it.  Frania W. (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Photographs
The first two photographs are too dark... Don't we have better ones? Should I take my camera and photograph the château? David.Monniaux 11:00, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes! Pick a slightly hazy day. Get some details and the sculptures in the bassins with shots down the allees. Yes! Yes! Wetman 20:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hall of Mirrors

 * Aweful article - far too short for such a famous building- there is not even a photograph of the Hall of mirrors; the most famous part. It is the equivalent of writing a short article on the White House and without including a photograph of the west wing! - 2006/Aug

How can a separate article for the Hall of Mirrors be useful without the Versailles context? How about Candlestands in the Hall of Mirrors at Versailles? Wetman 07:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Why not? There is quite a lot to be said about this Hall, and it is often mentioned as an entity. After all, there is a great article called "List of statues on Charles Bridge", so why not one about the Hall? olivier 03:46, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, yes, quite a lot could be said. And the Escalier de la Reine too perhaps. And in the garden, the Basin of Diana. Why not, there are Raphael's Stanze and the Sistine Chapel... And the Oval Office... But, at a certain level of reduction, information disappears. You can keep magnifying a map; at a certain point, useable information disappears. List of statues on Charles Bridge does stand out among Wikipedia's lists: it is a complete list. Wetman 05:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The Hall of Mirrors is arguably the most notable feature of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles was signed there. It's been internationally famous since it was built. IMO the scope of this article is rather pathetic, given the reams of information on the subject. a Hall of Mirrors article is definitely justified Tenebrous 15:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Le hameau de la Reine
Yes, the most recent photo is better, but what we really need is a public domain photo which gives a good feel of the mock-pastoral village setting in which the Queen liked to play-act as a sheperd girl. Something with several buildings like this: http://lepaingi.free.fr/perso/14.htm Or better still, one of the period paintings: http://rocheville.chez.tiscali.fr/page7/page07.htm --AlainV 01:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cost
The statement: "Although it is unknown exactly how much Versailles cost to build because all the documents were destroyed, it is estimated that the cost was around 1 billion livre." was entered by someone wholly unaware that the minutely detailed archives of the Bâtimens du Roi as well as the Menus plaisirs survive and are known to everyone with the least passing interest in Versailles or the architecture and arts of France. The cost of the fringe on the stools in the Galerie des Glaces is known, the date of delivery, the craftsman responsible. Making stuff up like this is the equivalent of forging a signature. --Wetman 06:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Totaly agree. That's why I am deleting it now. Hardouin 11:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Where is the "dispute" that has been flagged by User:Tenebrous in the article? --Wetman 21:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is information about the Bâtimens du Roi or anything else that talks about the cost? i have been looking for a while (not on wikipedia) for information i can cite. 143.195.150.63 —Preceding comment was added at 23:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Lifestyles of the rich and unfamous
"It's interesting to note that the marriage of the daughter of Lakshmi Mittal, the third richest person in the world, was held in this palace. The marriage has been famed as the most costly marriage ever, in the world." Does thisd add to a reader's understanding of versailles?--Wetman 12:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not one bit. There is no mention if the current Versailles museum organisation holds similar receptions, no mention of any date, no mention of where, in the huge Versailles grounds and buildings the mariage was held and which parts (did they just pronounce vows? Was there a reception?) of the mariage were held, no mention of how much the mariage cost and how much was paid to the Versailles museum, etc. etc. --AlainV 17:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Het Loo
Shouldn't the Paleis Het Loo be included in The Would-Be Versailles section?


 * Isn't it more like a country house than a Versailles? --Wetman 22:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Missing picture
The article has lots of good pictures, but it could really do with one of the garden facade. A couple of good interior shots would be an asset too. CalJW 22:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Would someone please remove the obscene comment at the very top of the page?
 * It's gone now. - Nunh-huh 00:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that in the existing pictures the fountains are turned off. I've got some pictures of the fountains in action (taken by me in 1997). I can upload one of these if it would be useful.John Dalton 12:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality still disputed?
I think that there is nothing in the talk page about the neutrality of the "politics of display" section. Do you agree with removing the neutrality thing? Gakrivas 11:16, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The magnificence of Versailles is so blatant that modern tourists are moved to inquire, "How much did it cost?"--a question they are never inspired to ask at Chartres. Unverifiable opinion.


 * At Ulm, the townspeople built a cathedral so vast the entire population could stand inside it. This is relevant how?


 * The question asked at Versailles is not a genuine historical question, for its subtext, often spoken, is "Was it worth it?" Pure, unadultrated POV.


 * The anachronistic assumption underlying this curiosity about the "cost" of Versailles is the perception that it is a greatly expanded house on a royal scale. Even presuming that such an assumption is being made, calling it anachronistic is POV, and the point that is being supported is itself POV.


 * Louis XIV himself lived there, and symbolically the central room of the long extensive symmetrical range of buildings was the King's Bedroom (the Chambre du Roi), which itself was centered on the lavish and symbolic state bed, set behind a rich railing not unlike a communion rail. Factual but not relevant to the argument.


 * All the power of France emanated from this centre: there were government offices here; as well as the homes of thousands of individuals. By requiring that the noble spend time each year at Versailles, Louis kept them from countering his efforts to centralize the French government in an absolute monarchy. This is clearly answering the question of "How much did it cost?" or maybe the question was "Was Versailles more than just a residence?" Or maybe the question was something else entirely. How about this question: What is this section trying to say? And another: What should it say? I suggest that this paragraph should describe the various reasons for building Versailles.

On a different note, the French article on Versailles looks pretty good; I'll do some translation and see what we can include from there. Tenebrous 15:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm responsible for these rather sensible assessments. I'd better rephrase all these points, in the form of quotations from Pierre Verlet and other really obscure authors. It's hard to underestimate the level that is acceptable. --Wetman 03:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)--Wetmanr

References?
I'd love to see a good copyedit, references, and some inline citations. Content-wise, I don't think that its too far from FA.


 * A featured article under the title "Palace of Versailles"? --Wetman 20:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the need for inline citations on such a lengthy article and for a location of such notoriety for France. I tagged the reference section as such. Definitely a nice-to-have. TrufflesTheLamb (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional Pictures
I have taken a rather large number of shots of Versailles. I included a link to my gallery in the external links, but if someone wants to look through my gallery and choose a few pics, I would be willing to put them under a creative commons license, and upload them for use in the article. -- Gaijin42 gaijin42 May 12, 2006

Would be Versailles
The would be versailles section of the article is very long, almost 50% of the page. I think this should be reduced, removed, or reduced with the bulk moved to a seperate article. People are looking for information on Versailles, not other places throughout Europe. Objections to a surgical strike? Gaijin42 18:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Reduce, but don't totally remove. Versailles had a marked effect on various royal courts across Europe. When I think of Versailles, I think of a lot of things inspired by it, whether those are palaces or other buildings. I think it's important. Charles 18:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No objections to some reduction. CalJW 19:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made significant reductions, I kept the intro, and the paragraphs that directly claimed provenance from versailles in tact, as the most relevant to the article. I cut the bulk of the fluff and history from the scattered palaces throughout Europe, if people want further information on those, they can read the detailed articles. I removed the referecnes to small palances and failed renovations in England. Gaijin42 19:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Poorly balanced article with major omissions
The whole balance of the article was (and to a lesser degree still is) very bad. It was more like a personal essay explaining why Versailles was a jolly good thing than an encyclopedia article, especially the cost and politics of display sections, and some aspects that aren't relevant to the main authors theme are barely touched on. I am in the process of toning down some of the discursive material and creating some stubby new sections, but I'm not competent to do the extensive additions which are required. CalJW 14:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Château, it ain't a palace
I think that it is incorrect; Château is translated with Castle. A palace is a name only used for a Royad leading Residence in function; or the house of a bisschop. E;g. Royal palace of Amsterdam. In Belgium we do have the royal Palace of Brussels, but where the King and Queen live (private) we speak of a castle. In the Ancien régime, this was a Palais Royal (Paris), and the Louvre -Palace; but versailles was alway a Château, today it is called officialy Domaine et Château .. de Versailles. 213.224.74.30 10:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ideas are translated rather than a word having one meaning. Just because we have castle and palace in English doesn't mean there has to be two words in French. In fact, I believe the distinction is that all castles and country palaces are châteaux while all city palaces are palais. Charles 16:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it should be clarified in the title; but perhaps should use the title which ever is the most commonly used in English.--Balthazarduju 04:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In Ancien Regime France the names of residences reflected the status of the owner. A "palais" would befit a prince or royal, a "hotel" was for a Duke or senior aristocrat, the "maison" was for the bourgeoisie. Palace is a perfectly acceptable term. MJC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.195.8 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Palace is correct. Every country has a different usage for the word "palace", and it is a hopeless task to try to translate these usages in a way that reflects the meaning intended in the original language. This is the English encyclopedia, and in English this type of building is called a palace. Luwilt (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Court etiquette
I just added the stub section on court etiquette because I think it is an important aspect (rules of conduct, offices held by different nobles...) - Should this be treated in this article or has this already been treated elsewhere?Robin.rueth 23:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would have said "Falconry" instead of "Hawking", but I think that's just quibbling. I'd also say that the role of women is belittled in the last statement. Women didn't just sit around, they were actually very important at Versailles. Apart from the obvious roles of women such as Madame du Bary, or Marie Antoinette, the function of the salonniere was important at Versailles as elsewhere. MJC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.195.8 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Toilet
I was just watching a documentry on the History Channel and in it they mentioned that Palace of Versailles doesn't have a single toilet. I thought that unbelievable so I came here to confirm. As there's nothing in the article on it, can anyone confirm that there is indeed no toilets or have I been had. Kripcat 08:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In the time of Louis XIV, there certainly were no toilets... Chamberpots were used, if nothing at all. I assume that there are tourist facilities in the present days. Charles 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * From memory in 1997 there weren't any in the house itself, but there were some in the visitors centre underneath where you go in. It's a pretty vague memory as it was a long time ago. John Dalton 13:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * During the Ancien Regime, there was an evolution with regard to toilets and bathing at Versailles. During the reign of Louis XIV, it was common to have a small room -- cabinet or lieu -- in which the chaise percée (lit. pierced chair, but in reality a privy) was kept.  As technology advanced, more sophisticated toileting facilities were installed at Versailles -- especially after John Crapper invented the flush toilet (which the French referred to as the lieu anglais).  Such a toilet was installed for Marie-Antoinette's use in the petit appartement de la reine; it is still functions to this day.  During the 18th century, there were approx. 100 toilets in the palace; considerably less are found today as the modifications of the north and south wings in the 19th and 20th centuries destroyed most of the residential apartments in these parts of the palace.


 * Nancy Midford, in her work The Sun King, she noted that in 1922 at the time of her official presentation at the Court of St. James's, the only place that she and other women to be presented were able relieve themselves was with a chamber pot placed behind a screen near the entrance to the ball room at Buckingham Palace.E. Lighthart (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just watching a historical foodie documentary on TV called "Supersizers Go..." and they claim in the era of Marie Antoinette, the ladies in the palace used to go to the toilet on the floor in the corner of the room "behind curtains and under stairs", and that the place stunk of urine and feces which was then disguised with rosewater. The palace was only cleaned out once a year, which took two whole weeks to scrub the floors. 144.132.242.143 (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup tag applied by User:Ganymead
no doubt we can expect momentarily some of User:Ganymead's requirements for this article that are not currently being met. --Wetman 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not posting these sooner. I was so shocked by the state of this article that I applied the cleanup tag immediately. I'm glad, however, to see that there are some people here interested in this article. Here are the major problems I see with the article.


 * There is no section on the history of Versailles. There are facts about its history scattered throughout the text but no coherent history. Glancing at the French article, it begins with the first mention of the town of Versailles in 1038.
 * Further, there is no mention of many of the well-known treaties that have been signed and other events that have occurred here. (Ok, I did find the signing the treaty ending WWI, but it was located in an out of the way location.)
 * The structure of the article is messy. Perhaps it might be best to structure this more along the lines of the some of the other articles such as the French, Spanish and Italian articles: It discusses the structure chronologically, metioning important features (i.e. The Chapel, Hall of Mirrors, Petit Trianon) as they were constructed.
 * Notes need to be added. There are a few statements with "citation needed", though many more could be found that require citations.
 * No sources are provided.

My time on here is fairly limited and those visiting my talk page will note that I'm still on wiki-break (I just can't stop visiting daily). I plan to do some work on this and I have some sources readily available, though. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 06:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are certainly fair areas to begin cleaning up. --Wetman 08:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tourist directions?
Today, the wise visitor is standing at the entrance to the Grands appartements du Roi'' at 8:30, not to spend hours in line. By 11 AM the state rooms are as crushed as a Métro rush hour. Tour guides rally their groups with a handkerchief on a stick for visibility in the mob and project simultaneous commentaries. In the summer months, the royal appartements close at 5:30 PM, and the most knowledgeable visitor arrives shortly before 5, pays a reduced price, and is the last to leave.''

I removed this paragraph from the post-royal monument/museum section because of its nature — it doesn't seem like what belongs here. Opinions? Nyttend 19:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1999 storm
Why isn't the 1999 storm mentioned? Calbaer 03:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Need a better introductory photo
With all due respect to the individual who took the photo that is currently at the top, we could use one that is more centered and provides more of a sense of the palace's immense scale (I realize that is asking a lot, but someone out there must have images like that). Funnyhat 06:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a huge number of photos of Versailles at my site http://jasoncoyne.smugmug.com/gallery/449326 .  Pick a photo from there, and I will release it into the CC, and upload it. Only the first two photos show the entire palace from the front, and they aren't particularly good photos, but tit will be difficult to find a non panoramic photo that shows everything and looks good.  The french site (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C3%A2teau_de_Versailles) doesnt really have anything either.  Gaijin42 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, great gallery! I see your point about the challenges of capturing the whole thing, though, and I couldn't find a great one there. However, I just checked some of the other languages' pages and found some good candidates.


 * Here's a painting depicting it from above, from the Dutch page: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afbeelding:Schloss-Versailles.jpg


 * Here's a panoramic photo from the Italian page: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Panorama_VersaillesPalace.jpg


 * Either would be a definite upgrade over the current top photo. I'm not sure exactly how to upload these to the English-language site . . . can anyone help?  Thanks.  Funnyhat 05:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism that needs to be cleaned up?
I'm no expert on the Palace of Versailles, but it looks to me that if you compare some of the older edits with the latest ones, there are bits of vandalism that need to be fixed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palace_of_Versailles&diff=119898478&oldid=116998297

For example, the sentence: "Louis's successor, Louis XIV, wasnt very interested in versailles" is almost certainly wrong (note the incorrect "wasnt", typical of vandals), but I can't be sure of the differences in the dates and other details. I've seen vandalism where dates and other numbers were deliberately tweaked.

I think this article needs to be fact-checked thoroughly to clean out any possible errors introduced by vandals.

(IMHO, this shows why more pages need semi-protected status.)

Clemwang 04:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, taken care of, along with other obscure and wrong date changes. -- Dragonbeast 05:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I was just browsing through the article and noticed that there are quite a few gramatical errors. Whether these are intentionally introduced (by "vandals" - though I can't imagine somebody rewriting an entire aricle) or if it is a result of translation inconsistencies. Errors tend to look like the sample below ''During the 17th century, the galerie des glaces was use(d) daily by Louis XIV when he walked from his private apartment to the chapel. At this time, courtiers assembled to watch the king and member(s) of the royal family pass and to make a particular request by intoning: “Sire, Marly?”'' Is there anyone who wants to help? Westralian 07:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hall of mirrors
I would argue that Hall of mirrors should redirect either to house of mirrors or to the Hall of Mirrors (disambiguation) page. I think that the house of mirrors usage is an equally if not more familiar usage of the term and it was hard for me to find the house of mirrors page while looking for it. I added it to the DAB page (no idea why it wasn't already on there) but I think the redirect here is more confusing. TheHYPO 19:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to add to my comment; perhaps lowercase Hall of mirrors should redirect to house of mirrors, while uppercase Hall of Mirrors should redirect here.? TheHYPO 19:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Split up article?
The article is getting really, really long. I suggest we move the descriptions of the interior (under 'Features') to a seperate article, 'Interior of the Palace of Versailles', and leave just a -template, a picture and one paragraph here. Classical geographer 09:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is obviously much to long. I've added a  template, so let's hope information in the article will be split into several main articles.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Chapel Of Versailles
The end of this section should note that the chapel has been deconsecrated, not re-consecrated.

4.243.114.41 14:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Daniel F. Baedeker

The chapel has actually been re-consecrated; deconsecration occurred during the Revolution. While the chapel serves secular purposes (i.e. as a venue for concerts), masses are, nevertheless, regularly heard in the chapel. Additionally, the chapel is available for private religious needs, such as a wedding.E. Lighthart (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ummm
Maybe im missing something, but it appears that the references (notes) are listed twice, on either side of "see also". They look the same, the code looks the same. Is it supposed to be like that? 143.195.150.63 —Preceding comment was added at 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Usage: château v. palais
With reference to Versailles, usage of the terms château and palais are both correct. Technically, the term palais refers to a structure that is associated with the government — i.e. le Palais Royal (which houses the French Cultural Ministry); le Palais d’Elysée (official residence of the French president); le Palais du Louvre (today an anachronism reflecting when the French Finance Ministry was housed in the palace; today the current term is le Grand Louvre ; etc.). As it is a constitutional requirement that when the upper and lower houses of the French parliament meet in joint session (e.g. to modify the constitution) the must convene at Versailles. At those times, Versailles is known as palais; other times it is known as château. E. Lighthart (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter?? "La Joconde" and "Mona Lisa" are two different names for a single painting, so I guess everyone understand what me mean by "The Palace of Versailles" or "Le Château de Versailles". It's not as if there were many buildings like this one in Versailles or around! And anyway, I think we (the French) call it the "château" only because that was its original title, when it was only a small rural castle. Before Louis XIII decided to buy and before his son Louis XIV decided to enlarge it. [J] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.195.109.79 (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Académie Française: palais v. château
The following are the taken from the Dictionnaire (8th edition, 1932-35) of the Académie Française with the official (yes, in France the language is regulated officially by the Académie Française, which it has been doing since 1635) definitions for "palais" and "château."

Dictionnaire de L'Académie française, 8th Edition (1932-5) PALAIS. (Page 2:279)


 * PALAIS. n. m. Demeure vaste et somptueuse d'un souverain, d'un prince, d'un grand personnage. Les palais de nos rois. Louis XIV s'est fait construire le plus beau des palais. Le palais ducal de Nancy, de Nevers. La mort frappe du même pied le palais du riche et la chaumière du pauvre.

[…]


 * Il se dit aujourd'hui d'Anciennes résidences royales ou seigneuriales qui ont été converties en musées ou utilisées pour des services publics. Le Palais de Versailles. Le Palais de Fontainebleau. Le Palais du Louvre. Le Palais du Luxembourg. Le Palais-Royal. Le Palais des Tuileries a été brûlé pendant la Commune.


 * Le palais de justice ou, absolument, Le palais, Le lieu où siègent les tribunaux. Le palais de justice de Rouen est un de nos plus beaux monuments, […].

[…]


 * PALAIS se dit, par extension, de l'Ensemble des magistrats et officiers ministériels de toutes les Chambres qui le composent. Le palais s'accorde à penser que... L'opinion du palais. L'usage constant du palais.


 * Il signifie quelquefois, figurément, la Profession d'avocat. Se destiner au palais.


 * Palace. An immense and sumptuous residence of a sovereign, prince, or great person. The palace of our kings.  Louis XIV built the most beautiful of palaces.  The ducal palace of Nancy, of Nevers. "Pale Death, with impartial step, knocks at the cottages of the poor and the palaces of kings." (The French proverb is taken from Horace: Pallida mors aequo pulsat pede pauperum tabernas regumque turres.)


 * It is used today for former royal or seigniorial residences, which have been converted into a museum or for public use. The Palace of Versailles.  The Palace of Fontainebleau.  The Palace of the Louvre.   The Palace of the Luxembourg.  The Palais-Royal.  The Palace of the Tuileries was burnt during the Commune.


 * The Palace of Justice, or categorically the Palace, the place where the courts sit. The Palace of Justice of Rouen is one of our most beautiful monuments.  […]
 * By extension, it is said of the group of judges and ministerial officers of both Houses, which compose the palace. The palace agrees to thing that … the opinion of the palace.  The constant use of the palace.


 * At times it signifies – figuratively – the profession of a lawyer. Intend to become a lawyer.

Dictionnaire de L'Académie française, 8th Edition (1932-5) CHÂTEAU. (Page 1:225)


 * CHÂTEAU. n. m. Forteresse environnée de fossés et de gros murs flanqués de tours ou de bastions. Château situé sur un rocher, sur une montagne. Des châteaux forts. Le château commandait la ville. Le château de Vincennes.

E. Lighthart (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Castle. Fortress surrounded by a moat and thick walls flanked by towers or bastions. A castle is situated on a rock or in a mountain.  Fortified castle.  A castle commands the city.  The castle of Vincennes.

Versablog :The castle in detail
Hello. The Web site http://berdom.skyrock.com/ describes the castle in detail. Certain articles are translated into English. Do not hesitate to correct. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Berdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.149.229 (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Court etiquette section
Some of the information provided in this section appears to have been taken directly from a website published by Mississippi State University as part of an educational outreach program concurrent with the Exhibition "Splendors of Versailles" held from April 1 to August 31 1998 in Jackson, Mississippi. This website itself does not site any sources, and the information provided, while furnishing a measure of verisimilitude with regard to the conceits and norms of the court of Louis XIV, is nevertheless questionable as source material on this topic -- Bluche, Benichou, Solnon, etc. -- does not provide information that corroborates these statements. Accordingly, this section stands in dispute. It is recommended that a more deliberated and conscious effort be applied to this section. --E. Lighthart (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd remove the entire section as not encyclopedic to an article about the building. and in fact, will do just that.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

''===Court etiquette===

Life at the court was narrowly regulated by court etiquette. Étiquette became the means of social advancement for the court.

Louis XIV’s elaborate rules of etiquette included the following:


 * 1) People who wanted to speak to the king could not knock on his door. Instead, using the left little finger, they had to gently scratch on the door, until they were granted permission to enter. As a result, many courtiers grew that fingernail longer than the others;
 * 2) A lady never held hands or linked arms with a gentleman. Besides being in bad taste, this practice would have been impossible because a woman’s hooped skirts were so wide. Instead, she was to place her hand on top of the gentleman’s bent arm as they strolled through the gardens and chambers of Versailles. It is also mentioned that the ladies were only allowed to touch fingertips with the men.
 * 3) When a gentleman sat down, he slid his left foot in front of the other, placed his hands on the sides of the chair and gently lowered himself into the chair.
 * 4) Women and men were not allowed to cross their legs in public.
 * 5) When a gentleman passed an acquaintance on the street, he was to raise his hat high off his head until the other person passed.
 * 6) A gentleman was to do no work except writing letters, giving speeches, practicing fencing, or dancing. For pleasure, he engaged in hawking, archery, indoor tennis, or hunting.  A gentleman would also take part in battle and would sometimes serve as a public officer, paying the soldiers.
 * 7) Ladies’ clothing did not allow them to do much besides sit and walk. However, they passed the time sewing, knitting, writing letters, painting, making their own lace, and creating their own cosmetics and perfumes.

In addition, etiquette ordained the order of prominence at court, limited or extended access based on rank or favor, rigidly maintained complex customs of address, and even who could sit or stand under what circumstances in the royal presence or that of the great nobles. ''

Hectares vs square meters
It sounds strange to read the surface area of the roofs of the castle of Versailles given in hectares(11 ha) instead of square meters (110 000 sq m). Hectares are used for land areas, forests, not measurements of parts of buildings, non ?' Please note that within same info box, surface of floors is given in square meters. Frania W. (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to remove the roof area figure because it is obviously erroneous. We can measure these things for ourselves on google earth, and 11 hectares (110,000 sq m) is several times too high, not to mention that the roof can't be more than twice the total floor area of a (mostly) three storey building. The 51,000 square metre floor area does however seem to be about right. Luwilt (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Evolution of the building
Perhaps this article might benefit from a plan-view animation/GIF of the development of the palace, with the years below, from the initial hunting lodge of Louis XIII to the building we see today? If I had the knowledge and skill, I would do it myself. Seven Letters 00:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See below Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

History of the Palace of Versailles
The article History of the Palace of Versailles was spit off from this one. What was the idea behind this? There doesn't seem to be any explanation. There is a tremendous amount of overlap between this article and that one. It isn't clear to me what should be added to one versus the other. In addition, the references were not brought over to the new article. Shouldn't these two articles be merged back together? --Robert.Allen (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Bad redirect?
I question the redirect of the page Versailles to this article. The fact is, Versailles is the town and should therefore take you to that article (Versailles (city), rather than the one about the palace. It would make more sense. Yottie (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

agree with this, the city is the main meaning LICA98 (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the city gets an average of 158 views a day; this gets over 3,700, so is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It might well be different on the French WP. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

number of rooms in the palace
I think the number of rooms in the palace is wrong. I think it is 700 rather than 2300. Googling I find both of these numbers in the WWW, but the reference in the article to 2300 is from "Official site of the Palace of Versailles" and I cannot find 2300 in it anywhere. I have not been able to find a verifiable source for the number of rooms. On the other hand, the number of rooms in Buckingham Palace is 775 and it has a much larger area: http://www.royal.gov.uk/theroyalresidences/buckinghampalace/buckinghampalace.aspx 140.254.93.90 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

New image of the building's evolution
I worked in this image to show the evolution of the building from the initial hunting lodge to the museum, with the plants and the internal changes. --Caroleyleen (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Very nice, though it needs a large size. Perhaps for the "History of" article? Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Added to History of the Palace of Versailles. thanks! Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Copy Edit
I think this article needs needs a major clean-up. I worked on "1.2.2 Life at Court" today removing unnecessary details like the fact that the lodger was required to turn in his/her key to the apartment when leaving.

An encyclopedia is supposed to provide basic information in a concise form. This article reads like the text of a history book or journal article. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Citations needed
This article has a real problem with lack of citation. Can someone who knows about the Palace be able to supply the? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Review:
- I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. Currently for my class, I am researching information on the French Revolution and just recently learned about the Palace of Versailles. I really loved how each of your topics had a reliable reference. It allowed me to not only be able to trust your writing, but I was also able to go to the sources to validate the information.

- However, although the "In Pop Culture" section is interesting, I don't feel that it is relevant to the rest of the article. The article is primarily about the Palace of Versailles and its history, cost, and design. I felt that the "In Pop Culture" section was a bit distracting, and took away from the purpose of the article.

- The information provided in the article comes from a number of different sources. These are all neutral sources as they are not trying to persuade the reader to think a certain away. Instead, these sources are primarily used to describe the grandness of the Palace of Versailles.

Laurengonz3 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Palace 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/20100507061026/http://www.chateauversailles.fr/homepage to http://www.chateauversailles.fr/homepage
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080215140113/http://www.lexpress.fr/mag/arts/dossier/patrimoine/dossier.asp?ida=451314 to http://www.lexpress.fr/mag/arts/dossier/patrimoine/dossier.asp?ida=451314
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120410021253/http://en.chateauversailles.fr/homepage to http://en.chateauversailles.fr/homepage

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) 15:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No information on who owns and control palace
Can somebody, please add this information?  DAVRONOV A.A. ✉ ⚑ 10:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. SiefkinDR (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Section on Cost
The section on Cost is interesting, but seems to me to be too long and to give too much detail. It doesn't need so many examples. It also seems to me, as the section says, highly speculative. I also question the statement:

"An estimate in 2000 placed the amount spent during the Ancien Régime as US$2 billion,[73] this figure being, in all probability, an under-evaluation. France's Fifth Republic expenditures alone, directed to restoration and maintenance at Versailles, undoubtedly surpass those of the Sun King."

Is it really probable that the Fifth Republic spent more money on Versailles than Louis XIV? Versailles, other than wars, was the biggest project of Louis XIV. Was it the major project of the 5th Republic? How can the two be compared? As a proportion of national budget? Does this take into account the money donated by philanthropists and foundations? Or the money the Chateau receives in admissions from visitors? I respectfully suggest that this particular claim can't be verified, and should be left out. 15:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Like you say, this section is very interesting, and it seems to me to be fairly well written. It could probably use more citations, but I don't find the statement about the costs under the Fifth Republic to be unbelievable. The population of France and the size of its economy is now far greater than it was under Louis IV, so in absolute terms it may be greater, but at the same time, smaller as a percent of GDP. Also, this is very similar to a statement made earlier in the 20th-century section: "The restoration initiatives launched by the Fifth Republic have proven to be perhaps more costly than the expenditures of the palace in the Ancien Régime." I removed the word "undoubtedly" from the Costs section to make it more consistent. Other than that, this is a topic about which I have very little information, so I would hesitate to make other changes to it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

New montage looks like Pentagon
The opening montage looks terrible; the aerial view makes the building unrecognizable, and now it looks like the Pentagon. It needs three images; facade, Hall of Mirrors, and garden, as it had  before, to capture the three major features of the Palace. I'd like to go back to the old montage. Respectully, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Wrong picture
Once again, the picture above the info box is the wrong picture for this article. The roof of the palace of Versailles is not interesting. The lead picture is supposed to show the most recognizable, most iconic image of the building. This definitely isn't it. Please go back to the previous images. Cordially, 17:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. The view of the garden facade of the corps-de-logis is the classic view of the palace. It should be in the info box. Also, there should be an image of the garden. All important palaces from this period have three main architectural elements: the exterior facade, the interior, and the garden. The last is awfully important, especially in France. I added a better aerial view next to the plan, where it makes more sense. We don't need it in the Info Box. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * What about this one as an alternative? --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think your alternative facade picture is great.  Its better composed and more of the palace than the earlier one.  And I agree entirely with you about including facade/interior/garden.  The Garden was as important at Versailles as any of the rooms inside. Thanks for your good ideas. SiefkinDR (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)