Talk:Notre-Dame fire/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fundraising ~

Here is a thought for discussion. ~ of all the people editing in this section are they willing to return when the repairs are complete to finish their edits by editing how much and when the funds were received by the French Republic and if the funds did or did not come thru, are we willing to note along side, an additional ref that indicates exactly how much and when it was received by the Republic Mitchellhobbs (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

It depends. Let's say all but one of the >10M euro contributors donated what they pledged, and there was only one that contributed, say, half their pledged amount. I wouldn't worry about it in such a case, one outliner is nothing to freak over. But if a significant number (and this will be something that falls out of the news side of things) are short as potentially putting the restoration at risk, then we can discuss how to document that. --Masem (t) 18:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sounds great Mitchellhobbs (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

On this inequality-related content, any suggestion on where it might belong? According to the NYT, it's not just criticism by the yellow-vest movement, but also by tenured academics and civil society groups (see also the articles the NYT links to). There is also comparison with responses to the burning of the National Museum of Brazil ($15 million raised) and famine in Yemen (2.6 of 4 billion). Since everyone seems to have written about this (the Guardian, Forbes, the Washington Post, Fox News, CNN...) one could make a stand-alone article, but there is still the question of inclusion here. HLHJ (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This is just an opinion ~ it sounds like a good issue and one that needs to addressed ~ but before we edit it in on the main page we should wait until all the pledges have a chance to stir up more funds ~ I certainly don't want to explain to God how I prevented several million dollars from going to his church because some one felt guilty that there are poor people on this earth ~ you catch my drift lets not do it right now later would be be great Mitchellhobbs (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• By the way, Thanks for asking ~ what a great question ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! It's hardly original of me, and not really a surprising development. I'm a bit uncomfortable with refraining from adding information in the interests of a financial goal; I think our guidelines may be against it, depending on how one interprets WP:NOTADVOCACY. There could also be differences of opinion. I suspect that some editors might feel that they'd hate to explain to God how they prevented several million dollars from going to poor people on this earth because they wanted more money to go to His church, probably citing Jesus's advice to the rich on how to gain eternal life. I also suspect it makes little practical odds; anyone who was going to donate millions to the rebuilding at this point would be likely to be advised of this controversy first, and I'm not sure to what extent Notre Dame and wealth-transfer charities are actually in competition for donations. I'm sorry, I hope I haven't phrased this offensively, it's always difficult to talk about sensitive topics in a text-only channel. HLHJ (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No your fine ~ it's like lets get the money in the bank and talk bad about the rich people afterwards ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

There is actually violent protests across Paris and France by the yellow vest movement directly related to the fundraising effort. If it were just criticism without action, I agree its not tied, but I feel not mentionng the yellow vest violent actions is sweeping that issue under the rug. Obviously yes, that can be discussed on the yellow vest page, but I think it does warrant a mention alongside the fundraing part. --Masem (t) 23:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree Masem a short mention in the Fundraising section with a very strong ref Mitchellhobbs (talk) 23:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

what I meant to say was not Joe blow magazine from solitude Mitchellhobbs (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:Humor Mitchellhobbs (talk) 00:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

My preference is to omit such a reference. It may belong in Yellow vests movement (it is not there now) but is not directly relevant here. Kablammo (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Kablammo What is meant on my last statement to Masem is ~ it has to directly relate to the fire and not necessarily the Yellow vests movement Mitchellhobbs (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Omit these reactions to reactions to the fire. Too far removed. EEng 15:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• FYI for those coming in late. Bot archived discussion "Do we need the table of "list of known donations"?" on minimum amount to be noted in fundraising section, 10 million euros is the minimum. Mitchellhobbs (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Huge white space due to first gallery

Not saying we don't want the first gallery, but right now, because of the length of the infobox, the gallery of structural elements does not start until after the infobox ends. Massive whtie space on a wide window and you have to get it really narrow (past portrait aspect ratios) before the background text streams long enough to eliminate that. Confident it is an issue with the gallery tag that it can't float (I've tried wrapping it in a div floating thing). May want to consider a multiple-image template here or something. --Masem (t) 15:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

[1] EEng 16:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Duhhh, I missed that :P Still think there might be a better solution if it is possible to push that gallery more into discussing the damage, but we're already image tight here. --Masem (t) 16:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Well I solved the problem by swapping the first two images, which reduces the vertical length of the infobox, making the {clear} unnecessary. I think Background is the right place for the gallery since it shows everything pre-fire and orients the reader who's never seen such a place. EEng 16:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That's much better and graceful layout on narrow windows. Just that first caption begs for trimming but I don't think we can do anything there. Oh well :/ --Masem (t) 16:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

And the new lead img is better for the lead because it gives a full view of the edifice.

Image layout is always a problem on new articles where more good images are available than there is text to accompany them. The problem resolves itself as the article grows, so I find it's best to just make rough and ready fixes temporarily and not worry about it. EEng 16:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I'm very disappointed at not being the target of more outrage re [2][3]; I have half a mind to put it back and see how long it lasts. If you want you could encourage me in that and then I could blame everything on you. EEng 16:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Burning-spire image

As others have noted, the article is a bit image-heavy. However, this image is on track for FP promotion on Commons, and I think it deserves a place in the article. Acroterion (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Shoehorned it in. EEng 01:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I would argue something that was in here before: a gallery line of the fire-in-process (partially to strut how many free images of this historic disaster we have) which can include the initial "smoke" phase, the yellow-smoke phase, the spire alit, and the post-spire-fallen, sort of a chronological order to the event. If a gallery is too heavy, a single image could made of the best images for each stage. --Masem (t) 02:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I like this idea. Now do either of us have sufficient mastery of gallery syntax to pull it off? EEng 02:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Images

There are too many; this can be handled with galleries and tidy sizes, but @EEng: insists on scattering them into unreadable ugliness like a child with glitter glue on craft paper. It's an appalling mess. So have a discussion, decide which images are necessary for illustration and how much you care about them being suitably placed. Before that, per WP:MOS, I'm at least left-aligning that (likely unnecessary) image at the top of the "fire" section. Kingsif (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Also pinging @Masem: for discussion. Let's also remember to take EEng's likely humorous opinions on image layout with a pinch of salt; like anyone who's checked out his userpage before, well, aesthetically appealing to the average READER is clearly not an MO. Kingsif (talk) 02:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

My user page isn't an article – different styles for different purposes. Any no, my opinions on image layout aren't humorous, though I suppose they may be expressed in a humorous way at some point. BTW I wrote most of what you see at WP:Manual_of_Style/Images#How_to_place_an_image, just so you know. EEng 04:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

This happens a lot on new articles on current events i.e. we have more images than we do text, for a while, until the text catches up. That means that the article is somewhat image-heavy for a while, and that leads to temporary crowding. I agree with you that we may have one more fire-underway image than we need, but the way to find out which to toss is to leave them all in, let editors familiarize themselves with them, and after a while agree to throw one out. Sometimes the development of the text turns out to make one or another image more appropriate, and that's another reason to relax and tolerate to bit of crowding for a while.

Having said all that, however, I think Masem's fire-underway gallery suggestion, seen in an earlier thread on this page, is a really good one and might solve the problem. EEng 02:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with a bit of crowding; I'm more concerned about layout - I didn't even know you could squash an image between the infobox and the contents box, and that's not the worst eyesore.

I'm sure you can come up with a gallery, it's not that hard ("<gallery>File:Name|caption<br/>File:name|caption</gallery>"), though I assumed you'd know. Kingsif (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Crowding makes layout hard, because things that would look fine when separated look bad when hard up against each othe; that's why it's best to just grit your teeth and bear it until there's more text. Galleries exhibit all kinds of unexpected technical behavior -- they're not nearly as straightforward as you seem think. EEng 04:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

With all the galleries I've edited, I've never faced a technical issue. Kingsif (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Then you're either trying to do only the most straightforward things with them, or aren't looking very closely at the results. EEng 04:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of copying others' syntax, some learning pmwiki code, and assimilating code differences to see what affects what. Kingsif (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Cargo cult programming. EEng 20:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

And our newest contender for WP:LAME...

Can we please stop edit-warring over whether it is "French president Macron", "Macron, the French president", or something other variant and talk it out here? --Masem (t) 22:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I favor the commonly understood "French president..." or the more precise "France's president..." for concision and flow.- MrX 🖋 22:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"French President Macron" is a false title and grammatically poor. Not only that is the utterly pointless inclusion of “French” to explain the blindingly obvious. I know there are some people who can’t think beyond national borders, but it’s just so obvious we’re talking about the French head of state. (And Mrx, rather than just leave a note for me about reverting, I am far from the worst culprit here on that score, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to leave the same message to the 2 others who have warred over that point and who are up in the 6 or 7 revisions in the last 24 hours) -SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

"French president..." is commonly used by sources in that way, just like "American president...". Are you suggesting that we change it to "President Emmanuel Macron"? If so, why is that better than the convention of indicating what country he's president of?- MrX 🖋 23:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If by "sources" you mean journalists, we aim for a higher standard of language in an encyclopaedia than they use. The context is obvious, the link to the individual is obvious, and using a false title is just lazy. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Might I suggest just "President Emmanuel Macron"? We've established this is France, and to this point we haven't talked anything international. A competent reader should be able to understand from content that we're not talking about the US president or Mexican president or president of some company. It would be different if by this point we were knees deep in international issues, which would beg the question of "which president" if we omitted the country. --Masem (t) 23:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) x 2 just "President Emmanuel Macron" is great. We know where we’re talking about and it avoids the false title/lazy journalese - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• Sounds like a tidy solution to me. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't realise this was under discussion. My removal of "France" as a descriptor from "France's president Emmanuelle Macron" in the lead has been reverted by Bsherr. I concur with the editors above. "President Emmanuelle Macron" should be sufficient on its own here. Insisting on retaining the French descriptor appears to be very anglosphere WP:WORLDVIEW, which we are supposed to avoid. First of all we are supposed to pitch our articles at people with a typical high school education, and I would hope that most high school graduates could identify the president of France. Secondly, even if this were not the case the topic is discussing a French national tragedy so when the president is referred to in the lead of such a topic the default assumption should be that we are referring to the president of the country that is at the heart of the topic. We don't refer to Trump as the U.S. president in articles such as Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, 2017 Las Vegas shooting and Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Why? Because it would be pedantic and obvious, and therefore unnecessary. Finally, if a reader doesn't really know who Macron is or wants to just make sure his name is wiki-linked anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
• As mentioned in an earlier edit summary, we understand that at Miss Haversham's Elite Finishing School for Refined Young Ladies and Those Who Aspire to Be Such, a "false title" was a faux pas (embarrassing pratfall) that would give Mme Haversham un nœud dans sa culotte (a knot in her knickers), but we're in the 21st century now. We split infinitives now and even use singular they! I'm fine with any of French President or France's President (though I can never remember whether, in those constructions, the P is capitalized) or just plain President. But this Emmanuel Macron, the French president stuff is for the birds. EEng 23:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  I like President Emmanuel Macron also Mitchellhobbs (talk) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  I like him too, but how do you think we should refer to him in the article? EEng

  lol sorry I was distracted. I agree with "President Emmanuel Macron" Mitchellhobbs (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't have strong feelings about whether the description is before or after his name, is an appositive, uses a possessive, whatever (so, to me, it is moot to address whether one is correct or incorrect). But on first mention, one should say of what he is the president. President is also a corporate title (President (corporate title)). In some places, a reference to the president in an article about Notre Dame would refer to John I. Jenkins. (And that's not to say this has any relation to a US bias.) If this were an article about the government of France, this might be a different. But nothing is lost by concisely supplying the information. --Bsherr (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• "per lack of consensus on talk page" FFS - just because you don't like it doesn't mean there is a lack of consensus, and "consensus" does not mean that there has to be universal support for something. There is general agreement from the above that the "France's" isn't needed. - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• There has been no substantive response to my comment and the discussion was commenced less than half a day ago. You need to stop edit warring over this and let the discussion run its course. --Bsherr (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Errrmmmm... you know you are also edit warring, right? And you haven't just been edit warring on that point, but on several others, just as other people have too. So far the majority is against you, and your comment doesn't really need a response: it's crap. But if you want one, the context is clear on this. We are unlikely to have a statement from the president of a company or a US university or the US president about this matter. There also isn't a president of a company or a US university or the US president called Emmanuel Macron - particularly the Emmanuel Macron we have linked. As someone above has pointed out, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, 2017 Las Vegas shooting and Stoneman Douglas High School shooting don't refer to "The American president": the context is there for all to see. Just a wild stab in the dark : are you American? - SchroCat (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SchroCat. We write for a general audience and we should write with that in mind without being pedantic. A reasonably educated person will know who the president of France is. Even if this were Estonia (and I confess to not knowing if Estonia even has a president) I would assume that such a reference to the "president" in an article about a national tragedy in Estonia would refer to the president of that particular country. If there had been a president of Notre Dame Cathedral then the distinction would have been justified, otherwise such pedantry undermines the global outlook Wikipedia is supposed to be striving for. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly: I stressed this suggest that when we first use Macron's name, no other country has been mentioned, no company or any organization which could have a president has been mentioned. Just as we don't say Paris is in France (this should be common knowledge), we can forgo the adjective-country name on "President" at this first instance. Think of it like pronoun trouble - in context, there is no other way "President" can be interpreted. --Masem (t) 16:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• I was illustrating a point that ambiguities should be resolved when possible. Let me try to explain it further. Instead of "French president Emmanuel Macron", the article could say "President Emmanuel Macron" or "President Macron" or "Macron" or "the president" or....a score of other possibilities. So why don't we do that? You could just as easily argue that if the article just said "Macron," how many other people with the last name Macron could be connected to the subject? But it's irrelevant. The whole point of Wikipedia is to present information in Wikipedia:Summary style. So the question is, is it consistent with summary style to provide the information that Emmanuel Macron is the president of the government of France, at the first mention of his name? Yes. Which is why, if you look at the dozens of newspaper articles the Wikipedia article references (including the AP, AFP, Reuters, and countless individual sources), you'll find this same construction. It's why if you look at the website of the French government concerning this subject, it says "As the French President Emmanuel Macron promised, the cathedral will be fully rebuilt." --Bsherr (talk) 16:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Here's that link, should you want to see for yourself: https://www.gouvernement.fr/en/rebuildnotredame --Bsherr

~sigh~ At the risk of having to repeat myself, adding the definite article (as the link does) stops this being a false title. "As the French President Emmanuel Macron promised,..." Having "French president" is lazy journalese.

You say that "the dozens of newspaper articles" say something, but I'm afraid you have missed the point of what an encyclopaedia is: it's not a newspaper, and the style of English here should be higher than that of the newspapers. Either way, your claim of an "ambiguity" is misplaced. We're talking about the president of a country where a major event has happened: there is no ambiguity unless one perversely tries to shoehorn one in. - SchroCat (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Both newspapers and encyclopedias are written in summary style, aren't they? That is not to suggest other elements of style are the same between them. Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone covers the differences well. None of those differences concern what facts should or should not be included. I've already explained that ambiguity alone is not the sole consideration. That's my point about just using "Macron". It's arguably not ambiguous. It's still not preferable. I see no need to take a position on the false title issue, since the article currently doesn't have that problem. --Bsherr (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

"Both newspapers and encyclopedias are written in summary style, aren't they? Good god, no! Newspapers are written in snappy, attention-grabbing prose with a firm eye on brevity because of the lack of space. Encyclopaedias are (slightly) more formal and written with the aim of fully covering a subject. Either way, your straw man of "just using "Macron"" is false: no-one has suggested that: we are referring to Emmanual Macron. Either as "President EM", or "EM, the FP". "France's president" smacks of the writing of a lazy journalist of tabloids, not in something that is supposed to be of a higher standard. - SchroCat (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say they are both written in the same style, I said they are both written in summary style. (Indeed, there are a great many things that make newspapers and Wikipedia different, but none of them are relevant to this matter.) But if you're telling me that newspapers are even more brief and informal than encyclopedias, why would newspapers include that Macron is the president of France, and this Wikipedia article not? On the other point, I guess I should start by explaining that one manner in which intelligent people discuss a matter is by posing hypotheticals to both illustrate and challenge positions. Hopefully you already know that, so I don't need to explain why the discussion of just using "Macron" is relevant to the point as an illustration, even though no one is actually proposing to do so. Is there an actual reason you think the point is wrong? --Bsherr (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I had put in [[French President|President]] Macron. That covers all the angles, and does so in a readable form, while giving clarification and a useful link to readers from the rest of the world. It is not patronizing, and doesn't clutter the article. But I'm not going to edit war over this merde. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I wonder how many people know what the word merde ~ means ~ lol Mitchellhobbs (talk) Mitchellhobbs (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Merde provides the answer to that one. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it's increasingly clear that there is a consensus for either "President Emmanuel Macron" or "President Emmanuel Macron", with only one person pushing hard against it and edit warring something different. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd go for President Emmanuel Macron per MOS:SPECIFICLINK. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't find the guide on it, but I thought we were not supposed to link like that. (Happy to be proved wrong if you can find something, as I'm not 100% sure on it) - SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a compromise and a straddle. I don't know about the rules. WP:Ignore all rules anyway. Like the flying bumblebee, it works. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Peace seems to have broken out so I suggest we see how much lameness mileage we can get out of artifacts vs. artefacts. EEng 22:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh my god! I spoke too soon. False title alert! Release the hounds! All hands on deck! Go to DEFCON 1! EEng 22:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

":President Emmanuel Macron works well! Give us appropriate links, and applies the KISS principle. Bon appetit!

Which is consistent with my Modest proposal. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

[[Emmanuel Macron|President Emmanuel Macron]] isn't great, but it's less bad than the existing one and a few of the other suggestions, so I'd plump for this as a compromise. I'll let someone else change it - at least one person is likely to edit war it out again tho, - SchroCat (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• This "false title" issue is just absurd. Like dangling prepositions and split infinitives, prohibiting it is an anachronism not supported by modern English usage. I have no particular opinion on the wording in question, but we shouldn't change it solely for that reason, especially if it's going to upset the flow and readability of the text.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for your opinion, and if you wish to write an encyclopaedia in lazy journalese then there is little that anyone could say to change your mind. However, if you actually read through the thread, you'll see the false title is just one of the problems, and the "flow and readability" is unaltered by most of the proposed versions. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

  Quite, and like I say I am not weighing in on the overall debate, just debunking this notion that we shouldn't use a "false title". And no, it's not just my opinion, it's also the opinion of the AP style guide and although some publications do still ban it, the majority of sources such as the BBC, Reuters etc. are fine with it. Wikipedia is not written in technical English and adopting the style of language used by reputable publications is not "lazy" but correct.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• We're wondering too far off the main topic here, but unfortunately the style guides you are quoting are for journalistic sources, not encyclopaedic ones. You're right to say we don't write in "technical" language, but "encyclopaedic" is not "technical". From the point of where we should be aiming, journalistic writing comes over as lazy; it is, of course "correct" if you're trying to write a newspaper with an eye on limited space of column inches. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Listen, turn out the lights when you're done, OK? Thanks. And give our regards to Miss Haversham. EEng 13:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

? Zzzzz - SchroCat (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Reverted edit

@EEng: Because that's what was there originally before changes were requested to the animation. Please reverse the revert. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Notre-Dame_de_Paris_fire/Archive_2#Before_and_After_GIF - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 04:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, it took so long to load for some reason that the animation didn't go. I see now. I'm personally not convinced that an animation is better than two parallel images, but I'll put it back and let's see what others think. EEng 05:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Before deleting this

...could you answer the questions and then delete so I know what is wrong? Thx

I don't see how a source that makes a claim is not good enough to support the claim that said claim was made. That is really all Wikipedia is, it's just a matter of how reasonable the claim is.

Regarding experts and scholarly authorities, how is that "excessive weight"? I can see why saying that there is no official explanation yet and any theories pointing to a particular group of people would be removed, but what is wrong with presenting the comments of those who are most qualified? And how do these sources not justify my claim that they make the claims I am claiming that they make?

Many specialists in pyrotechnics and authorities on the cathedral are skeptical of the possibility that the fire was accidental. Benjamin Mouton, the architect-in-chief of the cathedral from 2010 to 2013, has stated that given the latest security overhaul's thoroughness to the point of multiple-redundancy, the way the electrical wiring was laid, the the nature of the wood, and the rate at which the fire spread (Mouton uses the word French word "incomprehensible", incomprehensible or flabbergasting, to describe it), the likelihood that the fire was accidental is extremely slim to none. Bill Donahue, President of the Catholic League, has also voiced his doubts.

References

• These are unreliable or barely reliable sources (compared to things like BBC, NYTimes, etc.) There's already a host of other conspiracy theories about this fire, and while these are far less "conspiratorial", its just better to leave out any speculation that is not said by those officially in charge of the investigation. There's probably hundreds of experts not on the investigative team throwing their opinion of what might have happened, so there's no reason to focus on any that is unofficial. --Masem (t) 00:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Bad sources, WP:UNDUE weight, fails to account for the fact that fire experts say that Mr. Mouton's assumptions were inaccurate (e.g., NYTimes article from April 19). A lot wrong with this. Neutrality^talk 00:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• So the guy recently in charge says, "It couldn't have been anything I did -- must have been arson!" Yeah, let's run with that. EEng 02:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• I am SHOCKED that the expert opinion of Benjamin Mouton is simply ignored in wikipedia. There is no mention to it. I am sure that if there was it’d simply be done to discredit it. Shame on you.

Fundraising

I'm reverting an edit back to the Ubisoft mention because it was claimed that "this fundraising section is for pledges 10 million euros or more ~ not to get funds raised ~", despite the fact that the section is clearly entitled "Fundraising" and not "Fundraising for Pledges over 10 Million Euros". While the explicit list does contain only those pledges of over 10 million euros, the very next sentence is "There also were many smaller pledges," so the content is appropriately situated in the article. Moreover, there was no mention of Ubisoft's monetary pledge in the edit; the content distinguishes itself from being the mention of another (relatively) minor pledge by the detailed recreation of the structure in the game and the purpose of raising awareness for fundraising. AndersLeo (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

It distinguishes itself by being a promotional gimmick by the company. EEng 18:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Donations
Fundraising ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

While I agree every small company (or organisation) does not need to be mentioned, but it should be explained beyond the specified 10M+ list somehow. So I've covered this by simply including a comment about how companies both small and the very biggest (using Apple as the largest possible) have pledged funds. This covers the subject without going into every & all companies to do so. Jimthing (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

As soon as you have examples past the 10M euro nmber, you create a slippery slope for any other smaller donation. We have no idea yet if Apple has pledged any funds or what size they may be, so right now, that inclusion stands out as overtly promotion for Apple. --Masem (t) 04:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Masem ~~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

And I agree with User:Mitchellhobbs. EEng 13:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Help from society (other than fundraising)

Ubisoft did some thing else in addition to donating 5 million euro to the reparation of Notre-Dame de Paris. Ubisoft creative director Maxime Durand toldtold Business Insider in an interview on Wednesday. The studio has a "huge database" of research on Notre-Dame that was accrued over four years. These data is valuable to the reparation of Notre-Dame, we can see from some image from the game. "Because [Notre-Dame Cathedral] was the most iconic monument that we had for 'Assassin's Creed Unity,' obviously we really wanted to put in all the efforts to make sure that it was really, really beautiful but also representative of the monument.""I'd be very surprised if the architects that will work on the spire will actually engage us in participating," he said. No matter the data is accurate or not, it will always be somehow helpful to the reparation of Notre-dame. We are also willing to see, the real one can recover from the disaster and earn its beauty back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaaaaakun (talk • contribs)

I know that on the day of the fire, other parties discussed UBisoft's game, as well as a previous laser-scanned digitization that had been made. Since that point, it has been said that the laser digitization will not likely be used, so this means very much likely the Ubisoft part will not either. All fine information on the game, but I think it's noise to the primary concerns here. If the reconstruction actually does go and use it, then we can document it here. --Masem (t) 22:39, 3 May 2019 (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:

• Charpentes Notre Dame 2018 6.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Argument against restoration

I hesitate to add this reference, as I suspect it would be instantly deleted on grounds of WP:UNDUE or WP:NOTEVERYTHING or similar, but I found it quite interesting. Amanda Power, Associate Professor in Medieval History at Oxford, argues that the cathedral should not be restored, but should be allowed to stand in ruins as a monument to social injustice and environmental destruction. GrindtXX (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

If you can show 3-4 reliable sources with this opinion, then that merits a sentence or two for inclusion. There seem to be enough hits on a quick google search but I've not evaluated reliability or the like. --Masem (t) 16:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Images 2

I am heartened to see the number of images has been trimmed down - even though there are still too many superfluous ones ("From Square René-Viviani at 19:51" being the most obvious example, as it conveys little to no more information than the lead image). There are still too many problems surrounding them, partly because of the determination to ignore the advice of others. Yesterday I took out the forced no-breaks (explaining "rather line breaks than breaks in the middle of the words") because the template forces the words not to break, but instead forces breaks in the words. This was reverted with "No idea what you mean by 'rather line breaks than breaks in the middle of the words'. {nobr} does not cause breaks in words. Here it works to helps keep each left/center/right subcaption together, and encourage breaks between them, without forcing a break at any particular point". Now we are left with the following, which is what some people will see is. Oh, look: breaks in the words, just as described:

Eeng, rather than just go into revert mode of things you don't want (even if they are improvements to the article), can you at least try to ignore who has made the changes and look at the bigger picture? I'm out of this one - too much ownership going on, so I'll let you have your little "humorous" digs if that's all you can manage, but try to take on board that other people here do know what they are on about when they make edits. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you troubled to upload a screenschot and post this complaint without specifying what platform and settings your're using, as if you don't realize that not everyone sees on their screen what you see on yours, suggests that you do not, in the event, know what you're on about. In fact, it's obvious from your screenshot that your zoom or font settings are causing caption text to be rendered far larger than normal.

The fact that you mass-reverted a pile of changes by multiple other people, using an edit summary that read, in its entirety, "crap", didn't help either. EEng 14:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Right, of course: I should have my settings the same as yours. To some extent it doesn't matter what my settings are: the break is causing problems. Masem said the same thing (in the thread at the top of this page). But that's fine - have a dig at people without taking on board the fact that there are problems using {nobr}. - SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

No, your settings needn't be the same as mine, but you should display an awareness that platform and settings often confound layout discussions. It's possible I was overthinking this (or maybe underthinking it) but please exercise the ol' AGF and ask yourself why it is that someone did what they did, and why you might be seeing an issue when quite obviously the other person isn't. Sweeping away others' work as "crap" isn't an example of such consideration. Clearly I was trying to do something -- why didn't you say, "For me (Platform P, Browser B, Zoom 125%, thumbnails 220) this does Bad Thing X -- what is it you're trying to accomplish with this?" Anyway, the italics idea (below) seems like a good one (bold was too... bold) so I've put it in place for our esteemed fellow editors to contemplate. EEng 18:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I did deduce that it is an issue not in Chrome, but in Firefox and in Edge (Win10 all 3). The gallery is cutting off the long text, likely because of the no-breaks there. --Masem (t) 15:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yep - in Chrome, it trims the edges off words, rather than breaking them onto a new line. Getting rid of the breaks entirely would fix it, and use italics or bold for left/centre/right to make them stand out instead. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not what I see (for me it:s Left: timber-and-lead roof / above stone ceiling; / center: stone exterior walls; / right: stone flying buttresses) but never mind: the caption seems too long. If it can't be shortened, the image should not be in the gallery but perhaps separate, next to a precise description. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I see what you see, Gerda (on Windows 10 with Chrome 73, Edge, and Firefox; base thumbnail size 220px). I agree the caption's unusually long, but I don't see how to shorten it without impairing its usefulness to the reader (who needs to understand what burns and what doesn't). When the article text grows, which it probably will in the next months as the investigation proceeds, it might be possible, as you suggest, to float this separately elsewhere, but I don't see anywhere to move it right now -- as I say, that will change as the text grows. EEng 14:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

• And this is how it looks to other people - just missing bits of words.

Still - I'm delighted you two don't have problems, regardless of anyone else. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I may have fixed this with CSS style parameters. SchroCat, Gerda Arendt, are you still seeing problems? If so, I'd favour taking out the nobrs, as cut-off words seem worse than a break in the middle of "flying buttresses" and a word all alone on the last line. HLHJ (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Gallery image change

new image

I tried make a change to the gallery...

old image

...because I think it gives the reader a better idea of the interior while still illustrating the sexpartite vault (which sounds naughty when you think about it) but somehow that shrank all the images. Assuming people think think that's a good idea, is there a gallery wizard who can help? Though come to think about it, to include the new image effectively it would need to be taller than the others -- that would match the longer caption on the leftmost image in the gallery, but I don't know if there's a way to do it. EEng 00:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The new image is much better. By the way, I'm going to have a go at the sexpartite vault article once I get a reference in. I've had a go at a draft at User:Acroterion/Vaulting, but although I'm qualified to make the statements in the draft, it's too NOR-y for Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion, but putting here first. If we put the schematic image of the cathedral in a multiple image block at a reaspmab;, that would help 1) show that image a bit better, 2) help reinforce visually what is going on inside the cathedral and 3) take out that long caption from the gallery. That might push a bit too much on (if upright=1.2, I need 575px for this.)

Example:

Left: Timber roof framing; vaulted ceiling lies below walkways

Right: Lead-sheathed roof and spire

Left: Timber-and-lead roof above stone ceiling (left); stone exterior walls (center); stone flying buttresses (right).

Right: Cathedral interior, showing stone rib-vaulted ceiling

Also, I just noted that the first caption on the first gallery is too long as it is cutting off the last part of "Buttresses". --Masem (t) 02:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Wait, so the caption you see isn't something like

Left: timber-and-lead roof
above stone ceiling;
center: stone exterior walls;
right: stone flying buttresses

–? And, um, what's reaspmab? Do you mean image map, or annotated image?

Anyway, I love what I'm seeing at right, though I'd interchange the two images. On a second row below those, we could have "Timber roof framing; vaulted ceiling lies below walkways" and "Roof and spire" -- just those two. If we change the caption "Roof and spire" to read "Lead-sheathed roof and spire", I think we can do without the middle "Lead roof sheathing" image (or it can go elsewhere when mentioning the melting or something). EEng 03:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

We should probably then crop down the schematic, get rid of the white space (they should display equal vertical height, obeying "upright" rules.) But yes, I thought the next-door comparison makes it crystal clear what the vault is and why it was so important to keep mostly undamaged in the fire. --Masem (t) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

How do we use upright for the images if the syntax doesn't allow upright for the overall size of the frame (or does it)? And where will we put this 2x2 array, there being so little Background text? Happy to keep collaboratin on this if you want, but maybe we should suspend efforts until the text expands. EEng 11:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Composite cross-section (annotations)

Nave interior with rib vaulting

I think we can just adjust the individual and total widths, thus, to remove whitespace.

I've made a cross-section new image, as the old one is inaccurate. I've tried to show all the relevant structural elements in schematic form. Sadly, formatting it to be the same scale as the nave photo would be tough. Maybe a composite inside-outside photo? I strongly agree that making these images taller would be a good feature.

I agree that the photo proposed for the nave is a better picture of the nave, though I'm not sure it gives as clear an impression of the shape of the vaults. However, having no image of the vaults would, I think, run contrary to the earlier consensus (and, I suspect, the one here). I have boldly added both vault images, subject to the judgement of other parties here, as I think they illustrate different aspects (and another reason for the importance of preserving the vaults). If someone could have a go at cutting down my wordy captions, I'd appreciate it.

If we added some text on the relevant structure of the building to the "background" section, we'd have more body text. I added a sub-section on this at one point, but it was removed; I'd obviously be fine with others deciding on re-instating it. Currently there is a lot of info that is only in the pictures. This makes the article less accessible to blind readers and others not viewing images. Some article topics are highly visual, and some are highly textual; this is the former.

I think it would be good to have something that shows the thickness of the lead sheeting, although this info might fit in the captions.

More generally, I've tried to fix the gallery formatting; could anyone still having cut-off-caption problems please describe them? Below I have included a gallery formatted using Template:Multiple images, which seems more flexible (the two-per-row is alterable, and a height and width can be given for each image as long as a total width is given). This would be quite a drastic change, but I've tried it in the article (in preview, without saving) and it looks good to me (to you?). HLHJ (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Structural elements relevant to the fire

Timber in reds, stone in blues. Left: tower, with framework (not destroyed); center: lead-clad roof trusses above stone ceiling (spire shown behind); right: exterior walls and flying buttresses (annotations)

Interior of nave (large central space from previous diagram), showing rib vaulting and nave walls. Nave walls showing clerestory windows, arches to triforium, and arches to side aisles.

Underside of rib vaulting; the arches thrust outwards on the walls, counterbalancing the inward thrust of the flying buttresses. Had the vaulting fallen, the walls would have collapsed into the nave.

Timber roof framing; vaulted ceiling lies below walkways

Lead roof sheathing

Roof and spire. The twelve Apostles statues at the spire's base had been removed for conservation days before the fire.

(this uses the multiple image syntax)

• Your new diagram is a great asset. But over the last month it's all come back to me what a mess galleries are, technically. I'm getting different sizes and layouts when I simply switch from "regular" reading to edit mode. EEng 02:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, EEng . I entirely agree on the mess. I spent way to long messing with that gallery's CSS styles, and I can't see if any of the problems are fixed, because I can't see the problems... I can understand different sizes/layouts for different aspect ratios, mobiles, etc., but illegible captions on different browsers? It seems pretty basic that highly visual/spatial topics sometimes need a greater density of images than can readily be accommodated without a solid block of images. Do you have any idea where the problem is? If it just needs a solid Mediawiki re-write, maybe it's something for the community wishlist. If it is the browsers (Firefox seems fine, IE problematic), maybe we need a publicly-scored Wikipedia browser stresstest (paraphrased quote of an acquaintance:"My new phone is such trash, it can't even read Wikipedia!"). Who knows, we might even persuade browsers to render MathML, and finally free ourselves from the horrible kludge that is MathJax. HLHJ (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I really have no idea. I suggest we call what you've done good enough, and let things lie for now. As the investigation proceeds the article will expand, and that may relieve the layout crunch. EEng 04:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image size

Notre-Dame fire/Archive 3

View from Quai de Montebello with the spire aflame
Notre-Dame Cathedral Notre-Dame Cathedral (Paris) Notre-Dame Cathedral Notre-Dame Cathedral (France)
Time	18:20 CEST (16:20 UTC)
Deaths	0
Non-fatal injuries	3
Property damage	Roof and spire destroyed; windows and vaulted ceilings damaged

Notre-Dame fire/Archive 3

View from Quai de Montebello with the spire aflame
Notre-Dame Cathedral Notre-Dame Cathedral (Paris) Notre-Dame Cathedral Notre-Dame Cathedral (France)
Time	18:20 CEST (16:20 UTC)
Deaths	0
Non-fatal injuries	3
Property damage	Roof and spire destroyed; windows and vaulted ceilings damaged

@EEng: Setting the image in the infobox to 1.35 scale makes the entire infobox very wide, where it is normally only 32em. At a screen resolution of 1280x1024 using vector, for example, the infobox is nearly half the article width. While a single image at this width might be acceptable, that width is then wastefully carried through the entire infobox. The image size guideline is silent on infoboxes. To address the issue, we should either reduce the size to the default or consider a different image. --Bsherr (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(Should add that's assuming an image default size of 300px.) --Bsherr (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• You're fussing about nothing. At right (top) is the the infobox with image at upright=1; below it is the infobox with image at upright=1.3. The increase in width is very minor, largely because at upright=1 the image doesn't even use the full width of the box available (either because there's some default minimum width for the box, or because the map has forced it that wide). EEng 21:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  It really isn't good-looking, though; the image is very tight to its border and then the rest of the box has giant empty spaces. How about give them all a happy amount of gaps? Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  As implored many times, this kind of thing isn't worth fussing about at an article's early stages. Maybe we'll find a better lead image that's in portrait format, or maybe a "cause" parameter will be added that is a dozen words long and looks better in a wider box anyway, or maybe... Fussing these things so soon is a waste of time. EEng 22:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  That's subject to your display preferences. It's different if you set your default image size. It is important to think about those viewing the article with all settings and all resolutions. The same goes when moving images around to attempt to "balance" them or respond to "gaps". --Bsherr (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  all settings and all resolutions – absolutely not. We discuss layout issues with Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering>Thumbnail size set at the default 220px. A user who changes that preference does so for his own reasons and at his own peril, layout-wise. As far as screen sizes, layouts should look good at typical window widths, not all of them, plus on mobile devices to the extent we can control that (we mostly can't -- mobile rendering has a mind of its own). EEng 00:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Do you have a source for that proposition? Because it directly contradicts WP:RESOL. --Bsherr (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? RESOL says nothing about supporting a variety of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering > Thumbnail size settings, and 1024×768 (the size mentioned in your OP) is certainly one of the typical screen sizes to which I was referring. EEng 00:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  Oh, and Bsherr, see WP:Manual_of_Style/Images#cite_note-leave_pref-2: If you do much work with image layouts, consider leaving your preference at 220px to match the "reader experience" of most readers. If your setting is 300, no wonder everything looks crazy. EEng 05:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_edit_war_over_the_colour_of_templates and http://bikeshed.org/: Tldr "Some things in the context of the English Wikipedia are more important than others. For instance, it is important to deal with articles that randomly accuse people of murder, and generally to avoid getting the Wikimedia Foundation sued out of existence. Other issues, such as whether it is acceptable for users to remove warning messages from their user discussion pages, are significantly less important." "Some people have commented that the amount of noise generated by a change is inversely proportional to the complexity of the change." By AWwikipedia - Sydney, NSW - I like pineapples. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Notre Dame de Paris roof damage aerial.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Other historic building fires

eg Hampton Court and Windsor Castle.

How often do 'major fires' occur in conjunction with 'major restorations' (ie the latter give rise to the situation in which the former occur rather than causing them)?

The main positive (apart from archaeological-historical research and maintenance of craft skills in all such events) in this case was that it did not occur a few days later (the Easter weekend). 89.197.114.196 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no stats to answer your question, User:89.197.114.196, but for a very partial list, see Construction and renovation fires. HLHJ (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

A research project or several then (including smaller scale 'fire, flood and other such events' - there probably being many more 'small scale events' and various other categories. (The 1832 Burning of Parliament was a different 'thing' as the furnaces were deliberately overloaded). Any too-OR-for-Wikipedia persons willing to take it on? 89.197.114.196 (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

User:89.197.114.196, I recall seeing a stat on how many renovation fires were reported on the Île de la Cité in the same month (I think) as the Notre-Dame fire. Not sure if it was English- or French-language. There may be some stats on these things already, but, yes, that might be an interesting project. You'd need to specify exactly what search terms/methods you used to collect your dataset. The Wikijournals could probably publish it; they are on Wikiversity, the too-OR-for-Wikipedia sister wiki; you might be able to find some collaborators there. HLHJ (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding video with aerial panning shot at ~50m

Aerial panning shot, 1:12-1:51

File:Notre-Dame- Massive Fire Ravages Paris Cathedral.webm

Poorly-stabilized but fixable video of spire collapsing, plus still shots from inside (which I'm not sure about the licensing of)

Panning shot of a very rough computer model

Continued from User talk:HLHJ#as a note on cathedral fire video:

Masem, this video's licensing has been reviewed and accepted on Commons. I think one or more videos excerpted from it would make excellent additions to the article, particularly the aerial panning shot at ~50m. However, there are large chunks that would frankly be better as still photos, sort of "firefighter monitors situation"-type shots, and we have plenty of good stills. I understand that there is some sort of new tool for cutting videos on Commons that might make this easy to do. I know squat about video editing, tho, and am unlikely to get around to it. HLHJ (talk) 16:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The easier way to pull stills that I know of is just dl the video and use a video player (I recommend the freeware "MPC-HC") , grab stills and upload those, with using the "extracted from" template on commons to point to the video file. But there is no harm at all for that there (even if we don't use the images, that just provides more content for other wikis and other people to use). --Masem (t) 17:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Masem, I clipped out the aerial panning shot with ffmpeg, uploaded it, and added it to the article (not sure it's in the best place). I'm a bit dubious about the licensing of the second video, which has not been reviewed yet, so I have not extracted anything from it. I'm not sure the last video's content could ad much much, so I've left it. HLHJ (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The aerial panning shot has been challenged as copyvio; feel free to contribute to the discussion (next section). HLHJ (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Update of Restoration progress?

Quick question - was just reading the National Geo article on this, and it seems this article hasn't been maintained. Particularly, it seems it would be useful to give updates on restoration status. I've got no expertise or connection now but perhaps someone else is a little more connected that we could get restoration status updated on some sort of regular basis? I'll add a reference link to what appears to be the restoration organization, Friends of Notre Dame de Paris . Garykempen (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Flèche en feu - Spire on Fire.jpeg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 12, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-06-12. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The Notre-Dame fire broke out in the cathedral of Notre-Dame de Paris on 15 April 2019, causing severe damage to the building's spire, roof, and upper walls. The fire resulted in the contamination of the site and nearby areas of the city with toxic dust and lead. Investigators believed that the fire was caused by a cigarette or an electrical short circuit; the prosecutor of Paris found no evidence showing the fire was started deliberately. The cathedral's wooden spire, or flèche, was built by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc in the Gothic Revival style and installed in 1859, weighing around 250 tons. This photograph, taken during the 2019 fire, depicts the spire of Notre-Dame aflame; it collapsed shortly afterwards.

Photograph credit: Guillaume Levrier

Recently featured:

• Julia Margaret Cameron
• Sinopterus dongi
• The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp

Service at the time of the fire?

According to KTOTV there was the usual service of vespers on Monday 15 April. Given that vespers starts at 5:45pm and lasted 27 minutes, this video ends just minutes before the fire was discovered. https://www.ktotv.com/video/00267638/vepres-du-15-avril-2019 Can anyone confirm? Point of Presencetalk 11:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Media Culture -BN

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 13 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sloanerooney (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sloanerooney (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)