Talk:Palace of Versailles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Evolution of the building[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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: (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

New image of the building's evolution[edit]

Palace of Versailles, 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[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[edit]

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)


- 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[edit]

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:

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

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No information on who owns and control palace[edit]

Can somebody, please add this information? DAVRONOVA.A. 10:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

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

New montage looks like Pentagon[edit]

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)

Section on Cost[edit]

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)

Wrong picture[edit]

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)
Garden facade
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)