Talk:Louvre/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Louvre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Clean up/Citing

Latest comment: 16 years ago18 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I'm hoping to do a little work adding some refs here and there to this article. Anyway, if anyone would like to do a little colloboration that'd be great. I also tagged the following as spam: "The architectural joint-venture team of SANAA of Tokyo and the New York-based IMREY CULBERT LP were awarded the project on September 26, 2005.SANAA, Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa with Tim Culbert and Celia Imrey / IMREY CULBERT LP [3]) SANAA is a widely recognized Japanese architectural firm, noted for its ethereal designs. IMREY CULBERT is a US/French architectural firm, specializing in museum and exhibit designs, with offices in New York and Paris. Tim Culbert, project architect that led the team's submission for the Louvre-Lens project, was previously an associate-partner of I.M. Pei, architect of the Pyramid of the Louvre." Lazulilasher (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding refs is essential, and you are doing a good thing here. Ditto on the spam. Do you happen to know what the word vaaol in the third sentence of the history section means? The link next to it goes to an article that is mostly in Turkish. I'm not sure it's helpful to link across languages in most cases, and this is one of them. Do you mind if I unlink that guy? Finetooth (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The table in Departments and collections has nine categories but only eight numbers. I didn't check the source. The numbers may change from year to year, not sure. Finetooth (talk) 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean about the article reading well for a ways and then not as well. I made a few minor copyediting changes yesterday, and I plan to go back today for another round. I don't have anything substantive to suggest at the moment. As with Franklin, I'm coming at this from a small information base. I set foot in the Louvre once. It's mighty impressive and not the sort of museum you can "do" in a single visit. Finetooth (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Great. I already see you digging into the text :) I'm adding new material and sources bit-by-bit. There's a plethora of material. Do you think I added too much to the section on the structure's history? Lazulilasher (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You didn't add too much to the History section. It's more interesting than some of the other sections. I'm pretty much finished with my low-level copyediting (fixing punctuation, adding conversion templates, adding the euro symbol, pouncing on misspellings and flipping them on their backs). I see problems with the bottom sections, which tend to degenerate into lists. For example, the list of directors seems oddly incomplete, though it may not be necessary to include such a list at all; the complete one might be truly dull reading. Maybe naming the first director and the current one would be enough or simply saying that the museum has had X directors in its history and that the current one is Y. The table of holdings is missing something. And so on. But those are the sections you haven't gotten to yet. How can I be of further help? Just let me know, and I'll try to accommodate. Finetooth (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(UNDENT #3) Glad you like the history section. It's honestly the part of the Louvre that fascinates me the most. I'm contemplating how we work with the bottom sections. I agree that the directors part seems a bit odd and out of place. I think it should be removed. Also, I was thinking that, maybe we create some sort of a seperate article about the Louvre's notable paintings and have more of a museum "overview" if you will. What do you think? Also, what do you think about removing some of the images? It seems a bit "gallery-ish"....let me know what you think...

ALSO! I'm going to move this discussion to the article's talk page so that other editors can join in the discussion if they happen to run into it...always looking for more colloborators! Lazulilasher (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:MUSEUM has a lot of ideas and suggestions about museum articles, and it includes lists of ones that have made FA or GA. National Gallery, London might serve as a model. It emphasizes history and architecture and links to a separate article, National Gallery, London Collection Highlights to display a gallery of notable works. The layout of the top sections of National Gallery, London, is good; it spaces the illustrations nicely and uses a left-right approach rather than a right-side only approach. However, the bottom sections of the National Gallery article run into list and layout problems and aren't so nice to look at as the top sections. I think you're on the right track in emphasizing history and architecture and thinking that the gallery could be moved to its own page and perhaps expanded there and arranged differently. Finetooth (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I wish I'd thought of actually taking a look at WP:Museum...duh :) Taking a look now....Lazulilasher (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, the National Gallery article is an EXCELLENT article! I am definitely going to use it for inspiration. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Palazzo Pitti, an FA, describes each gallery in the museum in a general way without running long lists of contents or creating galleries of photos within the article. My general thought about photos is that they should illustrate some aspect of the main text and not be included mainly for their own sake. I prefer a maximum of one illustration (photo, map, drawing) per section, and I don't think galleries at the bottoms of articles are generally a good idea. Links to galleries on the Commons offer a better solution, as suggested by WP:LAY. If no such gallery already exists, it's possible to create one. Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(UNDENT) I agree completely. Actually, I'm a little intimidated by the gallery section and the numerous photographs. Thus, the reason they are still there :) Feel free to do what you think would be best--I trust your judgment. I would prefer less photos in this article as well--I would imagine/hope that many of the significant works/contributors would already have their own articles. What do you think we should do with the gallery? Remove it and link to Commons? As always, I attend your input. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I boldly removed the Gallery section. The Commons link in the External links section serves the same purpose without page clutter. We can always restore any particular ones, if any, that fit logically into sections that need illustration. Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I added data to the visitor count citations. The Time for kids one is a bit out of date (2003) and includes museums other than art museums. Maybe we should replace it with a second reference to the Bloomberg.com article cited in the infobox. Also, I'm wondering about citation 4. Can all those references actually be to a single page? Finetooth (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they're not. I'm terrible about updating the page numbers. A lot of them are from the chapter about the French Revolution, which, surprisingly enough is not on page 1. I tend to create the reference the first time I use it and then not update it until way later. Which is probably horrible for anyone trying to follow the sources.....I'll update it tommorow. Lazulilasher (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Btw, I think reference #7 has the same problem....probably not all from the same page, either....:) Lazulilasher (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) and, as you've probably noticed, whilst I love research I am not the best at details....hence why your help is so appreciated :) Lazulilasher (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For this article, I love working on the details and know next to nothing about the subject matter. This was also the case with Shackleton, which worked out fine. If you didn't do the research and writing, we would end up with nothing. :-) Finetooth (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Map and text

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I think the map is a good idea, but the text in that section needs to be longer for the layout to work. Perhaps we could add a bit more to the Location and access section. Finetooth (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The map also demonstrates that the Louvre itself is not aligned on the axe historique, which is probably interesting only to about 15 people on the planet...but still....yep, expansion is required, perhaps mentioning arrondisement, proximity to Tuileries, the rue de rivoli, etc....I think I'm going to expand the infobox in a moment with a map I created for arrondisements....let me know what you think about it when it's done.Lazulilasher (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned the axe historique. It's mentioned and linked in the lead but doesn't seem to appear in the main text. It needs to be explained more fully, perhaps in the history section. And, yes, your ideas for expanding the Location section seem excellent. "Arrondisement" could be briefly explained and so could Tuileries for that matter. Expansion of the infobox is another excellent idea, and I'm glad to hear you are working on a map. Finetooth (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree. There is a lot of room for expansion on this article. One thing tho--I've a tendency to get wordy (I just got knocked for that on an FAC), so slap me if the sentences start getting too long...hehe Lazulilasher (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I would never do that, but I see a non-sentence that needs fixing in the last paragraph of the "19th century after Napoleon" section. It begins right after the word "majolicas". I can't fix it because I can't be sure what you had in mind. Finetooth (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, I notice now that in the first paragraph of the "History" section it now says: "his vaaol Mahmut Başar Özer"...which, I am am having difficulty attributing.....odd....Lazulilasher (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that a couple of days ago and wrote a note: "Do you happen to know what the word vaaol in the third sentence of the history section means? The link next to it goes to an article that is mostly in Turkish." Alas, I buried this note in the middle of something else above, and you probably never saw it. Finetooth (talk) 19:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, vaaol comment is gone....really, really odd....I mean, it clearly wasn't vandalism (or even a conscious edit). Must have been my inner Ataturk coming out. Anyway, I was wondering, what do you think the "Departments" section? I like it but at the same time, I worry about being redundant. Btw, I asked Frania to help us also, so hopefully he'll have some valuable insight as well. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I've been buried today in other things and neglected Louvre entirely today. I hope to get back to it at least briefly tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange sentence

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I'm just starting on the Departments section. I've made minor MOS tweaks only. I see a problem with this sentence in the Egyptian antiquities section: "In fact, Egyptian artifacts taken from the royal collections were displayed earlier and although the department was opened in 1826 following a decree by King Charles X who had been impressed by the collection of Jean-François Champollion, who was appointed director." I don't think this is actually a sentence, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Finetooth (talk) 23:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have equated "collection" and "department" in a sentence in the Islamic art section, but this might be a misunderstanding on my part. Is the collection the same as the department, or does "department" mean the people who manage the collection? Finetooth (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to look at the sentence after I eat something. I tend to write in lyrical style until it comes time for the copy edit. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been using "collection" and "department" interchangeably, although "department" is really just shorthand for "curatorial department" and "collection" could also be used to refer to the entire Louvre collection. So, my thinking goes that "department" could refer to only the actual people, but I think the more common usage is for the collection. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

We'll see how this reads after a bit of time passes. I did quite a bit of low-level editing this evening but must move on to other things. I will come back tomorrow. I removed the ref tag at the top of the article. The only section that is wholly unsourced is the Lens section, which will need some sources. I notice a few more citations in the Reference section that need more data or tweaks, and I will come back to that. I don't see anything disheartening. I like your new sections on the departments, and I don't think it's too much. We can always tighten a bit later if something strikes us as redundant. You are doing a great job, and the article is already much improved. I like your selection of images, by the way. Finetooth (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe...also, feel free to go through and change any images. I generally selected what I found the most aesthetically appealing. It's getting better, but the article still needs more work, IMO...btw, can you think of any significant issues which could be addressed? I would love to see more detail on the specific portions of the building and their history, i.e. the Cour Carree, Denon Wing, etc...but I just couldn't find enough reliable sources to do anything with it. I just get the feeling that there is something missing from the article and I can't quite put my finger on it....Lazulilasher (talk) 02:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations, re-write

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I fixed a couple more citations this evening and rewrote the Abu Dhabi paragraph. The existing link to Time was dead, and the New York Times piece said almost the same thing. More tomorrow. Finetooth (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Francs

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

The money quantities in the article are generally expressed in modern $US or euros; I've been converting and adding whichever of these two is missing and putting euros first. I don't know what to do with "135 pieces at a cost of 720,000 francs" in the Napoleon section because inflation would make that number bigger in today's francs and because francs are neither euros nor US$. It doesn't do the reader much good to know the 720,000 number without having something familiar to compare it to. Got any preferences about how to handle this? Finetooth (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

All of you work looks great so far. I am trying to create a location map for Paris that can be then used in the Museum infobox. Not as easy as I anticipated :( Lazulilasher (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Done...phew...that map was nuts...what do you think of it? The cool thing is that the map can be used in ANY article!!Lazulilasher (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maps are tough. I'm trying to learn how to make river drainage area maps, and I can report only limited success so far. If you don't mind a suggestion, I think your Louvre location map could be improved by adding text identifying a couple of important landmarks. To do this effectively, you might need a larger base map, and I don't know where you can get one. It's hard to find base maps in the public domain. Maybe you could add text to those two big green areas, which I assume must be parks. An idea not requiring adding text to the map itself would be to include Boulevard Périphérique in the caption if you can find a way to make it fit. Maybe something like "Location in Paris, inside Boulevard Périphérique". Then Boulevard Périphérique could be added to the sentence in the lead that gives the location. This reminds me of something big: the lead needs to be completely re-worked to include a summary of the new material you've added, and the location text already in the existing lead could be cloned and expanded a bit in that stubby "Location and access" section that needs to be a bit bigger anyway to accommodate the other map, the Louvre layout map. Finetooth (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I hasten to add that the map you've made is an improvement. Finetooth (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Heheh...no worries. Actually, I'd love to use a larger map with substantial detail, but we're constrained by the tl:Infobox Museum (which is only editable by admins) and the tl:Location Map template which is the template that the Infobox Museum calls (in other words, I'm not able to change the Infobox Museum....). However, what I was thinking was that we create a second map, which would go into the location/access section. This map would include: 1.) metro detail and 2.) locale details....I was thinking of superimposing: map and map in order to provide a more "useful" image...what do you think?

Also, I couldn't agree more about the Lead. After expansion of the Location/Access section, we could then move the "Louvre Map" to the History section which speaks about architecture and names the wings/pavillons. This would also help illustrate the "Axe Historique". Let me know how this proposal sounds....Lazulilasher (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This all sounds good to me. I was wondering if the museum infobox had built-in provisions for a map. I thought maybe you had added the red dot parameters, and I was going to ask you how you did that. I didn't notice them the last time I looked, but they must have been there. Anyway, yes, your plans sound excellent. Meanwhile, I will go on tinkering with some other citations and see where that leads me. Finetooth (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the two map links above don't work when clicked. I'll see if I can figure out what's going on with them. Finetooth (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Paris_arr_jms.gif and Image:Paris_Metro_map_beschriftet.png. Ruhrfisch taught me this. You can link to images on the Commons without invoking them directly if you put an extra colon in front of the word "Image" in the link; e.g. :Image:Paris_arr_jms.gif Finetooth (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

UNDENT Well, it was actually quite a learning process for me -- getting that map in there. The tl:infobox museum template only allows maps that are from tl:Location Map, so I had to create a Location Map for Paris (which, in and of itself, may turn out to be useful in other applications). The pointer thing is somehow done via the Location Map template. So, once I uploaded the image and found out the coordinates of the top, bottom, left, and right I could then just plug the Louvre's coords into the Infobox Museum template and it worked....only bad thing is that I don't think we can resize it. However, we can put a similar map, with more detail, elsewhere if you'd like....Thanks for the tip! I'm always messing up the links....Lazulilasher (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, and I thank you. Finetooth (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Gadget

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I hate to be a wet blanket, but I doubt that the Reference section gadget will survive any reviews. I haven't found anything yet in the MOS about it, but I've never seen an FA or GA with this device. My personal feeling is that it makes the references harder to edit because it interferes with checking the whole set at a glance for consistency. Finetooth (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, most likely you are correct. I added it after seeing it in an article. I'll go ahead and kill it. I'm just about done with a map. I'll upload it to commons in a moment and you can see how it fits. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look later this evening. I've got an odd schedule today full of non-Wikipedia things left and right. Every now and again I'm able to get on-line for a while. I see that somebody added another panorama to the page. Finetooth (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I like the panorama alot -- it's not a ridiculous size like the other two, plus it's very well done and aesthetically pleasing. I'm nervous about the map, I know you and Ruhrfish are like the Wiki-Map-Gods. Mine's not turning out as clearly as I would have liked, but I think it will be O.K. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, image has been added. I'm going to use the Louvre map that was there and reinsert it into a section about the Axe Historique (probably the most interesting article on en-Wiki). Btw, I've noticed that their is no article on the Tuileries Garden only a reference in the article about the Palace....so, I think we've got our next mission cut out....hehe Lazulilasher (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>I'm barely out of kindergarten in map-making, but I like maps a lot. I like yours, both of them, and they are good additions to the page. As was the case with Shackleton, you are the content expert, and I am the assistant familiar with the dark arts of citations and comma splices. I think we make a good team doing it this way, and I'd be glad to help in the same way with the Tuileries Garden or other articles. I have one big project going on for which I'm the main writer, and it's nice to go back and forth between different jobs and roles. Finetooth (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly gained much respect for mapmakers after this small exercise. I think we make a good team, also. I enjoy research and searching Google Books for sources--plus, I like to see the article grow into something that (hopefully) someone will find useful. I'm gaining talent at copy-editing little by little, but detail is still not my best skill. If I may ask, what is your current project? I'm also trying to bring Pied-Noir up to FA from GA, but I've been doing that for months now. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You are a good researcher and writer; that makes the copyediting much more fun. My big project is Johnson Creek (Willamette River). It's gone from stub to GA, and I'm aiming for FA. I've been struggling with maps this week. I'd be happy to copyedit Pied-Noir if you like as soon as we get Louvre shipshape. Finetooth (talk) 21:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, I would appreciate the copy editing whenever you get the time. Talented copy-editors are in high demand here on en:wp, so I know your time is valuable. Really, I received comment on the withdrawn FAC for that article that the word count was presently 3,500 words and that it should be shortened to about 1,500...which is what I am trying to do. It hurts, though (however, the reviewer was correct--it was too detailed and contained numerous superfluous words). I am sure the Louvre has extra words, too....I've been putting off combing through the article with my scissors :) Lazulilasher (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Trouble finding a source

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I found a couple of English-language sources for the first paragraph of the Lens-Louvre material and the last two sentences (about the architects) of the second paragraph. I had to modify the first paragraph to fit the source, but I didn't have to change it a lot. I have been unable to find a source for the statistics in the first part of the second paragraph of this section, starting with "The new satellite museum, funded by the local regional government... " Maybe you can find one in French; that would be better than no source. Finetooth (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, to be honest, for some reason...I've saved the Louvre-Lens/Pyramide section for last--probably because it is the part that I know the least about. I am going to look for a source for the Lens--I'm sure there is something out there. Also, I haven't really edited the Lead yet--I like to leave it for the end, also, because that way you can see the main points of the article and provide a concise summary in the lead....I guess we're getting near the time to do it though. I'm not sure why, but I always dread the lead section. Also, you should know that when I first happened upon the page, it had a lot of spam/advertising for the architecture firm that built the Louvre-Lens/Pyramide--so, bear that in mind ;) Btw, your edits look great! Lazulilasher (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarcophagus of a married couple

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is "Sarcophagus of a married couple" the same as Sarcophagus of the Spouses ?

I thought it was, and a redirect was needed, but on checking on the web I found reference to two very similar works.

But the Louvre site itself, at http://www.louvre.fr/llv/activite/detail_parcours.jsp?CURRENT_LLV_PARCOURS%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673416588&CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673418994&CURRENT_LLV_CHEMINEMENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=10134198673418994&bmLocale=en shows info on one with a picture of the other.

Need an art expert to confirm/deny they are one and the same, and perhaps then a redirect (and a link from the Louvre article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chzz (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Missing word

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Something is missing from a sentence in the first section after the lead. "In 1546, removed the medieval keep... " lacks a subject. Finetooth (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple sentences further on I see, "Lescot also added a ceiling to Henry's royal chamber," but we don't yet know who Henry is. Finetooth (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

In "Decorative arts" I am troubled by two phrases. "... the Sauvageot donation expanded the department's holdings with nearly 1,500 works of faience and the medieval age" is missing something before "medieval age". The last sentence of this section mentions "the royal apartments", and I'm not sure what this means in context. Finetooth (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Finetooth, I've been biz in real-life lately. Anyway, I went into the article again with a fresh-eye and cleared up a bit of the prose. Hopefully it reads better. I looked at the comments you made above and they seem to be satisfactory at the moment. Hope all is well. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Louvre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Gonna review for GA -- Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good job. I'm thinking it passed. I really liked how it was organized, good thinking. I fixed a few minor grammer things... Some suggestions for FA: I'd get rid of or move the reference to the Davinci code in "Third Empire to Present"... and I'd make sure to look reread it yourself, in case there's anything I missed. I'd also like a picture in the Paper section, since it's the only art section without a visual example.
GA PASS REQ.S:
1. It is well-written and is easy to read. Grammer is correct. It has an informative lead section, is free of jargon, thoroughly explains any little-known historical events, etcetera etc.
2.has references for everything, backs up any info. Contains no original research.
3.It stays on topic.
4.Totally NPOV
5.stable (pretty much lazulilasher, good job)
6.plenty of images that help a lot, with copyright tags and captions

Congrats. Now go out there and make this an FA! Intothewoods29 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey. I saw your request on the Articles Needing Copy Edit page, and I figured I'd give it a go. I probably won't post the changes until tomorrow or (hopefully not) later. I'm going to print the article out and spend some quality time with a red pen for now, and I'll put up the changes soon.

If anyone here is interested in joining the battle against bad grammar and general violations of the MoS, head on over to WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit. --Peacheshead (talk) 00:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's great! Thanks for coming over to take a look. Everything offered is appreciated. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've posted the update. This is a nice article you've got going here. Just a reminder, though: you should only wikilink to something once in an article. That was probably the most tedious part of copyediting this. There must have been, like, 10 links each for the French Revolution and Venus de Milo. Otherwise, like I said, it's a nice article. I'd like to see it get featured, so keep up the good work. :D

If you have any questions about what I've done, you can go to my talk page or head over to WikiProject Articles Needing Copy Edit. Once again, if anyone's interested in joining, we could always use some help. --Peacheshead (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk Archive

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just archived the talk page with discussion from 2003-2007. The old conversations are located in the archive box above. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Axe Historique

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I note the discussions above, and admit I am one of the 15 people on the planet who find this interesting. However I am not sure it belongs in the lead. Mcewan (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, you are probably correct. It'd always been interesting to me (I really cannot explain why, though). Probably doesn't warrant the lead, you are correct. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

History: Origin of the name

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I thought 3 possible explanations were too many (and all seemed a bit implausible), until I looked at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palais_du_Louvre#Origine_du_nom, which a small dissertation on the subject. I haven't fully researched yet, but it seems to me that the most likely and quite widely held opinion is that the name came from Lupara which was on the deeds from the 12th Century. Variously reported as meaning kennels in Latin, or a place name related to lupus, wolf. Mcewan (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...ya, from what I can tell, it mainly amounts to individual historians theories regarding the name's origin. They seem myriad. Perhaps an enlarged "etymology" section? All the sources I've looked at give different opinions on the matter. Are you able to cite a particularly reliable one that notes one is more accepted than the others? Lazulilasher (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, and the museum's own site is silent on the subject. I have a book somewhere that I can't locate. Not sure about an enlarged section - the origin of the name of the palace that predated the museum is quite peripheral to the musem itself (and there is another article about the building per se). Mcewan (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've seen many theories. I do think that the name "Louvre" is relevant to the museum, as that is its most common name (Louvre). For all intents and purposes, I think the current few sentence paragraph is relevant enough. As an aside, I agree, the Palais du Louvre article does need to be expanded (I wanted to get this one firmed up, first, though). There's quite a bit one could add to the Palais article. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the French themselves do not know the origin of the word *louvre*, and can only offer hypotheses, I believe that what Lalu wrote is what should be included in the article. If/when/until someone comes up with a better explanation, then it should be left as is. Frania W. (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Frania...I think I'm going to actually change my username to "LaLu". That's great. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Zut alors! I meant to write *Lazu*, as I usually do. But, please, do not change anything, I love this complicated name. To go back to the origin of the word *louvre*, each of the three hypotheses makes sense. Maybe the Académie française has something on this, but then, it would be known. Frania W. (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, I might head over to the library to see if it is listed in any etymology dictionaries (even though it's a proper noun). That nailed it, in the most clear and concise manner, while I was working on pied-noir. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lazu, bon courage! And, please, remember to share your *find* with us! Also, keep in mind that names that were latinised after the Roman conquest of Gaul were of Celtic origin. Frania W. (talk) 04:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

IE Formatting

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Whilst it is fine in Firefox, the layout is broken for me with IE7 on a PC. Large areas of whitespace where the text floats below a picture (e.g. Napolean in the history section), and several pictures that display partially or not at all (e.g. the diadem (partial) and the plan (not at all). Could be transitory Mcewan (talk) 21:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I use IE7 & only had an inch or so of white space under the Canova. I have removed thisa by rearranging the pics. No problem with diadem (though its an odd pic to use imo). Johnbod (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I tend to agree with you re: the diadem. I think I added that picture because it was one of the few on Commons that I was able to write an interesting caption about. If you've got another, go ahead and replace it. I'm going to look around today and see if I can find something better. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah...looks like you did. Yes, much better. Thanks. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discussion moved to article talk

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

I've expanded a bit on the controversies section, and I see that you've fixed up a few of the minor mistakes and flaws in the article. More than a few, in fact. The article is definitely improving, and is slowly nearing completion. I think that pretty soon it'll be ready for Featured article nomination. I'll see if I can find any errors or technical problems in the text of the article, although I'm plesed to say they are becoming fewer and fewer. Keep up the good work. Jor dan ^Contribs 18:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you're onboard. I'm trying to finagle an old copyeditor friend to sweep through it. In the interim, I've been using Tony's exercise to systematically work through the text. It's neat and I'm feeling like I'm learning a skill (copy editing) that I had previously considered "out of my realm". Keep up the good work. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Lazu: RE sections Controversies & Satellite museums, it seems to me that it would be more logical for their order of appearance to be switched, unless last paragraph Jordan just added be used to close the Abu Dhabi segment. Qu'est-ce que tu en penses? Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the two sections should be swopped around. This would certainly be better for the shape of the article and, as per above, would be more logical. Jor dan ^Contribs 19:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems like you two have it sorted out :) I agree with your mutual assessment. Also, I'm going to move this discussion to the article's talk page. That way, if any other folks happen around they will be able to read the conversation. Ok, I'm off to see if I can find the big edition of Le Robert, which may (may not, it is a proper noun after all) have an "official" etymology. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. I have changed the sections around. Lets hope that that's alright with everyone. Jor dan ^Contribs 20:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, and flows logically that way. Nice. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice work guys! Will keep on checking on you... FW Frania W. (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Another talk page discussion (Topic: Moving of building history to Palais du Louvre)

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Here is another discussion from my talk page. This time regarding moving the building history to the Palais du Louvre article, as per WP:SUMMARY.

I must agree with you. The size of the article is a problem, and is prohibitive to most readers. The fact is simple: the article needs to be broken into more sections. The French Wikipedia has an article on the Louvre Museum seperate from the whole Louvre article in general. It would be prudent to split the article, thus making the article clearer and more concise, and narrowing down the scope a bit. It would be easier for a casual user to find or research information on the museum itself if the information were in a seperate article. However, consensus must be accheived before this change can be initiated. Jor dan ^Contribs 21:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We've a Palais du Louvre article about the history of the building, our article is about the museum. I think we should think of increasing the information in Palais du Louvre, as currently our building history is superior. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

{{three other uses|the museum|building history|Palais du Louvre|higher education|École du Louvre|the architectural element|Louver}}

I find I did not express myself clearly enough. Clearly, the article is about the museum. However, could we not split it into timeframes? The Palais du Louvre refers to the Louvre as the formal royal palace, during a specific period of time. Could the same not be done with some of the history sections in the Louvre article? Jor dan ^Contribs 21:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The Palais du Louvre is about the building history, not only the structure's time as a palace (which was relatively small, many monarchs chose to live at Fontainebleu, Tuileries, Versailles, etc). I'd aim for a concise summary of the building's history in the Louvre (actually, Musee du Louvre) article and a more lengthy version in the Palais article. Eventually, I'd imagine we could split out the entire history, although I'm not sure if that is part of today's work :) Lazulilasher (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

And the Palais article really does need work, there are various incorrect claims in it. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. I'm busy refrencing and expanding at the moment. Also, not only will any info you move across expand the Palais article, it will also reduce the size of the Louvre article. Definitely a bonus. Jor dan ^Contribs 22:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. The only trouble I am having at the moment is how to write the summary (i.e., what to keep, what to snip and move). Btw, nearly every editor that has come along has mentioned that the Building History part was dull (which hurt, because it was my favorite portion to research) and that they were excited to get to the art. So, this will likely help the article's readability, as it appears only a small subset of readers enjoy in depth architectural histories :) I am going to move this to the talk page of Louvre, so that others can see the discussion. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I hasten to add that this has been brought up numerous times, and I tended to oppose the moving. Now, I am realising how long the main (this) article is and support the move of the building history. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Support this, but since the collections are also mentioned in the sections, & you should keep some of the building material in summary, I think there should only be a reduction of ? 50%. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the reductions been done and its looking good. This article is really cming along nicely. The Palais du Louvre article is improving, although its still more than just a bit rough in some places. With a bit of work and a little effort, it'll be up to scratch in no time. As for the proposed "move and merge" of info regarding the aforementioned article, I am all for it. We just need to keep enough information to give a brief background. Jor dan ^Contribs 23:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(to Johnbod): agreed, I'm checking now to make sure none of the information on the collections was removed. Really, the main portions that needed to be sent out just were (the building history, architectural history), IMO. I think it's a lot better now...plus, the Works Cited is actually usable and not just a list of 20 or so books. The interested reader now can have a more concise list of books to consult. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(another reply to Johnbod) Also, I think at this point, the article is of a manageable enough size to keep the museum history intact as-is (now that the building/architecture part is gone). I'm glad that we finally move/merged the building part into the Palais article, which is where it belongs. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyeditor's thoughts

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I've gone through the whole article again, and I'm finding less and less to grumble about. Here's a list of two things undone that might be done.

One sentence in the "Administration" section stopped me, and I don't know enough to fix it. It is: "He has gained more independence for the museum, requiring 1,100 guards to report to him." I don't see the connection between independence and 1,100 guards. It shouldn't be hard to fix this, but I'll leave it to you.
Some of the books in the bibliography have publishers but not publication locations. At least some of these, such as the one for Yale University Press, could be added.

The article keeps getting better and better. Good job. Finetooth (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. by Frania Remnants of the fortress are still visible in 2nd par. of introduction is repeated: remnants are still visible in the crypt, in 1st sentence of History, which is a more logical place for it. I suggest its removal fm introduction. Frania W. (talk) 03:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Frania: I agree that the text is a bit redundant. My intention was to tell the reader that, essentially, parts of Philip's Louvre are still extant--to answer the question: "Yes, he started the fortress in 1190, but is the fortress the same as the palace?. Perhaps there is another way to phrase it? Do you have any suggestions as to how that could be accomplished, or do you think it should just be removed from the lead? Lazulilasher (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Finetooth: Pt. 1) I didn't describe the connection well. I think the missing link is that the employees were formerly under the government's charge; now Loyrette may administer as he sees fit. Pt. 2) I'll get on that. And of course, my most sincere thanks. I haven't had a chance to read the revisions yet (nearly 2am here), but I will when the sun rises! Lazulilasher (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It would be good to add this missing link and to make clear whether this was an addition to the staff of 2,000 or just a large fraction of it. Finetooth (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Tooth...I just recast the sentence and remvd the detail about the number of guards. On a second look, I felt the information was overly detailed. Let me know if you think I was in error. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes! And a question. As we move forward with this article, what does everyone think about the "weight" given to each section (history/administration/collection)? Are we overly detailed in any areas, and lacking in others? Would the "neophyte" reader find himself missing a big part of the picture? Lazulilasher (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Lazu: We need someone else's opinion on this, someone who has not been involved, although Finetooth's opinion on this matter should be followed. For me, at this point, it is difficult to judge because, having read it so much (behind your back!), weight & length do not hit me as they would a first-time reader. Frania W. (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Frania, but I'm in much the same position as you. My experience with FAC has been that great advanced preparation makes the FAC ride less bumpy. I think User:Johnbod would be a good one to ask whether or not the article is ready for another go at FA. Finetooth (talk) 16:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I will go and ask Johnbod. I have read and edited the article so many times that I really cannot objectively judge the contents. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Top Image

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The top image in this article is simply massive on my browser. (Firefox run on Mac OSX) By massive, I mean that it's so big that it takes up the entire screen, and then some. It really needs to be resized. The entire layout of the page is messed up for me. I'd do it myself, but I have no clue how and I'd hate to make it even worse. --ChandlerH (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems OK to me (Firefox on Ubuntu). I'll have to get ahold of a MAC to check it out. Might be able tommorow. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because I noticed ChandlerH's message and fixed the problem. The cause was a line of instruction that said "== Headline text ==". I don't know what it was meant to do, but removing it made the truly gigantic image return to normal. Finetooth (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I removed this well-worded modification to the lead this evening, as well. :) Thanks Ft Lazulilasher (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cycladic head

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

A marble female head circa the second millennium BCE. Although there appears to be no facial features aside from the nose, traces of pigment from other pieces indicate that these were added with paint.^[1]

I removed this from the page next door for several reasons.

The caption tells us about it, but not what it actually is- a Cycladic head.
It gives a very confusing impression to anyone who doesn't know these pieces, because it is reproduced the same scale as the Assyrian Bull. It is actually only 10cms high
Of all the thousands of objects in the museum, it is a relatively insignificant one.
It seems to require a verbal description in order to appreciate it- a description that other pieces like this show traces of paint is significant in an article about Cycladic heads. But is simply unnecessary detail in an article dedicated to the museum.

Also, for all the major works, each has its own page, and doesn't require more info than the basic, unless it is really relevannt to the museum itself. Amandajm (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No argument from me. I like the Cycladic Heads; but, you're correct: Winged Victory is likely a more representative piece. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh good! I'm glad you don't mind. I just ran into an edit conflict here! Maybe you have some idea about this comment below as well. ...

The funny thing about that head is that it looks HUGE. It would be easy to imagine that it is an enormous monolith like those things on Easter Island. Quite stunning, really. Amandajm (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It DOES look HUGE. It looks at least as big as my closet. Good catch. My intention was, I think, to have the picture to represent the age of the Louvre's pieces. Regardless, Winged Victory is a better choice. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"and Michelangelo"

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I removed these words from the section Painting because Francis never acquired a Michelangelo painting. He doesn't appear to have owned the "slaves" because they belonged to Anne de Montmorency, then Cardinal Richelieu. Francis may well have persuaded Mighty Mick to part with a drawing or two. I followed the references and it led to the Louvre website. However, the writer (on that site) who says that Francis acquired works by Raphael and Miichelangelo fails to state what it was that he acquired. Raphaels are fairly plentiful, an amazing thing, considering his short life, but Michelangelos (unless we are talking drawings) are only slightly more common than hen's teeth, and his major pictorial works are all attached to walls. People think of Michelangelo as a famous painter, but sometimes don't realise that apart from the Sistine Chapel, there is only one single bonafide Michelangelo painting in existence Doni Tondo, another that probably is, (the Deposition) and one that just might be an early work or pupil's work, (Manchester Madonna). For this reason, I'm desirous to know what work Francis succeeded in acquiring. Was it a statue that has since disappeared? I spose I'll have to check the provenance of everything....Amandajm (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah HA! I found it! According to Vasari, Francis owned Michelangelo's lost Leda and the Swan, now known only from copies. Francis also saw Michelangelo's statue of the Risen Christ in Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome, had a plaster cast made, and then had it cast in bronze when he got back to France. OK! I'll reinstate that he owned a Michelangelo, and qualify it with ref. to Vasari.Amandajm (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Francis was quite the collector. Apparently he liked to decorate his bathroom with these works. I'm sure the humidity was great for their upkeep. Good work, keep it up. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

surely, a mistake?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Second pararaph: "In 1750, Louis XIV authorized his paintings to be transfered from the quarters of the royal financial administrator to the Spanish infanta's former apartment in the Louvre. " Louis XIV was dead at the time. So... whats up with thaaaat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.214.190 (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Move

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I would like to suggest to move this article to Musée du Louvre (like fr) because it is the actual and accurate name. --Scriberius (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I do agree. In French there is a clear distinction between "palais du Louvre" and "musée du Louvre". Actually there are two articles. And i think that the distinction would be quite relevant. In fact the museum includes the glass pyramid and the galleries beneath (but not in the "palais"). zutroy 14 (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree:

French wikipedia has one article on Palais du Louvre [1] and one on Musée du Louvre[2] .
English wikipedia has one article on Louvre Palace and one on Louvre, which should be Louvre Museum.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Done --Scriberius (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

most visited?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While I have no doubt that the Louvre is the most visited *art* museum in the world, I'm not sure that it's the most visited museum. I've seen a couple sources point to Washington DC's National Air and Space Museum as most visited museum ([3]. Lots of things [4] seem to cite 9 million annual visitors there which is more than the Louvre gets. But if you google around you'll find lots of lower numbers as well, down to 6 million or lower. I believe NASM itself doesn't have an official count. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntler (talk • contribs) 02:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken references

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There are two references which cite a "Simon" (currently refs 26 and 27). What book is this? It does not appear in the Works cited section. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 13:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Years ago I cited that book when working on the article. I'm not certain what happened to the cite. I'll take a look for you and see if I can dig up what book that is. I do recall the name "Simon" while I was researching some of the article's additions at that time. Sorry, I've not been active much and certainly haven't been watching the article. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Paris July 2011-27a.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An image used in this article, File:Paris July 2011-27a.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Grand Louvre as the official name of the Musée du Louvre

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article states in its introduction that the official name of the museum is Grand Louvre which seems to me to be an error. As i searched the official website of the museum I haven't found the mention of this name at all. Instead every image and every logo has the name "Musée du Louvre" (Louvre museum) on it. Also, when there is a mention of copyright the name used for it is Musée du Louvre. But actually I did not found a page clearly saying that "Musée du Louvre" is the official and sole name of the museum. But I am almost sure that Grand Louvre is not the official name of the whole museum but only the name used for the extension project of the museum that begun under the presidency of François Mitterand in the 80's and that led to its actual form with the Grande pyramide etc (see fr:Grand Louvre on French Wiki)... So, I think that we should remove this information unless someone can prove with a document stating it that "Grand Louvre" is the official name of the museum. --Tancrede (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

agreed, & "officially" removed, as a start. The term I think refers to the building, or the Mitterand expansion project, rather than the Museum, & doesn't appear at all in the lead of the French article, or the home page of the museum's French website. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Grand Louvre is very specifically one of the Grands Projets of François Mitterrand. Removed from 1st line as a name for the museum, & bolded lower down. Johnbod (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Tuileries Palace

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe it should be mentioned that before The Louvre became such an immense structure it was comprised by 2 separate palaces: Le Palais du Louvre (Louvre Museum today) and the Palais des Tuileries (Palace of Tiles, nonexistent). This second palace was built, or comissioned, on the West side, by Catherine de Medici. The 2 palaces were later connected by a passage which we know today as the Grand Galerie, the longest Galery within the Louvre Museum. In later centuries, I believe the 19h century, the Palais des Tuileries was set on fire and destroyed by a Communard during the Paris Commune, never to be restored. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuileries_Palace) Instead, its ruins were demolished entirely, giving the Louvre the openness needed to include les Jardins des Tuileries (the Tuileries Gardens) as part of its complex to the West. (Simbelmyne9 (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC))

This is covered at Louvre Palace the article on the building, and the article on Palais des Tuileries. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Middle age and bourbon Palace

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bourbon Palace ? v_atekor (talk) 22:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Emergency intervention needed

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

"Musée du Louvre" sounds like French. This isn't French Wikipedia and we shouldn't use (until isn't very necessary) the French expressions. May I rename this article to Louvre Museum to undo this fundamental language error. Alex^discussion 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I was quite startled by the title of this page too, I've only ever heard to it referred to as 'the Louvre' and whie I've checked and seen that there are a few English sources that refer to it as 'Musée du Louvre', 'the Louvre' is much, much more common. 57.250.229.136 (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

There is also Louvre Palace on the building, & we don't like "the" in article titles. Many non-English speaking institutions use their native names, certainly most French museums. I don't think I've ever seen (UK-based) "Louvre Museum" used by a serious source, but I agree "the Louvre" is most common in English - but so is "the Prado". Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Leave it be - per Musée d'Orsay...Modernist (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

move name?

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Shouldn't this article be headed under "Louvre Museum" instead of "Musée du Louvre"? Gryffindor (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to change the title, please use WP:RM. And for the record, I'm opposed to that name change.--JaGa^talk 01:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Me too (see section at top of page also). Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The article should remain as is, IMO the name should stay the same it's fine - as is this museum - Musée d'Orsay...Modernist (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Gryffindor (talk) 10:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to The Louvre (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Musée du Louvre → The Louvre – This was moved back in 2010 because Musée du Louvre is the "official name". Wikipedia does not use the official name, it uses the common name used in English language sources. "The Louvre" or possibly just "Louvre" is clearly that common name. Ryan Vesey 06:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

One needs only to search for Musée du Louvre and The Louvre in JSTOR and analyze the results to be convinced that "The Louvre" is the common name. Ryan Vesey 06:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, "The Louvre" covers both the Musée du Louvre (the institution) and the Louvre Palace (the building), not only the museum.Blaue Max (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard it used to refer to the Louvre Palace, then again, I wasn't aware of the Louvre Palace prior to now. That said, both "Louvre" and "The Louvre" redirect here, so I doubt it. In addition, it appears like that would be a job for a hatnote, as at a minimum the museum is the primary topic for "The Louvre". Ryan Vesey 07:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

When you read "Louis XIV moved his court from the Louvre to Versailles", it refers to the building, not the museum which did not exist during Louis XIV's era. When someone says "let's meet at the Louvre", it doesn't forcibly means you are going to visit the Museum. But I agree that most people typing "the Louvre" in Google are actually seeking the Louvre Museum...Blaue Max (talk) 08:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons above, but, yes "the Louvre" is the English common name for both and should normally be used in other articles to refer to both, with a piped link. This was discussed previously, when someone started moving all museum refs to Musée du Louvre. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Which reasons? You are opposing this move, while stating that "the Louvre" is the common name. By your own argument, it should be moved. If your concern is that "the Louvre" is the common name for both the palace and the museum, a disambiguator can be added (i.e. The Louvre (museum) or even The Louvre Museum. I don't feel that one is necessary though, because this is the primary topic. Ryan Vesey 01:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Support per WP:COMMONNAME. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is demonstrated by the stable redirects mentioned above. Use a hatnote to the effect of "This article is about the museum. For the palace which includes the museum, see Louvre Palace." --BDD (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Support. It's the common name, according this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 02:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Support. Clear common name, clear primary topic. Open-and-shut case if ever I've seen one. Jenks24 (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why did the sounded pronunciation disappear?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Up to several months (maybe a year) ago, one could hear the name "Louvre" pronounced. It was useful - even here, in Washington, DC do the otherwise great classical radio announcers mispronounce the name as one syllable, rhyming with "move".Svato (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments9 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The Louvre → Louvre – The definite article "the" is not part of the name. See, for example, this page (in English) at the museum's web site. "The" is not capitalized in running text, as in for example: "Support the Louvre", and therefore should not be part of the Wikipedia article title according to WP:THE. Robert.Allen (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment Anecdotally, the place is "the" Louvre, being the common name for the place (including the 'the') That can be seen on how English (work/text/reviews/etc) refers to places that are part of it or around it use "Louvre" vs "the Louvre". -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - we have to have a meaningful title, like WP:THE exempts The Beatles, if "The Hague" was sometimes "the Hague" in running text (it's about 50/50) we wouldn't move it to Hague. In this case the "the" is virtually welded, and per Musée du Louvre, de+le = du, not Musée de Louvre (sic), as in French as in English, requires a definite article. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Search The New York Times: It's almost always "the Louvre" in running text, such as: "Veronese Masterpiece Damaged at the Louvre". Plus, the name of the group is "The Beatles" (per my trusty All Music Guide), so that particular example is not relevant in this case. Perhaps you were unaware of that. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. Okay, well I can't quite put my finger on the issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Support. The meaning does not change without the "The", and the "The" is not capitalized in running text. So according to WP:THE, the "The" does not need to be included in the article name. I don't see this as any different from the reason we have Museum of Modern Art rather than The Museum of Modern Art. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
A louver (USA spelling) or louvre (UK spelling) is a window blind or window shutter. In newspaper usages of "Louvre" without "The" to mean the building in Paris, exclude cases where "The" is omitted to save space in headlines. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- The article for that is at Louver. So if moved, a headnote pointing to that page would be appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Support per nom and User:Good Olfactory. Despite the claims above, English usage does not require an article. Maps reading "Louvre Palace" and "Louvre Museum" abound. On the other hand, the Hague always carries an article, even on maps. — AjaxSmack 03:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Support per WP:THE, various above (GO, Ajax etc), and consistency with who knows how many other names that include a participle in their local names but not in English. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Support. Hey, has anyone cited WP:CONCISE yet? No? I will! Red Slash 07:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.