Talk:Notre-Dame de Paris

2019-04-16T01:07:21Z

211.26.71.102: /* Destruction */ new section

{{Former TAFI|date=July 29, 2013}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=16:09, 25 August 2005
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Notre Dame de Paris/archive1
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=21605384

|currentstatus=FFAC}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Art|class=C}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blpo=yes|1=
{{WikiProject France|class=c|importance=top|paris=yes}}
{{WikiProject Architecture|class=c|importance=top}}
{{WikiProject Historic sites|class=C|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Catholicism|class=C|importance=high
| b1  = <yes/no>
| b2  = <yes/no>
| b3  = <yes/no>
| b4  = <yes/no>
| b5  = <yes/no>
| b6  = <yes/no>}}
{{WikiProject Pipe Organ|class=C|importance=high}}}}
{{annual readership|scale=log}}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Portland_State_University/INTL_350U-_The_City_in_Europe_(Fall) | assignments = [[User:Kkatiekrue|Kkatiekrue]], [[User:Emanel2|Emanel2]] | start_date = 2018-09-24 | end_date = 2018-12-06 }}
{{archives}}

==Dedicatee==
We seem to have just blindly assumed that Notre Dame is a reference to the mother of Jesus. Is it not just as likely that it refers to [[Mary Magdalen]]? Her cult in France was massive. -- [[User:JackofOz|Jack of Oz]] [[User talk:JackofOz#top|'' ... speak! ... '']] 11:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
:There's only one Notre Dame: the mother of Jesus. The church isn't Sainte-Marie, which could be ambiguous. [[User:Awien|Awien]] ([[User talk:Awien|talk]]) 13:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

::!
::If consecrated to Marie Magdalen, then it would have been named ''Sainte Madeleine'', not ''Notre Dame'', as ''Notre Dame'' in France is the Holy Virgin.
::''"Her cult in France was massive."'' So was that of the mother of Jesus. No comparison between the two.
::*http://www.immaculata.ch/Archiv/nd_france_hamon1.htm
::*http://www.notredamedeparis.fr/Portail-de-la-Vierge
::*http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mxdFa4_-lKEJ:www.salve-regina.com/Histoire/La_Sainte_Vierge_et_la_France.htm+cons%C3%A9cration+de+Notre+Dame+de+Paris+%C3%A0+la+Sainte+Vierge&cd=8&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
::--[[User:Frania Wisniewska|Frania W.]] ([[User talk:Frania Wisniewska|talk]]) 14:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
But I think it would improve the article to talk about the dedicatee, or at least have a separate article about her. I am surprised that there doesn't seem to be a Wiki page about this devotion. --[[User:Richardson mcphillips|Richardson mcphillips]] ([[User talk:Richardson mcphillips|talk]]) 16:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

== Musical ==

How to best add a disambiguation notice to the french musical [[Notre-Dame de Paris (musical)]]? [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 13:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
: Another user added a regular hatnote, and also asked the question, whther three hatnotes isn't a sign it would be best to make a disambiguation page. Opinions? [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 07:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:: Personally I would vote against. Actually, I'm a little surprised that the link to Victor Hugo's book is a hatnote in the English WP rather than only an item in the "See Also" list. In the English-speaking world the book is much better known as "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", rather than by its original title - so it's very unlikely that an english-speaking user would arrive at this page by mistake when searching for the book. Since the musical is just an adaptation of the book I wouldn't see that as any reason to have a disambiguation page either - though paradoxically it probably does merit a hatnote even if the book doesn't! Ultimately, the other entries that would appear on such a disambig page are all secondary to the cathedral, from which they take their names. In terms of WP's disambiguation policy, the cathedral is clearly the Primary Topic. [[User:StuartLondon|StuartLondon]] ([[User talk:StuartLondon|talk]]) 13:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
:Agreed. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 14:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

== View from Notre Dame across Paris ==

Hello, I would like to add a line about the view from the Cathedral as it is known for being one of the best views across Paris. Can you please guide me and suggest an appropriate place to add it? I also have some photographs of this view to upload. Please be kind to me, this is my first post on editing a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/46.208.72.217|46.208.72.217]] ([[User talk:46.208.72.217|talk]]) 17:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 

I guess it would be useful to be signed in. Hopefully you can see my user name now. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Unlikelyusername|Unlikelyusername]] ([[User talk:Unlikelyusername|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Unlikelyusername|contribs]]) 17:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 

== Bells ==

There are several potential inaccuracies / contradictions in the bell section. As I am unable to reconcile the differences I have created this talk section rather than edit myself. It would be helpful if someone with more specific information could reconcile these issues.

The article states:
The bells were once rung manually, but are currently rung by electric motors. When it was discovered that the size of the bells could cause the entire building to vibrate, threatening its structural integrity, they were taken out of use.

Which is correct "currently rung by electric motors" - or "taken out of use". Perhaps this should be some of the bells were taken out of use as per this article in the Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2203814/Ding-Dong-New-bell-cast-Paris-cathedrals-850th-anniversary-centuries-previous-torn-French-Revolution.html
Assuming they were rung by electric motors and then taken out of use at a later date (February 2012 for taken out of use?) then this should have the relavant dates. It also requires citations for these events.

The Notre Dame website also appears to be out of date, but there is an article by the Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-bells-the-bells-why-notre-dame-is-ringing-the-changes-7440657.html
This article contracticts Wikipedia. It states that the bells have been sent for scrap and that the new bells will be replicas. There is no mention of recasting the bells to make the new ones - citation needed if they are recasting the new bells from the old ones.

A more recent article from the Guardian suggests that the old bells have not yet been scrapped "The four grandes dames are currently at the French bell foundry Cornille-Havard" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/12/ding-dang-notre-dame-bells . [[User:PenguinTutor|PenguinTutor]] ([[User talk:PenguinTutor|talk]]) 20:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

== Emmanuel Bell Frequency ==

In the Bells section, Emmanuel is assigned two different frequencies. The original as Eflat, whereas the table says F#2. Someone more knowledgeable about this than I am may like to look into this and provide some clarity. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Guyburns|Guyburns]] ([[User talk:Guyburns|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Guyburns|contribs]]) 07:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC) 

== Requested move 20 March 2017 ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|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 [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''moved'''. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 18:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
----

[[:Notre Dame de Paris]] → {{no redirect|Notre-Dame de Paris}} – Consistency with proper name and article text [[User:Jujutsuan|juju]] ([[User talk:Jujutsuan|hajime!]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jujutsuan|waza]]) 22:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC) --'''''Relisting.''''' — Martin ([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]]) 13:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
:This should probably be discussed. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
:This is a contested technical request ([[Special:Permalink/771323392|permalink]]). [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' very surprised to see no hyphen. [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 23:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' both are used, last 20 years of n-grams shows an increase of the hyphenated version in the 90s and then a nearly equal usage now with the hyphen barely winning out [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Notre+Dame+de+Paris%2CNotre-Dame+de+Paris&year_start=1988&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CNotre%20Dame%20de%20Paris%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CNotre%20-%20Dame%20de%20Paris%3B%2Cc0]. If you want to extend the n-grams to the 1800s, the lack of hyphen used to be the largely predominate version, changing in the latter years of the 20th century. The official website uses the hyphen on anything that is graphically designed, but on any plain text it is unhyphenated in the English version [http://www.notredamedeparis.fr/en/]. With roughly equal usage and mixed usage on the English version of the official site, but defaulting to not hyphens for the plain text, I am inclined to say keep it as the long standing title and make a note of hyphen as an alternate name in the text. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 00:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
::? The n-gram shows the correct spelling predominating. ? [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 07:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
:::Beside which [[WP:FRMOS]] applies, so the hyphen is covered by that. If the phrase has "de" in it, it is a French name, which means correct French on en.wp, not misspelled French. [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 07:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
::::The n-gram shows about equal current usage, hyphen has more, but it certainly isn't the predominant spelling. [[WP:FRMOS]] says to look for the official name used in English-language publications from the organization. When using English-language text on their website, they almost exclusively use the hyphen free title, the exception being graphically designed images used on multiple language versions of the website and the postal address. With roughly equal usage in English and the hyphen-free version being the version used by the organization, I don't see a good reason for a move. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 12:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. I'd say, all French, with hyphen, or something in English, such as [[Notre Dame, Paris]], but not the present mix. I am not inclined to take the subject's website as relevant, knowing too many organizations whose translations of their own name to English are inadequate, sometimes misleading. In case of doubt, I'd go for the original name. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 12:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' I could support a move to [[Notre Dame, Paris]] per Gerda, and [[WP:USEENGLISH]] and [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. When you do the n-gram [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Notre+Dame+cathedral%2CNotre-Dame+cathedral%2C+notre-dame+de+paris%2C+notre+dame+de+paris&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=] for "Notre Dame cathedral" in both hyphenations and Notre-Dame de Paris in both hyphenations, ''Notre Dame cathedral'' is the most used of the four, and if you combine the non-hyphenated versions, they are significantly more used than both of the hyphenated versions in the English corpus. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 16:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

*[[User:TonyBallioni]]'s idea is sound (but ''cf.'' [[Notre-Dame Basilica (Montreal)]] with a parenthetical). However, this conflicts with the format of other similar articles, e.g. [[Notre-Dame de Nice]]. — [[User talk:AjaxSmack| '''AjaxSmack''' ]] 02:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

*'''Relisted.''' Please could other editors help to find consensus by commenting on the following — Martin ([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]]) 13:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
*#Hyphen or no hyphen?
*#"de Paris" or ", Paris"?

*'''Support'''. Given it's the French name in full and not just Notre Dame, we should use the French name correctly. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 13:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

*'''Support''' either the hyphen or ", Paris" over the current title. — [[User talk:AjaxSmack| '''AjaxSmack''' ]] 16:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

*'''Oppose'''. This is English Wikipedia. Yes, the hyphen is correct French, but not current English usage. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 02:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Either it should reflect correct French usage, or else translate as "Our Lady" etc. [[User:Chicbyaccident|Chicbyaccident]] ([[User talk:Chicbyaccident|talk]]) 05:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
**Translation is not an option. We don't for example move the ''[[Nippon Maru]]'' article to ''[[Japanese Circle]]'' (which is the translation), it's not even a redirect and would be a useless one. The question is simply, how is this name, which is commonly used in English, to be formatted in English? [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 18:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

*'''Support''' Since it's in French, it should be correct French.[[User:Awien|Awien]] ([[User talk:Awien|talk]]) 23:05, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Andrewa, since usage in English is more or less equally divided between the hyphenated and unhyphenated versions (and slightly in favour of hyphenated), there's no way you can claim that unhyphenated is the standard usage in English. The cathedral's website is no help because a) it's all over the place, and b) English is not their first language so their English isn't authoritative. That being said, the versions I can get behind are:
:- Notre-Dame de Paris
:- Notre Dame Cathedral, Paris
:- Notre Dame, Paris
:- Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris
:[[User:Awien|Awien]] ([[User talk:Awien|talk]]) 22:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
::My interpretation of the website was that they used no hyphen when they were writing English prose, but hyphenated it on the graphic designed parts that didn't change languages... Basically they were too cheap to get the graphic artist to make new designs for each language, but changing the prose you can do pretty easily by paying a summer intern to do it. Just conjecture there, but I do think prose is a better guide on the website than the designed or multi-lingual pieces. My preference would be ''Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris'', but am open to any of the non-hyphenated options. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
:::''Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris'' might be a good solution. It's certainly an acceptable disambiguation of [[Notre Dame]] using [[wp:natural disambiguation|natural disambiguation]]. Then disambiguating [[Cathedral of Notre Dame]] geographically isn't strictly necessary at present at least; If there are other potential articles that could have this name we don't yet have them. And it's a shame that we need to make allowances for those who want to push a linguistic POV, which is what this RM has become, and it doesn't seem to address their concerns anyway.
:::But from the point of reader experience, ''Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris'' is a perfect title, so if it can get support, it's worth a try, and perhaps we can move on. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 22:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support''' It's a name, and that name, especially for the monument this article is about, is always hyphenated for placenames in its country of origin. 'Translating' (which removing the hyphen is not) someone's/something's name for the convenience of one's own habits is an expression of ''ignorance''... and even a touch of arrogance, IMHO. And no, other (foreign) examples of that ignorance is not 'evidence' of anything (but that ignorance)... one must look at the whole picture, not just the 'convenient bits'. [[User:ThePromenader|THEPROMENADER]] [[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]] [[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]] 00:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
:: And no, I'm not French ; ) [[User:ThePromenader|THEPROMENADER]] [[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]] [[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]] 00:09, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
:::See [[#Discussion]]. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 01:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
===Discussion===
The ''support'' !votes seem to all rely on the principle that we should follow ''[[wp:correct|correct]] French usage''. No. We should follow current [[WP:UE|English]] usage. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 22:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

One above even now says ''Since it's in French, it should be correct French''.

No. It's not French, it's a [[borrowing]] (but our treatment of borrowing seems to apply only to [[loanword]]s, while this is a phrase... we must fix that).

We follow English usage. We do [[wp:not|not]] [[wp:soap|attempt]] to correct it. That is a firm policy, so note [[wp:not counting heads]].

The more general argument that we should use ''correct French'' (or Ukranian of Finnish or I forget whatever other languages) should really be listed as a [[wp:perennial proposal|perennial proposal]]. It's often similarly argued that [[wp:diacritics|diacritics]] should always be added if they're used in the original language. No, we only add them if they are normally added when the name occurs in English. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 06:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

''It's a name, and that name, especially for the monument this article is about, is always hyphenated here.'' Where?

'' 'Translating' (which removing the hyphen is not) someone's/something's name for the convenience of one's own habits is an expression of ''ignorance''... and even a touch of arrogance, IMHO.'' A curious piece of logic... criticising others for wanting to do something that you then say is not what they're wanting to do. And it seems to me that this post itself shows more than a ''touch'' of arrogance.

''And no, other (foreign) examples of that ignorance is not 'evidence' of anything (but that ignorance)... one must look at the whole picture, not just the 'convenient bits'.'' Another curious piece of logic... a plea to ignore parts of the picture, in order to better understand the whole. Indeed?

''And no, I'm not French'' Thank God! Because I am, partly... although I call myself an Australian Born Scot. The legendary French arrogance is mostly confined to Paris, in my experience, and as my favourite Frenchman once told me, "Paris n'est pas la France".

I'll be interested to see how this one closes. I can't do it of course, I'm involved. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 01:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
: ''"A plea to ignore parts of the picture, in order to better understand the whole."''
: I am not 'pleading', and I never said 'ignore'; '''consider'' the whole' is not that.
: "Notre-Dame de Paris" is a French ''name'', in French, and, like any name, it should be spelled correctly whenever possible, especially when presented in its language of origin. Now, if we wanted to move it to "Notre-Dame cathedral, Paris", there ''would'' be toe-room for hyphen-hysteria ; ) [[User:ThePromenader|THEPROMENADER]] [[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]] [[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]] 07:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
:: Yes, but this is the English Wikipedia, and we [[WP:UE|use English]] whenever there is a common English-language form, not because we want to be linguistic imperialists, but because we want it to be easy for anglophones to find the article and see a title in their language and its forms when they open a page. This is not part of the manual of style, it is part of our policy on article names. Its why we have [[Eiffel Tower]] instead of [[Tour Eiffel]], even though most educated anglophones would know what the latter is. An encyclopedia should be titled in the language of the people reading it. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 15:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
::: Vague-selective wikilawyering aside ([[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/France_and_French-related|and that game could be played more precisely]] ; ), I don't really understand how you don't see it, but the 'Notre-Dame de Paris' title is like your 'Tour Eiffel' example: both are ''French names'', in French. For your argument to make sense, you would have to move the article to an English title (say, 'Notre Dame Cathedral')... but even there, you may face opposition because 'Notre-Dame' is still a name. The article title as-is, unhyphenated, is neither English nor French. [[User:ThePromenader|THEPROMENADER]] [[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]] [[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]] 17:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
::::Tony (and Andrew?), *de* Paris isn't English, and Notre Dame de Paris is a mish-mash of the two languages. [[User:Awien|Awien]] ([[User talk:Awien|talk]]) 21:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::I wouldn't say I'm Wikilawyering, use of English is our policy when there is an established usage in English, and appealing to the broad consensus the community has set there was my intent. I'm familiar with the French names page, and have addressed it above. {{ping|Awien}}, yes, other users above have pointed that out, and that's why ''Cathedral of Notre Dame, Paris'' or ''Notre Dame, Paris'' would be my preferred usage. I agree one way or the other is best, but feel pretty strongly that the English Wikipedia should use the English name. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
:::::: Well, don't bring feelings to a fact-fight ; ) [[User:ThePromenader|THEPROMENADER]] [[User_talk:ThePromenader|✎]] [[Special:Contributions/ThePromenader|✓]] 06:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

====Another tack====
Let me try another tack... If I wanted to refer to the rose window in English, I might say "Notre Dame's famous rose window", adding the s to Notre Dame to form the [[possessive]]. I would not say "the famous rose window de Notre Dame" or "the famous de Notre Dame rose window" or even "the famous rose window de Notre-Dame", all of those are horrible confusions that some English speakers would find out of place, while they have no trouble with the construction "Notre Dame's".

So when we use the phrase ''Notre Dame'' in English, it follows the rules of English grammar, does it not? [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 07:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
:The two aren't comparable. Possessive "de" doesn't exist in English, whereas hyphenation does. Your antipathy towards the [[hyphen]] is ill-founded. [[User:Awien|Awien]] ([[User talk:Awien|talk]]) 14:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. '''Please do not modify it.''' Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div>

===Where to now===
I thought of [[WP:MR]] on the grounds that while it's 7:2 in favour of the move, the ''support'' !votes should be [[wp:not counting heads|discounted]] for various reasons, for example the first one just reads ''very surprised to see no hyphen''. The first step to doing this would of course be to discuss with {{u|Primefac}} on their talk page of course.

But on reflection, 7:2 with some very experienced RM regulars on the ''support'' side isn't likely to be overturned at MR. So see [[WT:AT#Notre Dame]], and comments there welcome. [[User:Andrewa|Andrewa]] ([[User talk:Andrewa|talk]]) 22:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on [[Notre-Dame de Paris]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/813959374|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130528155552/http://www.notredamedeparis.fr/spip.php?article1538 to http://www.notredamedeparis.fr/spip.php?article1538
*Added archive https://archive.is/20140404143200/http://brepols.metapress.com/content/r7t2225332251503/ to http://brepols.metapress.com/content/r7t2225332251503/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205155443/http://www.musique-sacree-notredamedeparis.fr/spip.php?rubrique1 to http://www.musique-sacree-notredamedeparis.fr/spip.php?rubrique1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205155443/http://www.musique-sacree-notredamedeparis.fr/spip.php?rubrique1 to http://www.musique-sacree-notredamedeparis.fr/spip.php?rubrique1

== Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Notre-Dame de Paris|answered=yes}}
the functional status should be changed since it is burning down ATM [[User:Marius137|Marius137]] ([[User talk:Marius137|talk]]) 18:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
:{{done}} - {{thank you}} - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 18:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Notre-Dame de Paris|answered=yes}}
Cathedral of Notre Dame caught on fire on the afternoon of April 15th. As of now, there is no known cause or reason to what caused this fire. This is one of the busiest weeks for the Cathedral because of Easter.

<ref>https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/world/notre-dame-cathedral-fire/index.html</ref> [[User:Rick-James33Chains|Rick-James33Chains]] ([[User talk:Rick-James33Chains|talk]]) 18:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
{{reflist talk}}
:{{already done}}- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 18:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Notre-Dame de Paris|answered=yes}}
Number of towers: 1 (previously 2) [[User:DimitryKrakitov|DimitryKrakitov]] ([[User talk:DimitryKrakitov|talk]]) 18:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
:{{ping|DimitryKrakitov}} Source? [[User:StudiesWorld|StudiesWorld]] ([[User talk:StudiesWorld|talk]]) 18:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC) (modified: [[User:StudiesWorld|StudiesWorld]] ([[User talk:StudiesWorld|talk]]) 18:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC))

== Semi-protected Edit Request on April 15 2019 ==

The copper statues were actually removed from the spire three days ago and were not on the spire during its collapse, as suggested by the article. It is unclear from sources whether they were on display inside the cathedral or offsite.

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/tourists-stunned-as-notre-dame-cathedral-statues-fly-above-paris/ar-BBVS8mt [[User:Chelsea99|Chelsea99]] ([[User talk:Chelsea99|talk]]) 18:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

== Past tense and categories ==

I know this is still going on, but sentences need to be changed to the past tense afterwards and the article should be added to ruin categories. It currently states that the fire has only "caus[ed] significant damage", which is as much as an assumption likely turning out to be wrong. --[[Special:Contributions/94.134.89.24|94.134.89.24]] ([[User talk:94.134.89.24|talk]]) 19:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
:Actually, the firefighters have given preliminary statements just a few minutes ago that the interior has been largely destroyed. :-( The loss to Western Civilization is tremendous. [[Special:Contributions/104.169.29.171|104.169.29.171]] ([[User talk:104.169.29.171|talk]]) 21:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
:Leave the tenses alone, and skip the ruin business. There's plenty of time to adjust appropriately once the damage has been assessed. '''[[User:Acroterion|Acroterion]] [[User talk:Acroterion|(talk)]]''' 22:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

== Creative commons ==

Due to the fire, I plan on releasing most of the following photos of Notre Dame into CC as part of preservation. However, it may take me time to get to. If any of the photos are of immediate use, let me know and I will prioritize. photos.app.goo.gl/7WacjSHeUPy8ViAYA [[User:ResultingConstant|ResultingConstant]] ([[User talk:ResultingConstant|talk]]) 19:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
:Thank you. It's hard to say what images would be priorities at the moment, but I'm sure many of them will be useful eventually.- [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 20:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

==Cats==
I added [[:Category:2019 fires]] and [[:Category:Monuments historiques in Paris]] to the article. Both have been removed for no good reason that I can see. Should they be restored? [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 21:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
:The fire category would go on the page about the fire. I don't know about the other. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 23:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Notre-Dame de Paris|answered=yes}}
[[Special:Contributions/63.144.233.246|63.144.233.246]] ([[User talk:63.144.233.246|talk]]) 21:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
We need to point out that the external supports known a Flying Butresses may prevent the collapse of the walls as the roof has been destroyed and most of the contents. [[Special:Contributions/63.144.233.246|63.144.233.246]] ([[User talk:63.144.233.246|talk]]) 21:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
:{{not done}} - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". Also, be sure to include a source or two. - [[user:MrX|Mr]][[user talk:MrX|X]] 🖋 22:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

==Images of the Spire==
None of the images on Commons shows details of the ornaments of the spire. Is there any possibility to get some that show the ornaments and especially the figures in the lower part that were not removed? The same applies for among many other details the rose windows that, according to rumors, were damaged. -- [[User:Liberaler Humanist|Liberaler Humanist]] ([[User talk:Liberaler Humanist|talk]]) 00:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

== Destruction ==

Just saw in the news that a fire has devastated the structure. No word yet on whether it's terrorism or accident. Given the severity this probably needs its own section correct?

Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Notre-Dame de Paris