Talk:Palace of Versailles

message: I'm pretty confused on this, and ENGVAR should never be changed without good reason. British English is used here and there (centre once in the lead, metres in the Convert templates), but otherwise I didn't notice tell-tale signs of British English (armour, draught). I've been rewriting the article in a sandbox, in American English, and would like to know the consensus or thoughts of previous authors like  and anyone watching this page. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in perfect agreement on this. Jones 2018 lays it on thick that American capital was vital to sustaining the Palace throughout the 20th century. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

text: The "strong national ties" argument is nonsense, but the earliest versions used AMEng, & since the main recent authors (or 2 of them anyway) want to use that, so it should continue. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  What ENGVAR are we using here? 

message: I believe this article, because of its exceptional length, needs a "Key Dates" section, a brief chronology, where a reader can find quickly the dates of major events.  My experience is that very few readers read a whole article from beginning to end. Many are just looking for one date or fact or information about one period, and don't want to have to read through the whole history to find it. It also helps them identify the period where they might find the information they want.  It gives a lot of information in very little space. You find these sections in Notre-Dame de Paris and other articles on major cathedrals. It makes it more user-friendly and doesn't take up much space. I think the deleted "Key dates"  should be restored.  Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk)
:I have this article on my watchlist because Vami intends to take it to FA at some point, so I've been keeping a weather eye on it. That's mostly pertinent because I know that embedded lists are frowned upon by MOS (see MOS:EMBED and MOS:PROSE), and therefore any such embedded list will almost certainly be challenged and removed at FAC. The statement  is a bit misleading - you added it there, so it's not as though you're following a precedent, you're trying to create one. I understand that you think it might be helpful to the reader, but generally those kinds of lists are not appropriate within articles because the whole purpose of the article is to present and explain a subject in detail, not to give a bullet-point summary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If there needs to be a "key dates", then it should be in the infobox. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments, and I really do appreciate the work you've been doing to clean up the article and put it into into better shape. It's greatly improved and should be a strong candidate for Good Article.  That said, the Manual of Style is not against timelines;  it says "Timelines and chronologies can be a useful supplement to prose descriptions of real-world histories. The content of a list is governed by the same content policies as prose, including principles of due weight and avoiding original research."  
Would it work for you if the chronology or list of key events is in a box or a separate section further down in the article?   I think it's too long for the infox.  It could fit after the history section.  I think it would be very useful for readers who just want a particular date without having to search the entire article.  They're found, alongside complete text, in the guidebooks of the Palace. 
Again, thanks for your good work improving and focusing this article.Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of a "key dates" section 

message: Do you have a URL for the reference in this edit? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thank you. I've added it into the citation you added earlier. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborative effort 

message: The Massie text about the role of the Pavlovsk restoration as a model for Versailles is very reliable. I know Pavlovsk, the book and Ms. Massie; she's an excellent historian and the top expert on Pavlovsk.  The text could probably be shortened some, but it's reliable. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have access to the book? I wasn't able to get it online. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massie Text and Pavlovsk 

message: I respectfully think the lead montage needs some changes. The current images are too remote and just show you roofs. They should show the chateau  from a human perspective, not as viewed from an airplane. I think it should have:  (1) a good picture of the garden facade; (2) The interior - the current Hall of Mirrors picture (which I think is great); (3) a garden\ picture from human perspective that shows a fountain and/or flower beds. That captures the essence.  The aerial view can be incorporated later in the text, if needed.  Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Me too! I hate montages anyway, especially when there is blank white space below them. I would support alarge image above the dreaded infobox too. Mind you, "human perspective", let alone "flower beds" are not exactly what V is famous for! Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

text: I trust Siefkin with alterations to the montage. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The montage problem 

message: I added the very important... built by King Louis XIV. 75.74.170.70 (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Versailles built by King Louis XIV 

message: I respectfully suggest that we should not use the official logo of the Palace in our opening montage; it's confusing our page with the official page of the Palace.  I also don't really see why we need to give the name of the page three times; the subject is very clearly stated. Can't we simplify this?   Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of logo in the montage  

message: Cited author has been misspelt throughout as SPAWORTH and should be SPAWFORTH. I tried correcting large sections but have not succeeded nor do I have time to finish. Also imprint in his 2008 book is St Martin's Press (not Macmillan, as cited - larger publishing group though NOT the imprint inside the book) but I cannot see where to change that. Hope somebody else might complete the task. 217.155.200.241 (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited author continually misspelt