Talk:Arc de Triomphe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous comments[edit]

I removed the original French version. If anyone wants it, it can be found (now in slightly improved form) in the French wikipedia (see --Zundark, 2001 Nov 7

How can the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Paris have 'inspired' the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Westminster Abbey? They were both done at the same time. Antsnest (talk) 12:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unless someone can find a citation that Jacqueline Kennedy was inspired by the eternal flame at the arc de triomphe, we should consider this coincidence and it should be removed. This isn't fact, but theory, pretty much urban legend. (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it right to say 'the' tomb of the Unknown soldier, shouldn't that be the the French tomb of the Unknown soldier or the tomb of the Unknown soldier in France? -Adrian.

agreed (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm severely tempted to say I don't know.

I like the idea of being more specific about which Tomb of the Unknown. I believe in the United States the Tomb is in Arlington National Cemetary, but I don't know if the tomb is of a soldier killed in the first world war, the second, or the civil war, or what. I guess one soldier is enough, its the idea that counts.

Regardless, being specific that it's the French Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, is a good revision, do it.

Since the article is about the Arc de Triomphe, carefully specifying that it's a French unknown soldier is like referring invariably to "Paris France," isn't it? It seems a little parochial. Wetman 17:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attendance at opening[edit]

"Upon its completion, the Arc de Triomphe was so far from the center of town almost no one showed up for the opening ceremony. " Since the Champs-Elysées was already lined with grand 18th century private houses, I removed this assertion here. Woman 01:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The above comment was part of the article - I moved it to the talk page. Rhobite 15:26, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Vestal Virgin date[edit]

"...the first eternal flame lit since the Vestal Virgins' fire was extinguished in 492 CE"


"Their sacred fire was treated, in Imperial times, as the Emperor's household fire. It burned until AD 391, when the Emperor Theodosius I's decreees forbade public pagan worship, had the fire extinguished, closed the Temple of Vesta and disbanded the Vestal Virgins."

Which is correct? Demiurge 14:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sacred fire of Vesta gives a third date, AD 394!

Demiurge 15:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "Theodosian decrees" are mentioned under Theodosius I. Dates 391 - 394 or so are credible. That 5th century date was a gaffe, or just a tpyo.... --Wetman 16:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Theodosian decrees of 391 prohibit all pagan observances, punishable with huge fines: Theodosian Code 16.10.10 and 11 - Clyde Pharr, The Theodosian Code (1952). These two decrees are framed generally, but would have covered the observances of the Vestals. I can't see a comparable decree in 394. These decrees were issued, respectively, at Milan (Spain) on 24 February 391 and Aquileia (Italy) on 16 June 391, so may be presumed to have been effective in Rome before the end of that year. However, effectiveness of imperial decrees is a matter of speculation. Maybe the extinguishment didn't happen until after 391. So I have changed the dating to simply "the fourth century". In the present context, the exact date is surely unimportant. --Wikiain (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia also indicates that a fire was kept burning in Ireland for St Brigid until at least the 12th century, and possibly until the dissolution of the monasteries in the 16th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9EBA:7400:B88B:FD3F:AE01:9552 (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Victories[edit]

We should add something noting that the list of 'victories' on the AdeT are in some cases clearly wrong and in others certainly questionable. The list reflects political considerations as much as a calm asessment of the military reality. I would give as examples Corunna, Oporto, Toulouse and fuentes d'onoro. Alci12 17:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A complete list of the victories insctibed on the Arc de Triomphe should be included in a note. The following text was deleted by someone: "The list of victories includes as victories contested battles, such as Corunna, Oporto, Toulouse." --Wetman 12:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I want to say to you that I was at a lecture when " Arc de Triomphe " was mentioned, but the question is (( What do we call it in english??? )) please send me the answer as soon as possiple. <email removed to prevent spamming>yours . rajo Palestine / Gaza
Well...The literal translation of Arc de Triomphe is simple, Arc of Triumph! Translating it is like translating Le Tour Eiffel; The Eiffel Tower and me of course
Although, no-one actually translates it! The Arc de Triomphe is always called the Arc de Triomphe in English. However, Le Tour Eiffel is always translated... perhaps it's because such arches are uncommon (so the name is left as is) but towers are very common (so we use our usual naming conventions). I realise yours is a literal translation, I think a more effective translation would be simply "Triumphal Arch".


where is it? maybe coordinates? 23:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Reading the article, it seemed odd to me that there was no mention of the Nazi troops parading through it when they invaded Paris. There were more than a few psychological reasons for this action. Now as I was searching the web for a reliable source about it, nothing turned up. Maybe we'll have to go to the books? Do others think this incident is noteworthy for inclusion?--Rockero 19:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Popular Culture section[edit]

It was deleted? Any reason why? 'Cause it looks like vandalism that was never reverted... RobertM525 08:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exact dimensions[edit]

Seems hard to get exact dimensions that agree with each other; two sources below gives different heights but same depth. So I thought I put the depth in. If anyone know the exact dimension that would be great.

maybe it use to be shorter, then they build upon it? Pseudoanonymous (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wheelchair Access????[edit]


could somebody please add information about access with a wheelchair? Is it possible, possible with an assistant or not possible?

Cheers, Bunny —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hiya this is casey from the ps3 network im wondering what is the name fo this ... con... well i so not know can anyone help- —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

allo je suis Thom —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an elevator to the top, but the wait is terrible —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Somalian Arch[edit]

there is a similar arch in somalia, "victory Arch" Should there be any mentioin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To avoid future "over-imaging", I'll copy-paste the guidelines from the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding images (MOS:IMAGES)

  • Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox.
  • Images should be inside the major section containing the content to which they relate (within the section defined by the most recent level 2 heading)
  • Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other.
  • Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article (see Captions, below).
  • See this tutorial for how to group images, and avoid "stack-ups".
  • It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left (for example: Timpani). However, images should not be reversed simply to resolve a conflict between these guidelines; doing so misinforms the reader for the sake of our layout preferences. An image should be reversed or substantially altered only if this clearly assists the reader (for example, cropping a work of art to focus on a detail discussed in the text). Any such alteration must be noted in the caption.
  • The thumbnail option may be used ("thumb"), or another size may be fixed. The default thumbnail width is 220 pixels; users can adjust this in their preferences. An option such as "|300px|" resizes the image to the specified width in pixels, and "upright=1.2" (or "|frameless|upright=1.2" for plain pictures) resizes an image to approximately the given multiple of a user's preferred width. An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels ("upright=1.8") wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest monitors in common use; an image can be wider if it uses the "center" or "none" options to stand alone. The {{Wide image}} and {{Tall image}} templates display images that would otherwise be unreasonably wide or tall. Examples where adjusting the size may be appropriate include, but are not limited to, the following:
    • Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "300px" ("upright=1.35").
    • Images in which detail is relatively unimportant (for example, a national flag), and which may need smaller sizes than usual.
    • Images containing important detail (for example, a map, diagram, or chart), and which may need larger sizes than usual.
    • Images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image.
  • Use {{Commons}} to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible. The use of galleries should be in keeping with Wikipedia's image use policy.
  • Alt text takes the place of an image for text-only readers, including those using screen readers. Images should have an alt attribute added to the |alt= parameter. See WP:ALT for more information.

Regards, --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why replacing all the pictures of the Arc by the one where the nazis are parading ? The picture you're placing all over Wikipedia...
Let's put a non-controversial picture on the article, the other pictures (including the one with the nazis) could put in a gallery section or in a Commons gallery.UltimaRatio (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A photograph can hardly be "controversial" - it is what it is (which also goes for the occupation of France). The only question is whether it is 1) significant enought, or 2) relevant for, and related to, the subject matter. Yes on both counts.
This is one of the most famous photographs of the Arc de Triomphe, and it does not depict "Nazis", but ordinary German soldiers. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The controversy is to reduce the history of the Arc to this picture, why this picture ? There's a lot of significant and relevant pictures that can fit in this section. Reducing the history of the Arc to this "pretend-not-to-be-nazis" soldiers picture is NPOV. UltimaRatio (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not this picture? It seems to me you're taking this a tad too personally. The reason why I included it is because this is probably one of the most famous photographs of the history of the arch (as much as I imagine you may dispute that). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, considering this picture as the most famous photograph of the history of the Arc is a disputable point of view. On top of that, you replaced every pictures of the Arc by the one with the nazis, this is a personnal and non-neutral edit. By the way, an encyclopedia is not a place to put "famous stuff" on it... So, wether this picture is the most famous or not is irrelevant.UltimaRatio (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) I said one of the most famous photographs, not "the most famous", and that much can hardly be disputed. And yes, famous historical photographs are preferred over those less famous.
2) Please do not turn me into some Nazi-loving fantasy nemesis from your imagination. This is not "personal" for me. It is personal for you (quite obviously) - that's the whole problem here...
3) "You replaced every pictures of the Arc by the one with the nazis." Quite simply: no. I did not. Very few images were actually removed, and those unrelated to the history of the arch were moved lower down. It was not easy to repair the article while trying to preserve all the images, and place them in connection to the context, this is a small article and it was very badly cluttered.
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image perfectly fitting article context repeatedly removed[edit]

The image is one of the most famous historic photographs of the Arc de Triomphe, and fits the context perfectly. It is apparently being repeatedly removed because of historic grudges. Consensus should not be determined by patriotic sentiment, or by attempts to glorify one's own history by censoring-out all defeats. In other words, I cant imagine any objective justification for replacing this photograph with yet another generic image of the Arc de Triomphe - in the history section - because some user finds it offensive. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it one of the most famous? According to whom? It seems that the only significant relation of the Nazis to the Arc is that they once paraded around it; the article at least makes it clear that the Arc was used as a symbol of the Allied victory, which is arguably more significant. I reverted you as there is so far no consensus for your changes. Nev1 (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Lets not start proclaiming "consensus" here with two people in a discussion.)
@"It seems that the only significant relation of the Nazis to the Arc is that they once paraded around it."
Weasel words + straw man: 1) The image does not depict Nazis in any way. 2) The image is not there because it depicts some sort of relationship between the Nazis and an arc, it is there because it depicts a famous (though depressing) event in its history, and fits the context of the text very well. 3) I don't see what the Allies have to do with this discussion? Are you saying the Allies won WWII? :)
In short, it fits the context very well and should not be removed or replaced due to historical grudges (which is obviously the case here with User:Frania). That is called POV content blanking. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the photo does not significantly inform the reader about the Arc de Triomphe, then it does not belong in the article. This is about a monument, not the Second World War and you don't seem to have argued why the photo is important to understanding the monument, choosing instead to accuse others of bias. Nev1 (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um... I am aware of the role of images in Wikipedia articles. The image depicts a very infamous event in the history of the Arc. So yes, it definitely helps the reader understand the "History" section. (This much goes without saying when someone points out the image fits the text.)
I am accusing others of bias on a very good basis, i.e. the unexplained deletion of indisputably relevant info - from several Wikipedia articles. The user unbelievably also deleted the photo from the Battle of France article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, it probably was an important event but that wasn't explained. The caption for the image said "German soldiers on parade marching past the Arc de Triomphe after the surrender of Paris, 14 June 1940"; so what, they probably marched through a lot of Paris. Was this the only effect of the War? I would guess that the Arc was used by the Germans in propaganda to celebrate their victory as it was and is a very famous monument, however this isn't explained either in the caption or the main body of the article (and would of course need to be sourced). My point about the Allies is that the article at least explains why the marches and the Arc were significant, so why not include an image from that? Nev1 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The high-point and central event of the German parade of 1940 was the passage past the Arc (as it was in 1871). In general, the arc was the centerpiece for almost every army marching through the city. The photo (and the reel) was used heavily in both Axis and Allied propaganda, making it quite infamous and representative of the disastrous events of 1940.
I don't follow, though. Are we really contesting the relevance of this photo? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes because no source or context was given. Some thought also has to be given to the issue of balance: as you say the Arc may have been the high point of the Germans' march, but the same could be said for the marches in 1944 and 1945. Why include a picture of the Germans as opposed to the French? If the two cannot both be included for balance (and I really don't think there's space in the article at the moment given its size and the usefulness of the other images) then why choose as leaving them both out is also arguably neutral. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great idea, see how you like this version. As for space, the Arc was after all built with military parades in mind, so photographs of military parades though the Arc should be well represented as depictions of the monument's primary function, esp. if they are historically significant and in-line with the narrative. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, that should satisfy anyone whose quibble concerns "balance". We all agree that the images are vivid examples of the Arc de Triomphe as an icon. Nev1 should be reminded that Wikipedia is not censored. Please, everyone, move on and find something useful to do at Wikipedia.--Wetman (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's better than just having the one image as it provides balance. And thanks for the reminder Wetman and your not in the least bit condescending tone. Odd though, I don't remember mentioning censorship; could you point me in the direction of where I suggested that? Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was the one who mentioned censorship, since that image was being completely removed by Frania on a number of articles. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't think I had, yet Wetman implies I was advocating censorship. Perhaps he should stop talking out of his arse. Nev1 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok this is WP:NPA. Seriously, man, calm down? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I hurt Wetman's feelings by asking him not to be a prat he's been around long enough to know where the drama boards are. Nev1 (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm obviously missing some background here :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Oh for the love of... Frania, we all know the Allies won WWII, there is no need to further demolish this article's layout by cramming too many images of Allied soldiers. Read MOS:IMAGES on too many images in an article. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Your reverting twice within a few hours my addition of photo of American troops by the Arc de Triomphe at the time of the Liberation of Paris, giving for a reason:
  • first time: Rm, arch barely visible
  • second time: Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other. Its already too many images, this is FAR too many. And no, we should not be removing the German pic...)
can be looked upon as:
  • for one: anti-American POV,
  • an obvious campaign of demolishing my contributions to Wikipedia whenever I work on an article on France.
2. As for your remark on not removing the naz pic, please also note that I did not remove it, I simply added the Yanks marching in August 1944.
--Frania W. (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is already an image of the Allied liberation of Paris, adding another pic just so they can "outnumber" the German one is nationalist POV (feel free to quote me on that).
  • Even if we disregard the above, the article is already swamped with images (read WP:MoS). When I added the first Allied pic I was forced to sandwich part of the text for the sake of balance, your adding a second picture of the same thing ruins the layout of two whole sections.
In a sentence: do not swamp the article with images of the liberation of Paris just so they can outnumber the German file. I spent half an hour re-arranging the images according to WP:MoS, and I won't hide the fact that I'm annoyed when guidelines/policy are ignored for POV reasons. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Frania Wisniewska, I would be much indebted to you if you would finally begin to understand the concept of IMAGE LAYOUT. Replace the lead nighttime image with the daylight one if you want, but please do not push TWO lead images and ruin the entire image layout of this encyclopedia article because you've still to come to terms with the fact that France was ocupied in 1941... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictures for the history section.[edit]


here are the facts : The history of the Arc de Triomphe starts in 1806. We have 3 pictures for this section, all in the 20th century. For the sake of page setting, this section should have only 2 pictures, otherwise text sandwiching will occur.

Therefore to I replaced the 3 images by 2 images, one showing the initial project of the Arc. This seems to me way more valuable for this article than pictures from the battle of France, the Liberation of Paris or the exploit of Godefroy. The second is the return of the remains of Napoleon, instigator of the project. Again, this is more valuable than any of the pictures previously found in this section.

Feel free to modify the images by others that you consider carrying more history. See Commons:Category:Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile by decade.

Badzil (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally agree with the changes in images - and reasons thereof - done by Badzil. It makes sense.
--Frania W. (talk) 14:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Considering your posts and statements on User talk:Frania Wisniewska (which are still here in spite of your removal (Note: I did not remove the discussion. Badzil (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)) and the fact that you did not use English) there can be little doubt that your goal here with these edits is not article improvement but the removal of the picture of the German parade.Reply[reply]
If one thinks hard enough one can find a sensible-sounding justification for almost any edit. People are not stupid, User:Badzil, your justification is quite obviously an excuse created to single-out and remove one image.
The previous consensus was to keep the image in question, and an extra image was demanded and added for balance. If you claim there's an "image too many", we shall then remove the last one added, certainly not the one you and your buddies personally dislike so fiercely. And I remind you that but for my edits this article would be still be swamped with a horde of over-large images.
Once again, the previous consensus on this talkpage (see above) was to keep the image in question. Your edits are also in very obvious contradiction with WP:NPOV. They will be reverted. Should an edit war occur once more, as with Battle of France I will take these repeated attempts at image censorship to WP:AN/I. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 10:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I talked to Frania in French because I knew it would help her understand this edit better. I told her: I don't support your action but understands it. (Je ne supporte pas ton action mais la comprends.) I did not remove anything on Frania's talk page, an archiving bot did. Be assured that I stand behind what I write, French or English. Our conversation lives now here.
I don't know how you can genuinely believe that if we have to choose two images for the history section, one being a drawing of the project by the architect itself and one being a picture where the monument is only a spectator, you would choose the latter. You're very quick at accusing people of NPOV. Badzil (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Being extremely busy outside Wikipedia, I have not been & still am not able to get involved into a lengthy discussion; however, I did take the time to reinstate the discussion on my talk page hoping the archiving bot will not rush to archive it again.

2. May I point out that when I put the French flag in more evidence on 11 November, I did not remove the marching naz, as says the summary of my revsion:

  • Picture where it belongs, keep marching naz where they are if you wish : as said before, if this was the US flag, it wouldn't be relegated at bottom of article but would be flying on top.

Also, as for the picture at the Battle of France, here is what my summary says:

  • There was absolutely NO consensus for changing the photo, in fact, the change was done by force, ramming it thru the throat of those opposing it / placing marching naz in their chronological place.

3. Direktor, it is impossible for some of us not to take as a kind of harassment[1] or antagonism aimed at the French your placing of this photograph on several France-related articles within six minutes on September 23. However, as it is such a "great historical find", I will ask you to please note that I did not remove it, just changed its place.

To loosely quote Badzil, the history of the Arc de Triomphe should be more on its construction, based on a blueprint by its architect, than on an oversized naz propaganda photograph which uses the Arc de Triomphe as a backdrop.

I am curious to see what reaction Direktor would get placing that picture as the main & most telling one at de:wiki article Westfeldzug [2].

4. As for Direktor's last comment at the discussion page of the Battle of France, responding to the idea of a collage, while I suggested a map would be the appropriate image, thus bringing to an end a discussion that is going no where

the obvious hatred, name-calling & false accusations leave me outraged and speechless.

--Frania W. (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. Excerpt from my talk page written by Direktor:

  • Understand: the Battle of France is likely the single most important event in 20th century history of France, and certainly the event of 20th century French history which had the greatest impact on world history...

I beg to differ, in the 20th-century history of France, the Battle of Verdun ranks as high, if not higher, and to many "the event of 20th century French history which had the greatest impact on world history" was not naz marching by the Arc de Triomphe, but D-Day.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apologies for my lack of response. I will certainly be back on Wednesday, I hope we can take a brief pause.
@P.S. Yes I was aware of Verdun when I made that statement, that is why I said "among the most important". However, Verdun was not very decisive and was merely the most horrible of many such conflicts. As for D-Day - its a very important event to be sure, but apart from the fact that it took place on French soil, French forces were not the main combatants. What I mean is that it is not really known as a "French battle" as such (no disrespect intended). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Direktor, it is difficult to follow your train of thoughts on the importance you give to events that are part of the History of France: on the one hand, the Battle of France, which saw the defeat of the French in June 1940, is part of the History of France, with marching naz by the Arc de Triomphe its most telling event in the 20th century; on the other hand, the Battle of Verdun, a French victory in WWI, which, in your eyes, "was not very decisive" (should it even be mentioned in the history of WWI ?), and D-Day, dixit you: "a very important event to be sure" - (how condescending ! Go say that to the GI's who are still alive or to those whose tombs are in the cemetery above Omaha Beach), the landing in Normandy of Anglo-American-Canadian (+ Australian + Polish + a couple of French + dearest Ernest Hemingway etc.) in the eyes of many, including mine, "the most glorious day" of the 20th century, which happens to have happened in France (yes, I know, the names of those beaches (Omaha Beach, Utah Beach, Sword Beach, Juno Beach, Gold Beach, could lead to confusion), so, according to your assessment of what makes the importance of an event, 6 June 1944, because "French forces were not the main combatants", should not be included in the History of France.
You are a very young man and you have a lot to learn before you attain the rank of historian as, right now, you do not seem to know the difference between historical facts & propaganda.
--Frania W. (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Historical pictures for the article Arc de Triomphe[edit]

2 pictures are required to illustrate the History section of this article and contributors (including me) have problems deciding which pictures should be chosen. External input on this matter is welcome as the current discussion only involves 3 contributors. Badzil (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To summarize, 5 pictures have been notably added to the History section, and here they are:

Badzil (talk) 21:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I shall not be able to participate in the discussion until Wednesday, so I would like to invite users to put the RfC on hold until I may be able to respond and possibly explain why I consider it very likely that the (rather famous) image in question is being removed out of patriotic sentiment. At least, there can be no question that the issue originated in that way. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would use the architectural drawing and the one of people lining the Champs Elysees. The one with the German Troops is not really about the Arc de Tiromphe but political statement made by the invading germans. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason why the image was taken by the Germans is not the issue at all. Nobody is trying to support Nazi Germany here.

The whole purpose of the Arc was to serve as the arch for parading armies. The photograph of the Arc is not only 1) famous and significant in and of itself, 2) not only depicts one of the most infamous and monumental historical events in the history of the Arc, 3) not only fits the section perfectly, but 4) also shows the Arc in its main function as a triumphal arch for a military parade.

Now, the image is being removed by a number of patriotic Frenchmen because they intensely dislike the fact that France was defeated in 1940. :P It was added, it was accepted by consensus, and now it is being presented in a very clever way with the object of removing it. The agenda is very clear from correspondences on user talkpages (I invite users to have a look if there is any doubt regarding this fact). This should certainly be taken into consideration. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've noticed you've used the phrase "patriotic Frenchmen" a number of times in a number of places, and you make references to "agendas" or allege that some editors "intensely dislike the fact that France was defeated in 1940". That's not helpful, and is actually a breach of WP:CIVIL. A similarly charged atmosphere existed until recently at WP:BISE, and this is now under the observance of extreme civility. From experience, your comments will simply get peoples backs up. Can you stick to making the argument without commenting on other editors, either their nationality or your opinion on the motivations is irrelevant.
You argument to keep the photo based on the merits of the photo is fine and good. FWIW, I agree that it is a famous photo depicting an infamous historical event. But I disagree that the merits of the photo outweigh all other great photos. Unless this article has a section dedicated to famous events that occurred in the vicinity of the Arc (and perhaps there's merit in starting a section if there's enough material), I'd pick the crowds of French patriots ahead of the German army photo. --HighKing (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How would you then describe or explain the fact that this particular image is being removed simultaneously by these same editors on other articles as well?
Its not that my fellow Wikipedians here like some other image more, its that they want this one removed (regardless of what may replace it). That's what I'm saying. The new images were found and suggested long after the parade photo was attacked. And taking into consideration private correspondences among the users - its very obvious that the object here is to remove the image. Am I not supposed to bring this up?? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please name the users you mention. And here is one extract from that conversation that you like to cite: "Il est possible qu'en France on aurait tendance à ne pas la montrer car c'est effectivement un peu blessant et humiliant. Cependant ça fait partie de l'Histoire et on aurait tort de ne pas la montrer." ("It is possible that this image is not shown in France because it is hurting and humiliating. However it is part of the History and it would be a shame not to show it.") This happened after I reverted the removal of the image from that very same article. Get your facts straight. Badzil (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE the conversation between two fellow wikipedians, there for all the world to read even if written in French since most participants to France-related articles do speak & read French, it is a shame that the meaning of that conversation has to be twisted out of recognition.
  1. 11NOV10, 0359hrs: Article Battle of France: I reverted Baseball Bugs who, the previous day, had put the marching naz photograph as leading picture, and had left the comment: It's already been discussed at length, and this was the consensus., leaving as my own reason for reversal: There was absolutely NO consensus for changing the photo, in fact, the change was done by force, ramming it thru the throat of those opposing it / placing marching naz in their chronological place /). Thus, I cannot be accused of removing the picture of the marching naz.
  2. 11NOVO10, 0420hrs: Article Arc de Triomphe contrary to what is being said by DireKtor, I did not remove any, but switched two photographs, putting the one with the French flag floating within the frame of the AdT closer to the top & the one of the marching naz at the bottom where the French flag had been - with the comment: On 11 November, the Arc de Triomphe with French flag is more appropriate than marching naz of June 1940.)
  3. 11NOV10, 1345hrs, Badzil, with whom I am being accused of conspiring, reverted my edit - with comment: Please, an encyclopedia should not be modified for a particular day.
  4. 11NOV10, 1442hrs: I reverted "my fellow conspirator" Badzil - with comment: Picture where it belongs, keep marching naz where they are if you wish : as said before, if this was the US flag, it wouldn't be relegated at bottom of article but would be flying on top.
  5. 11NOV10, 1452hrs: my talk page[4], Badzil left a msg in French explaining his reversal, saying that although he did not like the marching naz anymore than I did, no change could be done without a debate, i.e. wiki rules had to be followed. He also wrote somewhere in his comment that he did not "support" my action although he understood it. I would hardly call this a conspiracy.
  6. Then, before DireKtor entered the scene, I wrote (summarizing) that I know what historical documents are, and that I have nothing against their use, but that, not being an imbecile, I also can identify dirty tricks from the start, suspecting that D. did not add the photograph by respect for History, but out of spite toward the French, in other words, with harassment in mind - comparing the inclusion of the picture of the marching naz to France-related articles to the sending of a rope to the family of someone who had hung himself, or been hanged.
  7. Finally, as my archiving bot archived the section because it laid dormant for over 48 hours, I not having answered his piece, DireKtor accused Badzil of removing the whole thing. I then reinstated the discussion yesterday, and the archiving bot archived it again today.
The above is the summary of the whole "conspiracy" between Badzil and myself.
Now I have other & better things to do than rehash over & over facts for the enjoyment of a young lad who wants to give himself importance with his one-sided knowledge of the History of France, the Battle of France, World War I & World War II, but cannot give a straight & true account of recent facts plain for everyone to read & see.
--Frania W. (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My preference is for the architectural picture (there is a more colourful variant in lower resolution on Gallica here) and the De Gaulle picture with the parade along the Champs-Elysées. Other pictures that have appeared on and off in the article, including for example the picture of the elephant and of the arch during the German occupation, could appear in a newly created gallery. This happens for example in Aix-en-Provence and Marseille. ("Iconic pictures" like this, which are often reprinted in French newspapers on the anniversary of the French liberation, should only be used in their proper context even if there is a recognizable architectural feature in sight. This year's picture in La Provence was taken in front of Saint-Esprit. Note that there are no pictures of femmes tondues in liberation of Paris, its embattled French equivalent or in the eponymous article.) Mathsci (talk) 09:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about this picture ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by UltimaRatio (talkcontribs) 13:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The nazi picture should be used in its specific context, not to illustrate a general article about the Arc de Triomphe.
"French nationalists", "Frania's pals", "hidden agendas"... DIREKTOR's paranoiac behaviour and conspiracy theory are disruptive to the encyclopedia and violate Wikipedia conventions. He should be reported for that.
My preference goes to the proposed pictures 1 [5] and 3 [6]. The Nazis picture can be relegated in a gallery with that of De Gaulle and Godefroid. This would be a good consensus, if Direktor is eager to accept a consensus.
UltimaRatio (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Back to the agenda. Several people mentioned a gallery, not all in the same way. Being young and bold, I tried this option with a selection of 6 images. They depict key events of the Arc de Triomphe. The images are sorted in chronological order. Tell me if this solution suits you. DIREKTOR, I am still waiting for you to correct your false allegations and apologize to me. Badzil (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any solution that does not remove a historical, relevant image from the article on the basis of patriotic sentiment is fine with me. My congratulations and heartfelt apologies, Badzil, this is one of the most elegant dispute solutions I've seen, wish I thought of it. :) I'll go and fix up all the images in the gallery to the best of my abilities, and I suggest we copy/paste it on all Wikis. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 15:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support the above by UltimaRatio, who is not my pal (but whom I would not mind having as one), and by Badzil, my "fellow conspirator". In fact, the creation of a gallery would allow the display of more historical drawings and photographs, such as this one right next to the marching naz[7], then[8], [9], [10], [11] (probably not available for here), [12]=Patrouille de France flying over the AdT on a 14 July[13], and even this one[14].
--Frania W. (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At this point I would like to caution everyone against over-imaging. Lets not go over five (best) images, we need to keep in mind the article's appearance on lower screen resolutions. Quality, not quantity. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, if I understand you correctly, there is a wiki rule against more than five pictures in a gallery.
--Frania W. (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are no "rules" on Wikipedia, but there is a Manual of Style. If we add more the gallery will require as separate "Gallery" section and we'd need to place it all the way down. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support : The current version is fine to me. Thanks everybody to have been so patient with DIREKTOR.UltimaRatio (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before taking this further I will ask you to please apologize for your personal attack, in accordance with WP:NPA. Please be sure not to ignore this request. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll have to support DIREKTOR on the number of pictures. There is no need to display more than one image per key event related to the Arc de Triomphe. Frania, if you think that an image is more suited to illustrate one of the events currently shown, feel free to perform a substitution. DIREKTOR, I accept your apology but I would also advise you to consider contributors as individuals and not as national groups. Also rereading WP:CIVIL would be a good thing. Badzil (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bismarck and his troops pass through the Arc in 1871

Great, now that's over we can start discussing the introduction of this pic? Its a good image, probably the most significant event in the 19th century history of the Arc, plus we've got a huge gap between 1811 and 1919 ;)))

But seriously, we could use a better pic of the WWI victory parade. One with French forces? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Before taking this any further", I believe that, in order to respect chronology, DIREKTOR owes me an apology for his many disparaging remarks, before demanding one from UltimaRatio.
--Frania W. (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was settled on WP:ANI. Calling someone a "French patriot" is not an insult, feel free to launch your own report. Also, even though Badzil has shown he is not out to remove anything from Wikipedia, your repeated deletions (as opposed to moves) of the image from the Battle of France article and elsewhere personally convince me that you truly would like to erase the image entirely. Again, feel free to quote me on the above as well.
On the other hand, describing someone as a nuisance, and insinuating in a hostile manner that another requires patience to deal with one is a personal attack completely removed from any connection with the subject matter (trust me on this one). I shall not further discuss my request for an apology. I sincerely hope User:UltimaRatio will withdraw the comment. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DIREKTOR, for now almost two months, there have been more of your remarks than calling me a "French patriot", such as using the terms "nationalist", "nationalistic", "hidden agenda", "conspiracy" etc., and I will have you know that after removing once (twice?) the marching naz, I never removed the picture anymore, instead switched with another, keeping it lower in article.
I also have not felt the need to report you because my "fellow conspirator" Badzil had already done so, and yesterday I did leave a lengthy comment there.
Denigrating remarks get those to whom they are addressed fired up, as they are felt as aggressions, which those with a backbone cannot ignore. Consequently, I do not see how in the case of France-related discussions you would consider yourself a victim after what many of us took as antagonism against the French.
In fact, the apology I am asking of you should not be addressed to me alone, but to all French users you have insulted.
This being said, before the patience of our fellow Wikipedians wears out, could we -eventually- go back to the business at hand, that of the pictures.
--Frania W. (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back to the article. If we add the Bismarck pic and find a photograph of French forces parading after WWI, along with the French passing through it after WWII that would really complete the military history of the Arc and create a piece of work to copy/paste to other Wikis. Greek troops is all well and good, but WWI was won by the French primarily... I couldn't find a WWI French marching photo on Commons, and I can't imagine where to start looking for one, perhaps you fellas can lend a hand? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 17:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have corrected the template for the gallery per the articles I mentioned before. No title is necessary if it becomes a subsection. DIREKTOR is right that any other interestings image can be added, for example the elephant. Mathsci (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Note that the captions do not display properly without the correct template. Since I believe that I was the editor who first suggested a gallery and indeed the alternative architectural image currently used, I would request that DIREKTOR calms down and reflects a little before pressing the revert button. Merci et amitiés, Mathsci (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I assure you I am perfectly calm. :) Template:Gallery not only is the "correct template", but is also a more efficient way of displaying the images. The whole idea is to present a single line of images displaying the momentous events in the Arc's history. A "default" gallery is much to large. I dare say the reason your proposal was not accepted by users in the first place was due to the fact that you had not proposed such an elegant gallery version. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Technically the correct method of displaying this is "gallery". My edit was in response to Badzil's request. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Why don't you just use perrow="6"? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I have used the standard template that I am familiar with from articles on WikiProject France. The template seems completely adequate and uncontentious. Wikipedia users have all sorts of screens of different sizes and the gallery is adapted to screen size, even on tiny screens, such as ipads or portable phones. In your edit summary you mentioned having five or six images per line, but there you were presumably referring to your own computer screen. The format was poorly adapted to the captions. That was not a reasonable approach to take. You mention "consensus" but apart from adopting my solution and the image I found, as far as these technical matters go, I can't see why you're trying to pick a fight. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not think there is a "standard" way of creating galleries. There are several ways described in the help, see Picture tutorial. I do prefer using the template instead of the gallery tag because I think that it looks better. I was also planning to write alt texts for each picture which only the gallery template allows you to do.

Also Mathsci, I do not understand what the problem with the captions is. Could you please elaborate on that?

Finally could we stop reverting each other, discuss this and decide on a solution. Badzil (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bonsoir, Badzil. I very much appreciated the way you created the gallery! However, only one third of the captions could be viewed in the format you chose: it was impossible to see the rest. I just adopted the same format as used for Aix-en-Provence and Marseille—eh oui, je suis un "plouc"—which works fine. I myself have often puzzled, along the same lines as DIREKTOR, how to get more entries per line, but that must remain one of those unutterable mysteries of wikipedia software. Salutations, "l'anglais" :) Mathsci (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Mathsci. I did not think these explanations necessary since you are the... gallery expert, but by inserting "<gallery perrow=6>" the gallery will extend to cover six images in a row. If you must use raw HTML, that is. The problem with this is that it will be inflexible with changes in screen resolution. Among other reasons, this is why we have Template:Gallery, which a lot more efficient. Further, you will also notice (if you actually follow the link I provided) that the template can easily be adjusted to leave more space for the captions of each image if you find that a problem.
I will also point out that to break WP:3RR you usually need to make more than three reverts. I made three reverts, trying to restore the consensus version you altered (without consensus) - and I had no intention of going any further. Will you please withdraw the report? People over there are likely getting agitated with this and I get the feeling we could all just get blocked. I've been on Wiki for a while, trust me? :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The best idea at the moment is to find more interesting images. I don't see any point in getting bogged down in discussions about technicalities of wikipedia software. I liked the elephant. I was slightly surprised to find fewer images on Gallica than I expected, but perhaps I used the wrong search terms. Mathsci (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Arc is a military monument. Since it was built, France participated in three major wars. We've got Bismarck for the Franco-Prussian War, two pics for WWII, and we need one for WWI. Greek troops are good but we need to find something better. I found the Bismarck image on Commons, but nothing for French troops WWI. If we can't find anything we can use the Greek painting but still... --DIREKTOR (TALK) 01:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are photographs of the French ceremonies at the Arc de Triomphe on armistice day (Nov 11, 1918) out there. but I have not succeeded in finding any that are in the public domain so far. Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I know which one you mean, is it public domain? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can somebody on the spot please clarify the "Access" section? From memory:

  • there is not always a "heavy police presence", or indeed much of a police presence at all
  • crossing the road to the roundabout in which the Arc stands is not forbidden, but is simply impossible because of the traffic
  • the main stairs and the elevator go to the attic, which is in the topmost storey of the Arc and contains an exhibition
  • is the elevator still accessible only to people with special needs?
  • the actual, open top - with the panoramic view - is reached by further stairs
  • how many further stairs (another site says 64) and are these to be included in the total of 284?
  • the top is a very good place from which to see the Eiffel Tower illuminated at night

--Wikiain (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiain: The sentence Pedestrian access to the Arc de Triomphe is through an underpass, visitors are not permitted to cross by road which has a heavy police presence. provoked the hidden note I left there "police? or maddening automobile traffic?/FW", because the "heavy police presence" makes it sound as if we were in a police state. There probably is "heavy police presence" on 6 June, 14 July, 25 August, 11 November because of the personalities present at ceremonies, otherwise, there is not a flic in sight! The only reason for the underground passage is heavy "mad" automobile traffic: try crossing by foot from any avenue leading to the Arc, specially the Champs Élysées, it's possible/feasible, but few American tourists dare do it. Same scenario at the Place de la Concorde, which, for excitement, one should try crossing by foot after 5 p.m.
As for the elevator, it can be used by any healthy individual who does not feel like using the stairway, just like for the Eiffel Tower: run up the steps or use the lift.
--Frania W. (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Frania W. I had seen your hidden note! Would you be able to revise the "Access" section? I can't find the required info online, even in French, and I don't have a plan to be in Paris in the near future. --Wikiain (talk) 01:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, user the section seems ok now. --Wikiain (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I adore user, wish it was me... Nice job! --Frania W. (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the lift is officially for handicapped use, though this is not enforced — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statue on top[edit]

The section "The design" states:

There was at the top of the Arc from 1882 to 1886, a monumental sculpture of Alexandre Falguière, "Le triomphe de la Révolution" (the Triumph of the Revolution), a chariot drawn by horses preparing "to crush Anarchy and Despotism", that remained only four years up there before falling in ruins."

But the article on Falguière says:

His Triumph of the Republic (1881–1886), a vast quadriga for the Arc de Triomphe, Paris, is perhaps more amazingly full of life than others of his works, all of which reveal this quality of vitality in superlative degree.

Maybe he began it in 1881 and it was installed in 1882, but what is the correct name for it?

Also, the image captioned "1840: Napoleon's ashes return to Paris" shows a huge installation on top of the Arc, which looks very like a quadriga. The caption accurately reflects the image's filename "Retour des cendres (Return of the Ashes)" and the date is right for that event - it also corresponds to the article Retour des cendres, which has the same image. So, was there a quadriga in 1840 which Falguière's sculpture replaced? Possibly there was something temporary, perhaps of wood and plaster, erected for the occasion: it could have matched the figures on the cortège. But such an installation is unlikely to have survived nearly 50 years, or probably even one year, in an extremely exposed location - compare Louisiana Purchase Exposition, "Buildings". It is not there in the photograph taken in 1871. What seems more likely is that it was remembered as a good idea and Falguière was commissioned to produce something permanent. --Wikiain (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names underlined[edit]

Why are the names of Marshal Mortier (column 13) and general Bourcier (column 14) underlined ? They weren't killed in action. Marshal Mortier was killed in a bombing in 1835 and general Bourcier died at home in 1828... DITWIN GRIM (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arc de Triomphe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arc de Triomphe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Construction materials[edit]

What is this monument made of? Maybe I overlooked it, but I can't figure out whether this was made out of marble vs concrete vs other. Mauvila (talk) 02:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Washington Sq. Park Arch[edit]

Shouldn't Washington Square Arch be in the See Also section? - JAF1970 (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2021[edit]

The measurements must be wrong as a meter is larger than a foot. How can it be more meters than it is feet? 2603:8081:7001:1F8:B4A8:C604:2B13:301B (talk) 16:19, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It looks like the measurements are fine. 50 metres (164 ft), width of 45 m (148 ft) and depth of 22 m (72 ft), while its large vault is 29.19 m (95.8 ft) high and 14.62 m (48.0 ft) wide. The smaller transverse vaults are 18.68 m (61.3 ft) high and 8.44 m (27.7 ft) wide. Height 50 m (164 ft) Wide: 45 m (148 ft)

Deep: 22 m (72 ft) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While we’re at it, how can a 60 meter arch height possibly be considered only “slightly” higher than 50 meters of height? An increase of 20% deserves at least a “moderately” or “somewhat“ yes? Article is locked so leaving comment instead, FWIW, regarding the section discussing other arches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tallest arch[edit]

Article mentions La Grande Arche in La Défense as the tallest arch in the world? The Gateway Arch in St. Louis is on the line and would like a word… (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]