Talk:Luxembourg Palace

France: Paris Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Paris task force.

Architecture: Historic houses Mid‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Historic houses task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Suggested merge

There can't be any gain in comprehension or context by separating the Palace from Luxembourg Garden. Would anyone object to the merge? --Wetman 06:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I object and have removed the notice - see the garden's talk page. CalJW 20:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wrong information

I'm not sure how to edit the page correctly, so I would rather leave it to someone who can. This article says that the palace was not used from 1694 untill 1778, this is not true. Between 1750 and 1778 it was open to of the week to the public as an art museum, it contained many paintings and fine objects. This information can be cited in the article 'The musée du Louvre as Revolutionary Metaphor during the Terror' by Andrew L. McClellan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.45.244 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added this information, with the source. --Stomme (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Hi. I have recently uploaded another image of the palace to Commons, which has just been promoted to FP.

I am wondering if it might be preferable for this article, since it treats the palace itself, with more even lighting, and not the garden. While the current photo is certainly very nice, I do not think that it is ideal for readers to gain a good overview of the building, as it shows the palace from a slight angle and with several other subjects in the foreground. Are there any opinions concerning the subject here? --DXR (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]