# Talk:Notre-Dame de Paris fire

## Gallery image change

new image

I tried make a change to the gallery...

old image

...because I think it gives the reader a better idea of the interior while still illustrating the sexpartite vault (which sounds naughty when you think about it) but somehow that shrank all the images. Assuming people think think that's a good idea, is there a gallery wizard who can help? Though come to think about it, to include the new image effectively it would need to be taller than the others -- that would match the longer caption on the leftmost image in the gallery, but I don't know if there's a way to do it. EEng 00:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The new image is much better. By the way, I'm going to have a go at the sexpartite vault article once I get a reference in. I've had a go at a draft at User:Acroterion/Vaulting, but although I'm qualified to make the statements in the draft, it's too NOR-y for Wikipedia. 01:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion, but putting here first. If we put the schematic image of the cathedral in a multiple image block at a reaspmab;, that would help 1) show that image a bit better, 2) help reinforce visually what is going on inside the cathedral and 3) take out that long caption from the gallery. That might push a bit too much on (if upright=1.2, I need 575px for this.)
Example:
Left: Timber roof framing; vaulted ceiling lies below walkways
Left: Timber-and-lead roof above stone ceiling (left); stone exterior walls (center); stone flying buttresses (right).
Right: Cathedral interior, showing stone rib-vaulted ceiling
Also, I just noted that the first caption on the first gallery is too long as it is cutting off the last part of "Buttresses". --Masem (t) 02:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Wait, so the caption you see isn't something like
above stone ceiling;
center: stone exterior walls;
right: stone flying buttresses
–? And, um, what's reaspmab? Do you mean image map, or annotated image?
Anyway, I love what I'm seeing at right, though I'd interchange the two images. On a second row below those, we could have "Timber roof framing; vaulted ceiling lies below walkways" and "Roof and spire" -- just those two. If we change the caption "Roof and spire" to read "Lead-sheathed roof and spire", I think we can do without the middle "Lead roof sheathing" image (or it can go elsewhere when mentioning the melting or something). EEng 03:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
We should probably then crop down the schematic, get rid of the white space (they should display equal vertical height, obeying "upright" rules.) But yes, I thought the next-door comparison makes it crystal clear what the vault is and why it was so important to keep mostly undamaged in the fire. --Masem (t) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
How do we use upright for the images if the syntax doesn't allow upright for the overall size of the frame (or does it)? And where will we put this 2x2 array, there being so little Background text? Happy to keep collaboratin on this if you want, but maybe we should suspend efforts until the text expands. EEng 11:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Composite cross-section (annotations) Nave interior with rib vaulting
I think we can just adjust the individual and total widths, thus, to remove whitespace.
I've made a cross-section new image, as the old one is inaccurate. I've tried to show all the relevant structural elements in schematic form. Sadly, formatting it to be the same scale as the nave photo would be tough. Maybe a composite inside-outside photo? I strongly agree that making these images taller would be a good feature.
I agree that the photo proposed for the nave is a better picture of the nave, though I'm not sure it gives as clear an impression of the shape of the vaults. However, having no image of the vaults would, I think, run contrary to the earlier consensus (and, I suspect, the one here). I have boldly added both vault images, subject to the judgement of other parties here, as I think they illustrate different aspects (and another reason for the importance of preserving the vaults). If someone could have a go at cutting down my wordy captions, I'd appreciate it.
If we added some text on the relevant structure of the building to the "background" section, we'd have more body text. I added a sub-section on this at one point, but it was removed; I'd obviously be fine with others deciding on re-instating it. Currently there is a lot of info that is only in the pictures. This makes the article less accessible to blind readers and others not viewing images. Some article topics are highly visual, and some are highly textual; this is the former.
I think it would be good to have something that shows the thickness of the lead sheeting, although this info might fit in the captions.
More generally, I've tried to fix the gallery formatting; could anyone still having cut-off-caption problems please describe them? Below I have included a gallery formatted using Template:Multiple images, which seems more flexible (the two-per-row is alterable, and a height and width can be given for each image as long as a total width is given). This would be quite a drastic change, but I've tried it in the article (in preview, without saving) and it looks good to me (to you?). HLHJ (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Structural elements relevant to the fire
Timber in reds, stone in blues. Left: tower, with framework (not destroyed); center: lead-clad roof trusses above stone ceiling (spire shown behind); right: exterior walls and flying buttresses (annotations)
Interior of nave (large central space from previous diagram), showing rib vaulting and nave walls. Nave walls showing clerestory windows, arches to triforium, and arches to side aisles.
Underside of rib vaulting; the arches thrust outwards on the walls, counterbalancing the inward thrust of the flying buttresses. Had the vaulting fallen, the walls would have collapsed into the nave.
Timber roof framing; vaulted ceiling lies below walkways
Roof and spire. The twelve Apostles statues at the spire's base had been removed for conservation days before the fire.
(this uses the multiple image syntax)
• Your new diagram is a great asset. But over the last month it's all come back to me what a mess galleries are, technically. I'm getting different sizes and layouts when I simply switch from "regular" reading to edit mode. EEng 02:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, EEng . I entirely agree on the mess. I spent way to long messing with that gallery's CSS styles, and I can't see if any of the problems are fixed, because I can't see the problems... I can understand different sizes/layouts for different aspect ratios, mobiles, etc., but illegible captions on different browsers? It seems pretty basic that highly visual/spatial topics sometimes need a greater density of images than can readily be accommodated without a solid block of images. Do you have any idea where the problem is? If it just needs a solid Mediawiki re-write, maybe it's something for the community wishlist. If it is the browsers (Firefox seems fine, IE problematic), maybe we need a publicly-scored Wikipedia browser stresstest (paraphrased quote of an acquaintance:"My new phone is such trash, it can't even read Wikipedia!"). Who knows, we might even persuade browsers to render MathML, and finally free ourselves from the horrible kludge that is MathJax. HLHJ (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I really have no idea. I suggest we call what you've done good enough, and let things lie for now. As the investigation proceeds the article will expand, and that may relieve the layout crunch. EEng 04:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

## Infobox image size

Time View from Quai de Montebello with the spire aflame Notre-Dame CathedralNotre-Dame Cathedral (Paris)Notre-Dame CathedralNotre-Dame Cathedral (France) 18:20 CEST (16:20 UTC) 0 3 Roof and spire destroyed; windows and vaulted ceilings damaged
Time View from Quai de Montebello with the spire aflame Notre-Dame CathedralNotre-Dame Cathedral (Paris)Notre-Dame CathedralNotre-Dame Cathedral (France) 18:20 CEST (16:20 UTC) 0 3 Roof and spire destroyed; windows and vaulted ceilings damaged

@EEng: Setting the image in the infobox to 1.35 scale makes the entire infobox very wide, where it is normally only 32em. At a screen resolution of 1280x1024 using vector, for example, the infobox is nearly half the article width. While a single image at this width might be acceptable, that width is then wastefully carried through the entire infobox. The image size guideline is silent on infoboxes. To address the issue, we should either reduce the size to the default or consider a different image. --Bsherr (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

(Should add that's assuming an image default size of 300px.) --Bsherr (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

• You're fussing about nothing. At right (top) is the the infobox with image at upright=1; below it is the infobox with image at upright=1.3. The increase in width is very minor, largely because at upright=1 the image doesn't even use the full width of the box available (either because there's some default minimum width for the box, or because the map has forced it that wide). EEng 21:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
It really isn't good-looking, though; the image is very tight to its border and then the rest of the box has giant empty spaces. How about give them all a happy amount of gaps? Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
As implored many times, this kind of thing isn't worth fussing about at an article's early stages. Maybe we'll find a better lead image that's in portrait format, or maybe a "cause" parameter will be added that is a dozen words long and looks better in a wider box anyway, or maybe... Fussing these things so soon is a waste of time. EEng 22:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
That's subject to your display preferences. It's different if you set your default image size. It is important to think about those viewing the article with all settings and all resolutions. The same goes when moving images around to attempt to "balance" them or respond to "gaps". --Bsherr (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
all settings and all resolutions – absolutely not. We discuss layout issues with Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering>Thumbnail size set at the default 220px. A user who changes that preference does so for his own reasons and at his own peril, layout-wise. As far as screen sizes, layouts should look good at typical window widths, not all of them, plus on mobile devices to the extent we can control that (we mostly can't -- mobile rendering has a mind of its own). EEng 00:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that proposition? Because it directly contradicts WP:RESOL. --Bsherr (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
What are you talking about? RESOL says nothing about supporting a variety of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering > Thumbnail size settings, and 1024×768 (the size mentioned in your OP) is certainly one of the typical screen sizes to which I was referring. EEng 00:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and Bsherr, see WP:Manual_of_Style/Images#cite_note-leave_pref-2: If you do much work with image layouts, consider leaving your preference at 220px to match the "reader experience" of most readers. If your setting is 300, no wonder everything looks crazy. EEng 05:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_edit_war_over_the_colour_of_templates and http://bikeshed.org/: Tldr "Some things in the context of the English Wikipedia are more important than others. For instance, it is important to deal with articles that randomly accuse people of murder, and generally to avoid getting the Wikimedia Foundation sued out of existence. Other issues, such as whether it is acceptable for users to remove warning messages from their user discussion pages, are significantly less important." "Some people have commented that the amount of noise generated by a change is inversely proportional to the complexity of the change." By AWwikipedia - Sydney, NSW - I like pineapples. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

## Images 2

I am heartened to see the number of images has been trimmed down - even though there are still too many superfluous ones ("From Square René-Viviani at 19:51" being the most obvious example, as it conveys little to no more information than the lead image). There are still too many problems surrounding them, partly because of the determination to ignore the advice of others. Yesterday I took out the forced no-breaks (explaining "rather line breaks than breaks in the middle of the words") because the template forces the words not to break, but instead forces breaks in the words. This was reverted with "No idea what you mean by 'rather line breaks than breaks in the middle of the words'. {nobr} does not cause breaks in words. Here it works to helps keep each left/center/right subcaption together, and encourage breaks between them, without forcing a break at any particular point". Now we are left with the following, which is what some people will see is. Oh, look: breaks in the words, just as described:

Eeng, rather than just go into revert mode of things you don't want (even if they are improvements to the article), can you at least try to ignore who has made the changes and look at the bigger picture? I'm out of this one - too much ownership going on, so I'll let you have your little "humorous" digs if that's all you can manage, but try to take on board that other people here do know what they are on about when they make edits. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The fact that you troubled to upload a screenschot and post this complaint without specifying what platform and settings your're using, as if you don't realize that not everyone sees on their screen what you see on yours, suggests that you do not, in the event, know what you're on about. In fact, it's obvious from your screenshot that your zoom or font settings are causing caption text to be rendered far larger than normal.
The fact that you mass-reverted a pile of changes by multiple other people, using an edit summary that read, in its entirety, "crap", didn't help either. EEng 14:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Right, of course: I should have my settings the same as yours. To some extent it doesn't matter what my settings are: the break is causing problems. Masem said the same thing (in the thread at the top of this page). But that's fine - have a dig at people without taking on board the fact that there are problems using {nobr}. - SchroCat (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
No, your settings needn't be the same as mine, but you should display an awareness that platform and settings often confound layout discussions. It's possible I was overthinking this (or maybe underthinking it) but please exercise the ol' AGF and ask yourself why it is that someone did what they did, and why you might be seeing an issue when quite obviously the other person isn't. Sweeping away others' work as "crap" isn't an example of such consideration. Clearly I was trying to do something -- why didn't you say, "For me (Platform P, Browser B, Zoom 125%, thumbnails 220) this does Bad Thing X -- what is it you're trying to accomplish with this?" Anyway, the italics idea (below) seems like a good one (bold was too... bold) so I've put it in place for our esteemed fellow editors to contemplate. EEng 18:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I did deduce that it is an issue not in Chrome, but in Firefox and in Edge (Win10 all 3). The gallery is cutting off the long text, likely because of the no-breaks there. --Masem (t) 15:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Yep - in Chrome, it trims the edges off words, rather than breaking them onto a new line. Getting rid of the breaks entirely would fix it, and use italics or bold for left/centre/right to make them stand out instead. - SchroCat (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not what I see (for me it:s Left: timber-and-lead roof / above stone ceiling; / center: stone exterior walls; / right: stone flying buttresses) but never mind: the caption seems too long. If it can't be shortened, the image should not be in the gallery but perhaps separate, next to a precise description. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I see what you see, Gerda (on Windows 10 with Chrome 73, Edge, and Firefox; base thumbnail size 220px). I agree the caption's unusually long, but I don't see how to shorten it without impairing its usefulness to the reader (who needs to understand what burns and what doesn't). When the article text grows, which it probably will in the next months as the investigation proceeds, it might be possible, as you suggest, to float this separately elsewhere, but I don't see anywhere to move it right now -- as I say, that will change as the text grows. EEng 14:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• And this is how it looks to other people - just missing bits of words.
Still - I'm delighted you two don't have problems, regardless of anyone else. - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I think I may have fixed this with CSS style parameters. SchroCat, Gerda Arendt, are you still seeing problems? If so, I'd favour taking out the nobrs, as cut-off words seem worse than a break in the middle of "flying buttresses" and a word all alone on the last line. HLHJ (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

## Other historic building fires

eg Hampton Court and Windsor Castle.

How often do 'major fires' occur in conjunction with 'major restorations' (ie the latter give rise to the situation in which the former occur rather than causing them)?

The main positive (apart from archaeological-historical research and maintenance of craft skills in all such events) in this case was that it did not occur a few days later (the Easter weekend). 89.197.114.196 (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no stats to answer your question, User:89.197.114.196, but for a very partial list, see Construction and renovation fires. HLHJ (talk) 02:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)