Talk:Sainte-Chapelle

France: Paris High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Paris task force.

Glass Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass 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.GlassWikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/GlassTemplate:WikiProject Glassglass articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Historic sites Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Historic sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of historic sites 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.Historic sitesWikipedia:WikiProject Historic sitesTemplate:WikiProject Historic sitesHistoric sites articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 28 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mdruse.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenation

I have changed thehe church here from Sainte-Chapelle to its proper form, "Sainte Chapelle." Unlike other French churches with the word "Saint" or "Sainte" in their names, "Sainte Chapelle" is not hyphenated. The "Saint" in "Saint-Denis" means "saint" in English. The "Sainte" in "Sainte Chapelle" means "holy." If there were a saint named St. Chapelle and the church was named after her, the name of this building would be "Sainte-Chapelle." But there is not. The name of this church, in English, is "Holy Chapel," not "St. Chapelle." Make sense?

Please cite this information. 130.49.147.97 13:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may or may not help ...

Fiero, Gloria K. (2005). The Humanistic Tradition (5th ed. ed.). McGraw-Hill. pp. pp. 308. ISBN 0072910127. The art of stained glass reached its highest point in Sainte Chapelle, the small palace chapel commissioned for the Ile de France by King Louis IX ("Saint Louis") (Figure 13.34). {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

As you can see, this author uses the non-hyphenated name. Whether or not this is relevant is between the disputing authors, but that's my two cents. Also, please remember to sign your posts in talk pages. Metatinara (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this page has been reverted back to the incorrect form. I don't know how to cite this except to cite the French language and how it works. The hyphenated form is reserved for us in the proper names of human saints. "Sainte Chapelle" is not the proper name of a human saint. "Sainte" in this sense is an adjective that means "holy." It is not equivalent to the word "saint," like "Saint Mary."

This can easily be demonstrated by use of a translation tool. If you use Google's English to French translator and input "Saint Chapel" and "Holy Chapel", the differences between "Sainte-Chapelle" and "Sainte Chapelle" can be easily seen. Hope that helps as well! Metatinara (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Article

No wish to stir up old edit-wars but just for the record, one should always write the name with the definite article as "the Sainte Chapelle" (abbrev. to "the Ste. Chapelle" when relevant). As Metinara explained, the word Sainte is here standing not as part of the name of a saint but as an adjective to distinguish which chapel is being discussed, much like the word "pacific" in "the Pacific Ocean". It is for precisely this reason that the definite article should always be used. (My first year undergraduates often forget this but they might learn it sooner if it were correct on Wikipedia!) Please also note that the definite article here should not be capitalised unless at the start of a sentence, any more than one would capitalise it in "the Cathedral of Notre Dame".

Since other people have done so much work on this article already I don't feel comfortable just wading in and changing the title but I thought I ought to mention it anyway in case one of the original authors felt like taking up the gauntlet.

Personally I don't have a strong view on the hyphen issue but it may be worth mentioning that if you do a search on JSTOR on any of the Art Historical abstracts databases, the vast majority of published articles and books do include the hyphen, both in English and in French and in relation to both the Paris chapel and its imitators! The ULAN includes the hyphen too. In other words, it may or may not be strictly correct in gramatical terms but the hyphenated form is standard usage amongst art historians specialising in this field (even if more generalist historians differ).

Just to muddy the waters even further though, I was thinking of adding some material on the various other "Saintes-Chapelles" - the ones built by the Valois dukes at Riom, Bourges, Anjou, etc in emulation of Louis' and which, in most cases, inherited relics from the original. My question is, should this material be added to this page or in a new article, or series of articles (and if so, how should they be linked?) Any thoughts much appreciated. StuartLondon

Perhaps you'd better pass this info on to the official website, which uses [1] "Sainte-Chapelle" in French and English. Other articles should be in the form Sainte-Chapelle (Bourges) imo. Johnbod (talk) 14:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do, though only for the caption, which I think owes more to CMN's house style (chosen by their designers, not their art historians!). In fact they never use articles, definite or otherwise, for monument names in section captions of the index. Throughout the text however and in all their publications (as also with Editions Patrimoine and INHA publications), it's The/La Sainte-Chapelle. Thanks for your suggestion re the other S-C's. May have to wait until after the summer conference season but will have a crack at it in sept if not before. StuartLondon (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you see The in a Wikipedia article name, it will surely be a title, viz The Tempest. Correct style, requested by both the institutions in question, are The New York Times and The Metropolitan Museum of Art, but Wikipedia articles are nevertheless New York Times and Metropolitan Museum of Art. For one thing, these are more helpful when searching titles for content, using the search feature.--Wetman (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha - that explains it then. My mistake. Thanks Wetman for the clear and logical explanation. StuartLondon (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked four English sources that discuss Sainte-Chapelle: Andrew Ayer's The Architecutre of Paris (2004), David Hanser's Architecture of France (2006), Robert Cole's A Traveller's History of Paris (2005), and the Blue Guide Paris (2007). All use the hyphen, but none of them use the French definite article in the name, so I'm removing it. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today

The article mentions that this is a national landmark, but is this owned by the state or is it owned by the archdiocese? Is it an active church? I've actually been there, but never thought to ask the question. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crown of Thorns -- Sainte-Chapelle or Notre Dame?

The Crown of Thorns article says the Louis IX relic is in Notre Dame de Paris. This article says its in Sainte-Chapelle, though. Which is it? --RThompson82 (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC) From the Notre Dame article:[reply]

It was in the SC until the Revolution. What is left of it today is in ND, in a new reliquary case. The last para of the relics section here explains this very clearly. Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive images

While several drawings and images have been found as acceptable, like the eighteen on the B-class Saint Basil's Cathedral, or the fifteen on the "Good article" Church architecture in Scotland, it seems that the around Seventy-one images surpass What Wikipedia is not by a monumental leap. Otr500 (talk)

Many FAs have considerably more than the GAs you mention, if the subject requires it. Usually the problem with "too many images" is that there are a lot of similar ones, & they are not well-captioned. That is not the case here. The subject is crammed full of different visual elements, of the highest quality from the period, & the pics seem well-chosen and very well-captioned. Personally I'd move some from the mini-galleries to beside the text. Were there any you felt were particularly redundant? Johnbod (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Some things just grow by incremental edits. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, had grown to six entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links.

The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
ELCITE. NOTE: Not applicable: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them. See: WP:NOTREPOSITORY.

Moved excessive "External links" here for possible discussion.