User talk:Metropolitan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Metropolitan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! 

Susvolans ⇔ 15:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


Welcome :) I noticed you've been removing the cleanup tag from RER A -- please don't. The tag is there so that other editors will be notified that the article needs some work, see the talk page for the reasons the tag was placed there. When an editor resolves those problems (like putting the article in categories), they will remove the tag. Also, it might be helpful if you used an edit summary when making changes, so people could see the reason for your change - or feel free to discuss the tag on the talk page. Thanks! .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Metropolitan, I vote with you with you to remove the cleanup tags. Since that makes it 2-1 in favour of removal, I have duly removed the cleanup tags from all RER Line articles. Rollo 17:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] RER Map

Have you considered uploading you map in the png format, or possibly the SVG format if you have access to the vector original? Swarve 07:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Swarve, I don't know exactly how it works to answer you so I'm editing this page. I've made the map using Paintshop Pro. I have a PSP version of layers of the lines, however, I had to merge all layers and convert it into a GIF version in order to save memory. Actually, I don't know how to make PNG or SVG format using Paintshop. I'll try to look at your link. Metropolitan 17:10, 16 December 2005

Metropolitan, I have just found out your map. It's a great map. However, I have two suggestions for improvement. 1- you should put a little legend with distances in kilometres and miles. Check for instance this map for an example how distances are shown:
Enlarge

2- it would be great if you could also add the suburban train lines (such as the line from St Lazarre to Défense to Versailles Rive Droite, or the line from Montparnasse to Meudon, or the line from Gare du Nord to Enghien and Ecouen, etc.). These lines are used as much as the RER lines by suburban people.

Finally, I'm thinking it would be great to add information about the suburban lines in the Paris Métro article, to give people a comprehensive idea of the Paris rail system. Hardouin 14:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I read your message on my talk page. Please don't forget to sign your messages. Your map is not a RER map, your map is already mixing Metro and RER on the same map, so it is more like a public transportation map. If you do a public transportation map, you have to include suburban lines as well, otherwise the map is incomplete. You could get some inspiration from the Transport for London map which you can find here: [1]. Here both underground and suburban rail lines are shown, to reflect the whole public transportation system. Hardouin 15:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Metropolitain and Hardouin. Hardouin, you will notice that region wide public transport maps do not exist with all forms of transports or even with all 'rail' transport on them for Paris and its region. for Ile de France-wide rail maps, métro is not included, only RER and SNCF IDF (Paris regional network), not even Grandes Lignes (Intercity).

For maps including métro, you'll only find Paris intra-muros (city of Paris) which will possibly include the RER. There are then tens of agglomeration wide bus and rail network maps, such as Cergy-Pontoise and St Quentin en Yvelines. It is very hard to include almost 500 bus lines, 5 RER arteries, 14 métro lines and railnetwork originating from 5 parisian stations. Good work Metropolitan I must say. Captain scarlet 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What you wrote is not correct. There is a region wide public transport map showing all rail lines: this map shows Métro, RER, Transilien suburban rail lines, Tramways, and Orlyval, all on the same map. This map is found on the wall of all Métro stations in Paris. You can see the map here: [2] (click on "RER IdF"). That's why I asked Metropolitan to include the Transilien rail lines on his map, to better reflect the Paris transport system. Please remember that many suburbs have only Transilien stations, they have no Métro and no RER, such as Colombes or Suresnes for instance. Hopefully Metropolitan will add the Transilien lines to his map. Hardouin 01:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Ligne 2.gif

Warning sign
This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Ligne 2.gif. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. cohesion★talk 02:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris transport infobox

I read your message on my talk page. You can't really compare Transilien rail lines with buses. Be fair! Please read what I just wrote above (under "RER map" heading). Maps in the Paris Métro show all rail lines together, and they do not show buses on the same map. Rail lines (Métro, RER, and Transilien) are very different from buses and should appear distinctly in the infobox. Check the infobox at the French Wikipedia for instance, they list the Transilien lines below the RER lines. Hardouin 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:RER_E_-_Haussmann.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RER_E_-_Haussmann.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 02:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Edits, Metro Things

Metropolitan,

I saw your edits to the Paris page - please continue. I also noticed your work in the 'Paris metro' pages, and if you are interested in "all things metro" I may have some original (and modifiable) plans that may interest you. If you would like them please let me know.

Take care,

THEPROMENADER 19:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I did find notice one thing with your Paris edit - you inserted "urban area" info into the introduction, which is very helpful and correct, yet you placed "The population of Paris metropolitan area (also including satellite cities) was estimated at 11.6 million people in 2005" which is like a similar phrase there before. While your urban area addition this makes it acceptable, but don't you think Paris' satellite cities are included in its urban area more than its aire urbaine? Sorry to ask but I did find this odd. THEPROMENADER 07:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been waiting for your reply. I'm going to shorten your intro contribution this morning - There's the above, and I don't think we need the elaborate INSEE explanation there, but perhaps in a footnote? Another note on your edits - I have also found it odd that you edited only the phrases that Hardouin insisted on reverting, and this using exactly the same phrasing as Hardouin. There's also your remarkably similar images. Call me paranoid, but all of these elements together go far beyond coincidence, and Hardouin has been known for his sock-puppetry - could you give a word of explanation please? Thanks. THEPROMENADER 09:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I hope you understand that I had to look with some suspicion at the fact that the same two key phrases in the Paris page were modified in the same way by three different user names - and one of these was yours. The other two - proven at an earlier date - were Hardouin and a Hardouin sock-puppet. Also, your plans share many similarities to Hardouin's - put this together and you get... hum. No matter though - I don't care who does what under what name as long as it's in the name of reason.
An argument "about how to describe things" - indeed. For some reason Hardouin has a pet obsession with the 'metropolitan area' concept - and tries to make every city that has one look as big as it. This is a point of view shared by next to none, and such language nor representation can be found in any standardized reference concerning Paris - not even official administrative websites. Unfortunately this misrepresentation has been left to happen to the Paris article because of two things: Firstly, few will edit authoratively-written details that they feel are 'beyond their knowledge', and secondly, since Paris is a 'big' subject, everyone assumes is already being taken care of by knowledgable people. Hardouin is indeed knowledgable, but unfortunately uses this 'upper hand' to ends more personal than sharing factual knowledge. Mumbai is an example of another attempted revert-enforced 'metropolitan area' imposition. Most major cities have separate articles for this sort of information - Paris (or any other city) should not be treated differently for that matter - and never is as far as reference is concerned.
It would be nice if you could make changes to the 'concerned phrases', but I do suggest you do at least some research before you do. If I had my way I would basically be plagerizing the Encyclopaedia Britannica and/or Encyclopédie Universalis to the tune of a nice layout (the latter is more in my line to be honest) - but of course we should incorporate other sources of facts if they exist and indeed are verifiable. In fact I don't at all mind using the 'metropolitan area' concept in the article, as it does indeed exist as a statistic - but it must be explained for the 'commuter belt' it is (for France) and used as such. I have already done this through numerous edits, but the forced and abusive imposition of this term just keeps on coming back as you can see.
I do like your 'geographically correct' metro plans, but it would be nice to have some (at least simplified) land on them - Outlines at least? I am at the moment working on something of the sort that I can make available as soon as its done - if it interests you, that is.
Take care,
THEPROMENADER 14:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Your reply intrigues me for many reasons. Of course there is truth in most all of what you write - agglomeration size, segregation, etc - but Paris is Paris, and everything outside Paris is not called Paris, and the Paris article is on Paris, and I think the farthest this can be pushed with any credibility is, as it is in most all standardised references, the Paris agglomeration. On this I have never hesitated to agree and comply. Speaking of everything to the limits of Paris' sparsely-inhabited commuter belt as if, in a lump one, it 'is' Paris is taking things much too far - on this last point I'm sure we can agree. And if it were only up to me, I'd be living back in Chennevières-sur-Marne as I did in my first years in France. THEPROMENADER 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, sorry. I put conurbation, agglomeration and 'urban area' almost in the same boat. Still reading. THEPROMENADER 21:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Cette photo satellite m'a donné le vertige - good find. I totally understand the importance of Paris' aggomeration and its presence in the Paris article. My problem was with what different regions are called there - it should be this: 1) City of Paris; 2) Paris agglomeration (approximately (depending on use) 'Paris conurbation', 'urban area of Paris' and 'greater Paris'); 3) then the Île-de-France région (called also the 'Paris Region'); and finally the statistical 'metropolitan area' (that I think should be accompanied by 'commuter belt' because its meanings are so varied throughout the world).
The "urban area" in fact didn't gain article weight until recently - the limits stressed most throughout the article were "city proper" and "metropolitan area" with practically no explanation and nothing inbetween. Immigration, population, area and even economy were spoken of using "metropolitan area" as a major reference - this is wrong, and especially when matching/supporting statistics and sources don't exist. This was my problem. I hope I made myself clearer this time.
THEPROMENADER 21:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Just let it be known that I know and knew perfectly well who I am speaking to. It was a fun experiment in trying to find new clarity, but I see that you have returned to forwarding ambiguous and inconclusive arguments that have little to do with the points raised. Before you go into 'accusation' mode, just let me tell you that those plans you posted (rather, where they were kept) were the final givaway - finding the rest was easy. I tell you again that I don't care at all about the name used as long as it's used in the name of reason. Yet the recent Paris page events are not this. THEPROMENADER 13:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Nor do I have time for games; this is why I decided not to play anymore. Yet if you wish to continue I can post the details anywhere you want me to. Okay? Thanks. THEPROMENADER 17:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
PS: Now what about those Paris-page questions? THEPROMENADER 17:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of the Hardouin/Metropolitan exchange : was this perhaps for a conflict with another contributor? Whatever the answer, this was indeed puzzling. But, since you insist :

  • The former "HalfMoonBay" IP checked out to a Noos server (relay 5 to be precise), the same as Hardouin's on a previous slip-up.
  • Although 'Metropolitan' connected through a free.fr dialup server, her homepage was on that same Noos relay server.

Before you get offended at me 'checking you out' (even if there is nothing at all wrong with this), let me remind you that I have security tools that I use every day for the webservers I maintain - it took but a click. Now, even without the technical details, what are the chances of two users:

  • Having remarkably similar writing styles and choice of grammar
  • Being both female,
  • Speaking in exactly in the same way on particular subjects
  • Being in total agreement (and mutual support) on points of view known by few and shared by none (especially the AU "almost the same" argument)
  • Using the same means of argument (avoiding pointed questions, purposely missing the point)
  • Editing in the same page the very same phrases in two different places as the other does, using the same vocabulary and phrasing, and editing nothing else
  • Answering questions asked to another but in exactly the same way as the person asked would and has in the past.
  • Other similarities such as articles edited and editing habits... the list goes on.

I mean, really. What do you expect? It normally wasn't even neccessary to check any IP's. I have nothing personal at all to gain from all this - but I think it should be clear around here who we're talking to. THEPROMENADER 19:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth the looking went beyond a simple IP check - a google search for the map links turned up a game forum - and the 'metro' and 'metropolitan' info submitted and talked about there by that female-named person was abounding.
I'd like to be wrong - but look at all the coincidence, and what am I to think with these past month's events. Pinning a puppet is really no fun - normally a person shouldn't have to behave such in a place like this, and doing so makes things complicated for no great end - the goal is to re-publish fact, so what's there to hide in all that? Even this discussion doesn't really matter - the truth comes out with the editing, and that's where it ends for me. THEPROMENADER 22:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
PS: Green Giant has addressed you (us) a message on my talk page. THEPROMENADER 22:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
To be frank - I'm still not sure about you - there's still the "Marla_singer" similarities to account for - and in all I've listed above, you can very well see that I am not "jumping to conclusions." Really I have no time to waste on running after who's who - this is paranoid - it's what you do that's important. Still, this has to be the greatest mix of coincidences I have ever seen in my life. No matter if you are or aren't Hardouin, whether it be for a complete apology, or out of admiration for the sheer gall of the show put on, I'd still end up shaking your hand. THEPROMENADER 08:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
LOL! (shaking Hardouin's hand) Preceding last week's IP check I had just taken a peek at that forum - This morning I was in the midst of writing a heartfelt apology when I couldn't resist going back for a more extensive last look. What I found blew my mind.
* You do live in Issy-les-Moulineaux...
* but you are indeed Female [3].
* Your following posts mirror pretty clearly Hardouin's POV on 'Greater Metropolis' Paris : [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] <=! [11] <=! [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
...to find all of the above all I had to do was do a 'metropolitan paris' search for posts by 'Marla_Singer'. There's much much more. Many of the metro/paris pictures in this user's many 'Paris' posts were stored on the same noos.fr homepage; also present throughout is the same La Défense obsession, the same "Paris' population is 10 million" obsession, the statistical comparitive obsession - the list goes on, which is amazing when one considers that the forum has nothing to do with the subject.
I really can't see any feasable means of denying this any further. If it is any reassurance, there is no sense of victory or smugness in exposing the above - I'm actually sorry that you pushed me to it.
The end result is actually anticlimatic: corrections to the Paris article will continue until it is indeed verifiable (<== read especially the first line of the introduction), which may make it much less 'unique' than it is today - but at least it will qualify for peer review and featured status, as contested, unreferenced and constantly reverted it cannot. Even before undertaking my part in this I understand fully that whatever improvements I do make will disappear under later better-quality edits - but at least I will know that I was working in the right direction. This is my only goal; a goal without glory as my name will never be present anywhere there, so there is no more need for this impedimental playing around. THEPROMENADER 11:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
It didn't take much research at all - just one search did the trick. You post as your girlfriend in the same voice on the same subjects - to the same game forum as the same person? This with the Free/noos IP 'parent's place' story? And as of this morning, you and Hardouin being 'in agreement' to simply 'skip' the Paris agglomeration in favour of the 'metropolitan area'? Excuse me - all this is too much to swallow. THEPROMENADER 14:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
There was never any question of any timeline on the forum postings - what was written and by who, yes. I already mentioned the verified Hardouin IP. I'm not 'imagining scenarios'; I'm simply commenting on what I see before me. This is getting pretty "Twilight Zone", isn't it? THEPROMENADER 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow. My ten second investigation then ten minute cut and paste you mean. I mean really - just look at all the coincidences - what could you think in my place, especially in light of the past 'puppetry for consensus' - for exactly the same topic? I told you that all will become clear through the editing - and this I'm beginning to see. THEPROMENADER 16:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Double-wow, it's too bad that it had to be yet another discord, Metropolitan, that would finally convince me that you are indeed not Hardouin - but hay. I offer you my official heartfealt apology. I hope though that you understand how preceding events have corrupted the editing process (and atmosphere) on the Paris page, and that even today I am still unable to unknit the absolutely incredible mix of coincidences (duo ISP, 'two user on on log' in that forum where I could nowhere detect any mention of a duo/male user, user page title, edit tone and timing...). I consider it water under the bridge now, and I don't hold grudges.
PS: I left (will leave) a message concerning the plan on the Paris page - but just let me say here that I couldn't have any idea how much work you had to do - for me (and Illustrator) importing, changing (same color) objects and scaling is a simple affair. That program cost me the 'skin off my bum'. THEPROMENADER 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
PPS: I suggest we clean up our respective talk pages as well as the Paris page. I'll wait for your word on this though. THEPROMENADER 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ThePromenader's paranoia

I just read your message. Unfortunately ThePromenader is a bit of a paranoid guy. I have seen him online for 5 months now, so I know a bit about his psychology. He has already accused me of using other IP addresses before, so there's nothing surprising about his latest accusation. Basically, from what I see on the Paris talk page, you agree with me on the main points (and you expressed very well some of the things I wasn't able to express clearly so far, such as the high density of Paris suburbs), so obviously in his mind you can only be me, because he thinks he is so right that it is unconceivable that two different people could disagree with him. Psychologists must have a name for that kind of personality disorder. My advice: just ignore his accusations, he's unreasonable (on ne peut pas le raisoner!), and come check the Paris article frequently to correct his biased edits whenever it's necessary. As soon as the article is unblocked, I bet he is going to edit the article a lot again (that's what he has done for the past 5 months). You're right when you say that some people living inside Paris intra-muros have this strange vision that Paris ends at the Périphérique and everything beyond the Périphérique is totally different from Paris. ThePromenader is one of them, and he wants to impose his vision on the Paris article. I object to that, and probably that's why he's so mad at me, and at you now. Hardouin 22:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL - All I've done is ask for fact and references - which you have yet to give. Facts and events add up and together they spell something - I don't invent them. I don't call wanting to re-publish encyclopaedia references a 'vision'. If you'd like to spend your time in a better way, you've got Paris talk page questions to answer. FWIW, I get angry when I my edits are reverted in favour of the very fictitious statistics I was trying to correct - but I'm not at all angry now. Goodnight. THEPROMENADER 22:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris public transports infobox

About the Paris public transports infobox, I don't know if it's a good idea to make the Orlyval so appearant in the table. Orlyval is a very minor aspect of Paris public transports, that's why I had put it down at the end of the infobox. Hardouin 22:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Portal question

Hello, Metropolitan. Could you explain why you cut and copied one phrase (and nothing else) from the Paris introduction to the Paris Portal introduction, the very same phrase edited by me and reverted by Hardouin, down to its repetitive English and doubtful statistic - even down to its 'source' number, when none exists? Thanks. THEPROMENADER 08:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I've copied the paragraph from the Paris page because I think that paragraph explains better what the situation is all about. I believe it's objectively speaking the best description we can make of it. Metropolitan 16:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I think your choice and timing could have been better, don't you think? THEPROMENADER 21:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Intro

Thanks for not reverting. It's pretty simple - the intro as it was had info like 'most visited city' mixed in with the statistical business/wealth GDP statistics, for example... this sort of 'subject flopping' is hard for a reader to follow. I rearranged the phrases existing into a "What it is, how big it is, what it is known for, what its modern role is" flow. This is what I meant by 'flow of coherence' - one subject leads to the other without switching back and forth.

I did cut again the commuter belt info - it is excessive for an introduction to an article on the city of Paris (I am not alone in this), and this information is repeated elsewhere in the article. In fact, were it were only up to me, the intro would describe Paris' 'sizes' in area, not population. The part I did rewrite resembles (almost too much) a similar passage in the 2006 Encyclopaedia Britannica. I hope there's nothing wrong with this. My goal was making an improvement, and I hope I have done so.

THEPROMENADER 17:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: As for reverting - this is not a good practice for anything not vandalism, so examples set by certain others shouldn't be followed! Reverting whole passages (especially for one's own former edit) can be corrupting to the editing process. Speaking for myself, the only reverts I have ever made were to reverts themselves - or reinstating reverted edits made by myself and/or others. My only goal for the Paris page is raising it to featured status, and it has been a chore. I hope you will help in that. Take care.

THEPROMENADER 18:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

(scratching head) I don't really understand your attachment to Hardouin's phrase - you have reinstated it to the letter. In addition to the reasons I stated above, I changed this phrase for other reasons :
"The city of Paris within its administrative limits has an estimated mid-2004 population of 2,144,700[1], but over the last century the city has grown well beyond its administrative boundaries: "
...its pure clunkiness. "Administrative limits" and "administrative boundaries" means the same thing, so this is badly-written repetition.
"...and the population of Paris metropolitan area (including satellite cities) is estimated at 11.6 million people in 2006[3]"
...we are now three on the talk page to agree that the source cited above is not valid, and that the INSEE is the only valid source for such info. The last INSEE AU numbers date from 1999. I for one do not see the need for such info, as Paris' commuter belt statistics are much less important to it than many of the world's other major cities. Backwards, yes, but reality.
Finally, as a whole, this phrase is arranged to suggest that the statistical urban area and metropolitan area are the city of Paris too - they aren't. Paris is a much smaller centre of all this, and my version of this phrase made this fact quite clear. Paris has conservative borders, perhaps, but we are here to define reality through fact. I will not modify your re-insertions, but I hope you will see the reason in the above and make the needed corrections yourself.
THEPROMENADER 19:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
And again, as Hardouin, I notice that you are editing only that which I edit, but otherwise leaving the page's many other faults unchanged. Perhaps you could look to these too? THEPROMENADER 19:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: I've moved this last bit to the Paris talk Page, as it concerns the article. With or without the commuter belt info, this phrase must be fixed. THEPROMENADER 21:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Metropolitan, did you not read anything I left here or on the Paris talk page? Once again I am astounded at the similarities of your editing habits and those of another contributor - you didn't even leave an answer to any of the questions raised. Please do so - or correct your errors, or allow others to correct them for you. THEPROMENADER 02:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
ADDED - wait a second, false alarm. There was a bit of a mix-up on the Paris talk page - it is a good idea to log in before editing. I will restore your message there, but I still think you should fix the above. THEPROMENADER 02:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could see to some of the questions I brought up on the Paris talk page - I don't see how you can just ignore these as they are real issues that need correcting. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 21:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing Mix

Metropolitan,

Thanks for the Paris page correction - just wished you had cut the dubious source as well. I can see to this if you don't have the time.

It seems we are 'crossing edits' - I had no sooner begun toying with a 'physical description' section in User:Green Giant's Paris sandbox page when I see that you had added info along the same lines to the Paris article. Perhaps on the side, but In that same description I noted that Paris has very few skyscrapers, and I see that earlier today you have begun a Tallest buildings and structures in Paris article (which, by the looks of the article, should be called Tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region. This is an odd and unfortunate coincidence as, should I publish this fact, a layman reading both articles would see two totally opposing realities. If you want to avoid this sort of mix-up, the 'user contributors' feature is a good tool for seeing what others are doing (and have done) on the same articles and subjects. I would not have begun any skyscraper article though : )

As for my 'physical description' experiment, I'm not sure what to do, as although I would like to continue experimenting in a 'physical description' vein that I think it would be a pedogogical plus (and a simplification) to the Paris article, the idea of a pending edit conflict takes a lot of the fun out of it. For this it would be better to have your reassurance that you see what I am working on - thanks. THEPROMENADER 04:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris transport infobox

I see you've applied my shiny new infobox to the list of RER stations page. I've been trying to find instances of the big infobox dump that used to be on all the non-métro/non-RER transport mode pages, but I don't think I've found them all. Wikipedia's search functionality is proving useless once more. If you find any more, do replace them. bz2 12:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris themes

Metropolitan, I have answered your comments both at Economy of Paris and Réseau Nord. Have a look. I would also like to let you know about ThePromenader's latest action: this guy has started a Paris metropolitan area article, and he is intending to move all the metropolitan area information that is currently inside the Paris article to this newly created Paris metropolitan area article. ThePromenader has an agenda, and he's methodically pushing his agenda: presenting Paris as a small city of 2 million, a touristic and artistic city, a bit Amélie like, in any case not a major world metropolis, with no skyscrapers at all (he loves to say Paris can't be compared with North-American metropolises), etc., etc. I am really fed up with this guy, as I have seen him acting for months and months now. If he has it his way, he will move all information regarding suburbs and metropolitan area to the Paris metropolitan area article, and the Paris article will be focussed on the administrative city of Paris only. I totally disagree with this. Paris is not like NYC or Berlin. In the case of Paris, the administrative city is not representative of the real city as it is experienced by most people. Paris is more like Sydney or Brussels, where the administrative city is very small, and people think in terms of metro area rather than administrative city. So if we absolutely need to have two separate articles, I propose we do the same as Sydney (check Sydney and City of Sydney). Instead of having a Paris article devoted to the administrative city only and then a separate Paris metropolitan area article, I propose instead to leave Paris as a generic article talking of not just the city proper but also the whole metropolitan area (same as for Sydney), and then create a specific City of Paris article that would be devoted to the administrative city proper (same as City of Sydney). Then ThePromenader can write all he wishes to in the City of Paris article. What do you think? Hardouin 22:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, you never cease to amaze me - you are predjudicially wrong on all counts. We were actually two to decide on the new article, and this is reserved for metropolitan area info only - nothing else. I have no 'agenda', I will only publish here what appears in standardized and reknown references, and I'm sorry if these don't reflect your POV that the Paris AU should be called simply 'Paris'. I have to chuckle at your insinuation that I 'move the suburbs' - and on this note, you are the one reverting any attempt I make to bring attention to Paris as an agglomeration - this is an important to Paris. Why do you insist on effacing any clear information on all that concerns Paris' borders and the edges of its commuter belt? This is just silly nonsense. As for your proposition, even if it is in defiance of reality and all existing references, why are you not proposing it on the Paris talk page? THEPROMENADER 10:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: Metropolitan, sorry to answer this here? Not sure where would have been better though. THEPROMENADER 10:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forums

Yes, I have discovered these forums two weeks ago actually, but I haven't participated yet, because, well, I have nothing to say. lol. I am not aware of the latest updates, and there are users who seem to be better informed than me, particularly about latest developments. I check the forums to keep myself updated of recent developments actually. On a side note, I note that there is a more international forum at skyscraperpage.com, but Parisian skyscrapers are seldom talked about over there. Maybe you and the other people in the forums you mentioned could open some threads at skyscraperpage.com to address a wider audience. I note that in their Paris and La Défense diagram they do not show the new Axa tower, neither do they mention the new La Défense 2015 skyscrapers that have been anounced. Compare this with the London or Shanghai diagrams where they show every skyscraper that is planned (even the one that will not get built in the end). And I can't help noticing that in their "The 33 World Buildings Poster" they don't even represent the Eiffel Tower! Hardouin 12:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris map

About your map, I think it would be more readable if the forests were in a much lighter green. Only the built-up areas should have a darker color. Forests and fields should be in very light colors. The limit between forests and fields will be less visible, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is that the limit between built-up and non-built up is very neat. Also, I think I already told you that some weeks ago, but to me your first version of the map was much better (despite the fact that forests weren't shown) because it clearly showed that Ile-de-France is covered with built-up areas through and through. On voyait bien que tout le territoire de la région est "mité" par l'urbanisation. Now it seems that beyond the limits of the statistical unité urbaine there are almost only fields and forests. Do you see what I mean? In particular, if you look at the area between Saint Quentin en Yvelines and Mantes la Jolie, in your first version there were lots of built-up areas, but now they have almost entirely disapeared. Is there a way you can better display the built-up areas that are spread throughout the region? I wish I could help, but I can't, as I don't have the proper softwares at the moment. Hardouin 14:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris transport infobox

Can you have a look at Template:Infobox Paris Network main content? The infobox is totally silly now: Captain Scarlet keeps adding the five réseaux articles (long haul service) in the infobox, which makes no sense for an infobox devoted to LOCAL transportation. Hardouin 18:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed this before. You insist on keeping your inacurate system whilst I insist on keeping SNCF's actual organisational structure of services. Since you do not talk with any members trying to resolve any issues even though I have repeatedly asked to work with me on a compromise I accept you adding Trasnilien back while waiting for a definite system to be put into place. By systematically deleting SNCF IDF you are imposing your PoV which is hat Wikipedia is not. I am not adding my content but reverting your vandalism. I have no problem with having both schemes for the time beeing as long as you do not impose yours. I cannot and will not let one individual impose something that is completely and utterly false, try to remain impartial. Regards, Captain Scarlet 18:29 24 March (GMT)
Just who do you think you are modifying my newly created template ? You impose your style on any article you contribute to, you impose your Pov on any article you contribute. Template talk:Infobox Paris Network main content real is not your template nor do you use it! Discussion and debate has started on the arbitration page and we will see the result, until then you can lay your hands of each and every article, this is not your Wikipedia. For the record, even when editing unlogged you may spell my pseudonym properly. Captain Scarlet 21:39 24 March 2006 (GMT)

Metropolitan, did you notice that Captain Scarlet created Template:Infobox Paris Network main content real which he added to Template:Infobox Paris Network generic? That's a rather sneaky way to bypass your watch at Template:Infobox Paris Network main content. I have corrected it, but you better keep an eye on it. Hardouin 00:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have just discovered that Captain Scarlet also created this template: Template:SNCF, which doesn't make much sense to me. Sigh... Hardouin 00:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have, this is so I don't have to have any properly edited articles conflicting with you little buddy mafia who exclude any other editors from what you consider your article. I'm not surprised it doesn't make much sence to you, nothing much does hence we're in this awful situation of you vandalising and making articles you own. Let's see what you do when I start on the Metro. If you have anything against the newly created templates, maybe you would like to vandalise them too ? and my profile page and everything else I edit? Metropolitain had a vague sentiment of trying to settle for something but it transpired he is just as vicious as you. You two 'editors' distgust me. Captain Scarlet 00:11 25 March 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Paris introduction

Metropolitan, have you had a look at what's left in Paris introduction? What do you think? So much has been removed from the introduction, it's ridiculous. There's not even a word about the number of inhabitants anymore, unlike with all other city articles. I commented about it on Paris's talk page, have a look. What I find particularly annoying about this article is that so many people who know nothing (or very little) about Paris or France edit the article daily. Perhaps it would be good to gather people who know Paris well and are willing to contribute, if you know any. The Frankfurt article, for instance, was written by a group of German Wikipedians who know Frankfurt very well. Hardouin 21:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...Curious...

So, from your posts at Talk:Tallest structures in Paris, do you live in Paris? Or near it? can you speak french or any other languages? I'm, just curious. → J@red talk+ ubx  21:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I live near Hartford, Connecticut, United States (so I naturally speak english). I take French in school, however, so I could probably fair a decent conversation with a frenchman/woman. :-) Joyeux April Fools Day! → J@red talk+ ubx  14:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I think you are allowed to vote, since you weren't the one who nominated it. It seems right, if that's what you feel.
Regarding the hist/diff thing, I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about because my computer doesn't make a pop-up when I click on the link; it just goes right to the page. So I'm not sure how to help you there. Sorry. → J@red  02:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments needed

Metropolitan, can you comment on Talk:Paris? I am tired of being alone in trying to tell Promenader he's wrong. The latest thing, Promenader deleted statistics info regarding the whole agglomeration from the demographics section, and left only a paragraph saying that Paris is a city of 2 million people in deindustrialisation and in decline. The funniest thing: he now wrote that yes, Île-de-France is in decline, and it is rivalled by.... Rhône-Alpes! Can you please leave a comment on Paris talk page? You know that if I am the only one telling Promenader he's totally off the mark, people who know nothing about France will not know who is right and who is wrong. Hardouin 12:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random question

Hey. I was just wondering (since you live in Paris): my french teacher said once that if you are standing at a certain point on the Champs-Elysée and are looking toward La Défense, you will see that the Arc de Triomphe fits directly in the center of the Arche de Défense, sort of like a box in a box. Is this true? And if so, where must you stand to see this phenominon? Thanks. → J@red  14:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

Metropolitan, I uploaded the new logos of Île-de-France région and Auvergne région (Image:IDF logo.gif and Image:Logo-auvergne3.png), unfortunately I was unable to make the background transparent, due to my software limitations. Is there a way you could make the background of these two logos transparent? For an example of what I mean, check Nord-Pas de Calais: here, as you can see, the logo has a transparent background, so it displays nicely in the infobox. Hardouin 13:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Congratulations Metropolitan, on Tallest structures in Paris becoming a featured list. Keep up the good work. :) Green Giant 22:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your question

I live in London actually. I lived in Paris from 1995 to 2000. Back then I was living near Odéon metro station, in the 6th arrondissement, but I also explored the suburbs a lot during my time in Paris. In my life I have lived in several major world cities both in Europe, The Americas, and Asia as well, so I guess it gives me some perspective and interesting insight about Paris metropolitan area and its place in the global world. Hardouin 15:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(scratching head, after posting below) It's not at all important where one posts from, but I find your 'London residence' claim puzzling, Hardouin - on three occasions, the latest very recently, your IP has traced to a noos.fr antenna in the Paris suburbs. I don't think Bluetooth or WiFi can reach that far : ) THEPROMENADER 09:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economy Edit

Metropolitan, please don't continue to introduce ambiguity into the previously clear descriptions of what is Paris and its surrounding area. Your edits are fine, but the 'Paris region' info must be re-introduced. THEPROMENADER 08:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Finally I only changed the second 'paris economy' reference to 'industry in the Paris region'. The first 'Paris economy' is fine as it is used in a generalistic way, but the second reference I changed to a) eliminate repetition and b) give the layman reader a cocluding scope of the area we're talking about - Paris on a map extends only as far as Paris, and we're talking larger than that here. Trust me, it is subtle details like this that make the difference between a widely comprehensive article and one targeted to those already familiar with its subject matter. THEPROMENADER 08:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
My dumb. "Industry" when used as an adjective (like "car industry" or "tourist industry") works fine in that context, but true that "industry" alone doesn't fit. It's obvious that I've been living here too long. Thanks for seeing to the other points though. THEPROMENADER 14:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:RER sign.png

I have added a deletion notice to Image:RER sign.png as:

  • the image was uploaded without my accord
  • I now upload media to the Commons not the regional Wikipedae
  • License used on Image:RER sign.png is in dissagreement with licenses I use for mediaq of my composition.

I have uploaded the image onto the commons so when the image on en:wikipedia is deleted, no pages will lose information. Regards, Captain scarlet 19:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry about it. According to our little chat on the discussion page, I thought you agreed in adding it. I've made a mistake. Metropolitan 11:48 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That's ok, i should hav e been clearer. From what I've seen, the image on EN has been deleted and since I have uploaded the image onto the Commons, it's all good ! Cheers, Captain scarlet 11:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ThePromenader's latest trick

Please have a look here and here. ThePromenader is trying to change the infobox for French cities and replace it with an infobox of his own making. He sent messages to several people to let them know, but didn't send a message to either you or me, and so I just found out tonight about his sneaky move. What do you think of that? Acting in people's back...

In his new infobox with which he proposes to replace the current infobox, he removed most of the information about metropolitan areas, leaving only city information. I already left a message at Talk:Paris to express my disagreement. Communes in France are very small and do not really reflect the size of French cities, so it is important to also include metropolitan area information in the infoboxes. I also noticed that Promenader added urban area population figures is his new infobox, which is only going to confuse people and is not very meaningfull compared to the metropolitan area population figures. Please express yourself in the talk pages if you wish to. Hardouin 23:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan, you should know that the Paris infobox is at risk of being removed by Promenader any day now. If you don't say anything, there's nothing that I can do alone. Captain Scarlet (whom you already know...) wrote a message on Paris talk page to say he agreed with Metropolitan new infobox (of course!), so Promenader now says it's enough that two people want to change the infobox to change it. Unfortunately there are very few people who are familiar with French communes and how small they are, so I doubt anyone is going to tell Promenader that his change is wrong. Hardouin 21:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
What did you expect ? I made my point in the article and it is clear. Captain scarlet 21:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] commons

Hi!

Is there a reason why your wonderful paris metro maps aren't on commons?

Currently most are duplicated on regional wikis, that's a shame for space and updates...

Could you please move them to (or tag them to move to) commons?

(or i could do some myself if needed)

Regards,

Gonioul 02:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris stations' names

Metropolitan, I noticed Captain Scarlet is in the process of moving many Paris stations' articles to new names including the word "gare". For example he moved Cergy – Préfecture (SNCF) to Gare de Cergy - Préfecture. Check also Gare de Saint Germain-en-Laye. What do you think about that? It makes no sense to add the word "gare" to every station of the RER and Transilien network. We should add the word "gare" only when it is officially part of the name of the station, such as is the case with "Gare de Lyon" or "Gare d'Austerlitz". With Cergy – Préfecture and Saint-Germain-en-Laye, the word "gare" is not officially part of the name and does not appear on maps of the RER or Transilien. Please have a look. By the way, did you also have a look at Talk:Paris#Infobox streamlining ? Hardouin 11:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Bless you Hardouin... I have explained why to you, but I will happily explain to you as well Metropolitain, this will also benefit ThePromenadeur.
  1. St Germain Gde Ceinture is an article for the whole history of the station, not just the narrow Transilien scope of things. So there is no reason to have SNCF, RER, if anything it ought ot be Ouest or Etat. This is true for St Germain Gde Ceinture and St Germain en Laye stations. Articles are more than the last 20 years of history.
  2. The three stations in Cergy were devoid of any information other than it's a station so took it upon myself to actually add information and move the three articles to their proper name. The stations are served by suburban trains as well as the RER, so one cannot add the suffix SNCF or RATP or RER to the end of the articles. Gare de is text often if not almost always fixed to the front of station or in white writing on blue Transilien flags along with the green leaf. You will notice that there is a photograph of St Ouen's Eglise station which bares this label. This is not only valid for provincial stations but for IDF stations and Parisian stations (Cergy is not in Paris btw).
  3. Maps never use the word gare as they are maps of stations... Gare is used on the station front and not usually on platforms. You will notice that in Cergy le Haut's glass passenger building to the left hand side of the main entrance. Or at St Ouen l'Aumône to the right hand side of the maisonette next to the level crossing arm.
  4. The use of long dashes is another matter which you seem to have at heart, using non standard caracters which are a pain when seazrching on the Internet and at best confuse browsers and Internet users. I have been on both the SNCF and the RATP websites and both of them have the same naming scheme, SNCF and RATP.
  5. French, Suomi, Dutch and Polish articles of french stations all use the same naming scheme, the one I'm proposing. It is a matter of consistency.
I have proposed this naming scheme as it is the most sensible and rational way of naming french railway stations. I hope that both you can see the reason behind it and why it is probably the best alternative at least for the time being and I am not trying to wind any of your two up, or anyone else with this renaming.

[edit] Paris infobox

Here's the message I left on every talkpage containing the 'Large French Cities' infobox:
As a result of some discussion over the past weeks, there is an updated template available for perusal in its 'published ' form (filled with data) here - all comments welcome.

PS: Sorry I missed you the first time around.

-- THEPROMENADER 07:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little Train gift

You who likes Paris train lines - I made a contribution to the Transilien talk page, but not the article itself - only reference material. Enjoy. THEPROMENADER 20:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Demography insert

It's been quite some time that we left off working on slimming down that 'demography' template for the Paris page - you were the leader in that project so I'd like to ask you about it. I've found time to tweak my version of the demography map over the past couple days (gone, the 'schmoozy' colours), as well as trying to slim down the table (by moving every 'km²' on every line into a single one in the header, for example). Still not sure how to present clearly the "inner ring" and "outer ring" ... a different coloration perhaps? Already a lot of info there. Anyhow, please leave a word about your thoughts on this - and ideas if you have any! THEPROMENADER 21:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris infobox

Metropolitan, je suis assez étonné que tu ne te sois pas exprimé à Talk:Paris au sujet de la controverse sur la nouvelle infobox que propose User:ThePromenader. A part toi, je ne vois pas grand monde dans les parages qui connaisse vraiment Paris et les statistiques INSEE pour pouvoir répondre à Promenader, donc je me sens bien seul. Pour couronner le tout, Promenader a officiellement déposé une plainte contre moi (voir: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hardouin) et à écrit à des tas de gens des messages calomnieux sur mon compte (regarde par exemple: User talk:Olivier#Reverts by User:Hardouin). Tu as déjà échangé des messages avec Promenader dans le passé, alors tu sais bien de quoi il est capable. Là il prétend à nouveau que l'aire urbaine de Paris est un concept fantaisiste qui ne peut en rien se comparer aux metropolitan areas, et il a décidé de supprimer pas mal d'information sur les aires urbaines que j'avais mises dans les infoboxes, et à la place il a ajouté des informations concernant les unités urbaines, parce que d'après lui les unités urbaines font plus sens que les aires urbaines. C'est complètement idiot bien sûr, et j'ai même fourni des preuves venant de l'INSEE qui montrent que l'INSEE utilise désormais uniquement le concept d'aire urbaine dans ses analyses, mais ça ne sert à rien. Tu connais Promenader, il est très TRES difficile de le faire changer d'avis.

Il y a quelques temps tu avais échangé des messages avec lui sur Talk:Paris dans lesquels tu désapprouvais sa façon de voir les aires urbaines, et je m'étonne que tu ne dises plus rien maintenant. Crois-moi, tout ça me fatigue autant que toi sûrement, mais avec un type comme lui, si on la ferme, il prend le dessus et impose ses vues. Il est donc plus que souhaitable que tu t'exprimes à Talk:Paris si tu es en désaccord avec la nouvelle infobox de Promenader. Je te mets ci-dessous l'infobox qui a existé depuis plus d'un an maintenant, et à sa droite l'infobox de Promenader. Malheureusement, je n'ai pas le talent manoeuvrier de Promenader, lui il a l'air de connaître toutes les règles subtiles de Wikipedia et sait comment s'en servir, donc il a réussi à supprimer l'infobox de gauche et à mettre son infobox de droite à la place, en plus en obtenant qu'on me bloque mon compte pendant 24 heures parce que j’avais osé retirer son infobox en attendant qu'on trouve un consensus! C'est très frustrant de voir des agissements pareils.

Comme tu peux le constater, l'infobox de Promenader (à droite) passe presque sous silence l'aire urbaine, qui n'est mentionnée qu'en toute dernière ligne. Surtout, il introduit les chiffres de l'unité urbaine, ce qui crée beaucoup de confusion je trouve (tout le monde n'est pas au courant de la subtilité des différences entre "urban area" et "metro area"). Si tu n'as pas le coeur de lire tous mes messages à Talk:Paris, je te fais un rapide résumé de tout ce que j'ai dit. D'abord et surtout, aucune autre infobox sur Wikipedia ne contient les chiffres des "urban area". Regarde NYC ou Berlin ou Montreal, on a "city population" et "metro area population". Alors pourquoi est-ce que les grandes villes françaises devraient avoir en plus "urban area" population? Juste pour satisfaire Promenader qui considère que l'aire urbaine est un concept inapproprié? C'est le comble du POV! Imagine une seconde si je décidais de complètement changer l'infobox de NYC, et que je rajoutais "urban area population: 17 million" en disant que les 21 million de la "metro area" c'est vraiment un chiffre exagéré. Et pourtant c'est ce que Promenader a fait avec Paris. Je ne comprends pas ce besoin qu'il a de constamment rabaisser Paris. Ça me dépasse. Au début si tu te souviens bien il voulait seulement qu'on dise que Paris est une ville de 2 million d'habitants et basta. Il a fallu des semaines d'argumentation pour qu'il accepte enfin qu'on parle de toute l'agglomération. Maintenant, apparemment les 11 millions de l'aire urbaine c'est trop pour lui, donc il préfère les 9 millions de l'unité urbaine. C'est lamentable...

Pour continuer à résumer la talk page, Promenader prétend que l'unité urbaine est la vraie représentation de Paris, alors que l'aire urbaine c'est essentiellement de la campagne d'après lui. Je crois que là tu pourrais lui expliquer, moi il ne m'écoute plus, que quand on franchit les limites de l'unité urbaine de Paris, on atterrit pas en pays rural, mais en fait on trouve des dizaines et des dizaines d'unités urbaines dans la couronne péri-urbaine. Il a cette vision que tout dans la couronne péri-urbaine est campagne. C'est absurde. En plus il ne se rend pas compte que l'unité urbaine est assez réductrice. Par exemple, si tu prends Goussainville (env. 30.000 habitants) près de Roissy, cette commune ne se trouve pas dans l'unité urbaine de Paris. Goussainville est une unité urbaine à soi tout seul, et pourtant quasiment tout le monde considérerait Goussainville comme une banlieue de Paris. La même chose avec Savigny-le-Temple (25.000 habitants) dans la ville nouvelle de Melun-Sénart, qui ne fait pas partie de l'unité urbaine de Paris. Bien sûr Promenader n'est pas au courant de toutes ces subtilités, d'ailleurs ce n'est pas étonnant puisqu'il n'est pas un spécialiste des statistiques et écrit en amateur.

En plus de ce problème fondamental de non-compréhension de ce qu'est une aire urbaine, la nouvelle infobox proposée par Promeander est vraiment pas très bien formatée comparé à celle de gauche, tu trouves pas? Et puis pourquoi avoir une catégorie "Urban spread" à part, comme si quelque part il fallait vraiment montrer que la banlieue ce n'est pas, ça ne sera jamais Paris, mais que ça n'est qu'une sorte d'excroissance. Bravo le POV! Absolument aucune autre infobox sur Wikipidia ne contient de catégorie "Urban spread". Finalement, pourquoi a-t-il choisi de nouvelles cartes, comme si les cartes qu'on avait déjà n'étaient pas suffisantes? Non seulement ses nouvelles cartes sont moins claire je trouve, mais en plus certaines sont tout simplement fausses, comme celle ci-dessous par exemple: regarde comme Paris a été placé au sud de Mantes-la-Jolie.

Bon, désolé pour le long message, mais si je veux bien expliquer tout en détail y'a pas moyen de faire court. Encore une fois, participe si tu es en désaccord avec les choix et les erreurs de l'infobox de Promenader. Tout seul je ne peux absolument rien faire car il est très facile pour Promenader de me faire passer pour un ringard refusant le changement. Aussi prise de tête et frustrant que ça puisse être de devoir argumenter avec quelqu'un qui ne veut rien écouter, on a pas le choix il faut quand même lui répondre et démonter ses arguments à Talk:paris si on ne veut pas que ce type impose ses vues biaisées sur un sujet dont il n'est même pas spécialiste. Hardouin 23:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Large French Cities Template:Major French Cities


J'ai vu ton message à Talk:Paris. Malheureusement le problème va bien au delà d'une simple carte. Regarde Lille par exemple. Si tu regardes dans l'historique de l'article, tu trouveras l'infobox qui se trouvais dans l'article jusqu'à la semaine dernière, avant que Promenader ne la supprime pour la remplacer par sa nouvelle infobox. L'infobox indiquait clairement que Lille est la 4è plus grande aire urbaine de France. Désormais, l'infobox de Promenader, qui a supprimé la catégorie "Metropolitan area", mentionne que Lille est seulement la 10è plus grande ville de France, ce qui est bien sûr ridicule. Un bel exemple d'information vraie (la commune de Lille n'est que la 10è plus peuplée de France) mais complètement biaisée. Un autre exemple: l'infobox mentionnait à la fois le nom de Martine Aubry et de Pierre Mauroy, qui sont les deux dirigeants de Lille, l'une est maire, l'autre est président de l'intercommunalité. Maintenant, avec la nouvelle infobox de Lille le nom de Pierre Mauroy a disparu, ce qui est logique puisque Promenader insiste que l'infobox ne devrait faire référence qu'à la commune. Résultat, on donne une information tronquée aux gens. Dans de nombreux cas en effet, c'est le président de l'intercommunalité qui a plus de pouvoirs que le maire. Hardouin 17:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, je viens juste de me rendre compte que Promenader a mis une citation sur Talk:Paris qu'il prétend être tiré d'un forum dans lequel tu participes et dans laquelle on te mêt en cause. Tu ferais mieux de vérifier si c'est vrai. Hardouin 17:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, have to answer this one. I actually appreciate Metropolitan's participation and am doing my best to convince him. The site was one he told me about, and I learned much in reading there, so if anything, I have thanks to give. As for suggesting on someone's talk page that another is 'against' him and seeks to debase him, when nothing of the sort is true... if there is a word suitable for this, but I need not mention it here. As for comments on anything editorial, I'll save them for the Talk:Paris page, where they are supposed to be.THEPROMENADER 20:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:About France team formation

Ok, if you can find a reputable source that agrees with what you put the formation as, by all means replace it, but leave the link above it where the one for sports illustrated is now. There was a problem with people coming on, adding what they thought was the best french team (i.e. messing about with what was there to their liking) and when it was challenged getting all uppety about giving insights into the coaches mind and arguing about the best team and things. So I said you can't put up a formation unless you can cite it, which worked all right, only one guy could find a source to cite so that was that. I'm sorry if your team was from the FFF website, but you left no indication of that, and your edit summary, to me at least, gave the impression you had just made it up. So if you can find a reasonable basis for your edit, please do put it back. Sorry. ;-) Philc TECI 00:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Mr X? Philc TECI 00:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Île-de-France

Feel free to comment at Talk:Île-de-France (région). Promenader claims that nobody in France refers to Île-de-France as "l'agglomération parisienne". He also claims that (I quote) " the French never use even the French equivalent of "metropolitan area" ". And so he wants to delete from the article the following sentence: "Its territory corresponds for the most part to the metropolitan area of Paris." Hardouin 19:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I just discovered the latest controversy at List of tallest structures in Paris. I see Promenader is on the rampage again. As you can imagine, I fully support your revert. I read you're thinking of leaving Wikipedia due to Promenader's attitude. I can only beg you not to leave Wikipedia. You're one of the few people around knowledgeable enough about Paris to be able to reply to Promenader's crazy claims. Please don't give in to his uncompromising attitude, as this is just what he's expecting. Again, I highly recommend you leave a comment at Talk:Île-de-France after Promenader's last message there. Hardouin 15:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of tallest structures...

I don't mind at all discussing what could be a fitting title for that article, I am open to all suggestions, and I would even like to leave it to you alone to decide would you be so kind. What I do not want to do is leave the article in its present state without any further discussion - especially after your reverting every single one of my edits without even attempting to justify your act with referenced works. Such acts often result in reactions negative, but from me you'll get nothing of the kind: just rest assured that this issue now has my full attention, and that I would like it to end - in referenced fact. THEPROMENADER 16:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: And it's odd to see that you and Hardouin seem to be in opposition in this matter: now that I've all those "Tallest structures" pages on my watchlist, I see that he's been running around adding "metropolitan area" to "tallest structures in..." in many articles, which goes quite against what you stated earlier. Not that I mind in thiss issue, although it does seem a bit odd. I do hope we can come to a decision soon.
Regards, THEPROMENADER 16:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I left new word on the List of tallest structures in Paris - I have asked a few pointed questions there. Should you be unable to provide any referenced answer, I will be reinstating the corrections you quite inappropriately reverted as "vandalism". You've got the week. THEPROMENADER 10:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Promenader, seting ultimatum is not gonna help. I will support Metropolitan on this. You cannot bully each and everyone. Hardouin 22:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you've both wasted enough of everybody's time here. We both know what is or isn't "in Paris", and even in spite of obvious fact it's been almost a week since I've asked for a citation from even one mainstream reference stating that La Défense|Courbevoie etc is "in Paris". Asking for reference is hardly 'bullying' so please save the insinuations. You can't claim 'consensus' on proven untruth - Wiki has never claimed any desire to be a ship of fools - I suggest you look under your next contrbution as you type it, and contribute according to the requirements stated there. Thank you.THEPROMENADER 23:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If you guys are still arguying about this poxy metropolitan area you've got to stop. This page already states that localities, buildings and things in general should be mentionned to be in an administrative area: e.g. Paris is in Ile de France, or L'Esterel is in the Alpes Maritimes. That argument about a totally subjective notion is pointless and detracts the point of editing and adding stuff.
Oh, and... ENJOY. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A sense of proportion

Metropolitan, you need to keep a sense of proportion. There are 11 people who agree with the current title, and only 3 users who disagree. So there is certainly not a "huge disagreement". It's not because one user (ThePromenader) spends all his days writing lengthy messages and complaining that it means there's a "huge disagreement". It just means that *one* user strongly objects to the title, but apart from him, john k, and Captain scarlet, the vast majority of people think the current title is fine. By pandering to Promenader, you are creating even more mess. Tu donnes une prime au plus chieur, if I may say.

Besides, I am not sure you fully understand the meaning of "vicinity". Vicinity doesn't mean suburbs, it means an area or a region near something else. "Paris and vicinity" could be translated as "Paris et environs", "Paris et alentours", "Paris et région avoisinante". It's a description that may have befitted Paris and its suburbs in 1850, but not in 2000. In 1850, yes, English speaking people would have no doubt said that Saint-Cloud or Saint-Germain-en-Laye where "in the vicinity of Paris", but today to say that they are in the vicinity of Paris sounds a bit strange. It's a bit like saying that Brooklin is in the vicinity of New York. Hardouin 18:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, I have to grow a little tired of seeing a single contributor's messages about myself on other people's talk pages, especially when those messages are a manipulative attempt at denigrating reality, fact and other contributors to the end of promoting preserving a quite personal agenda. At least four of us are 100% clear about what the fact of the matter is, but only one has the gall and the mauvaise foi extraordinare to continue a blinkered resistance to fact beyond any recuperable boundaries and at any cost. We all know who that contributor is.
I know exactly where you two are coming from with your misgivings with Paris' backwards and conservative borders, but this is not an excuse to make reality seem anything else than what it is. If Paris' growth has surpassed anything definable as simply "Paris", then there is nothing wrong with using a more accurate term to represent this growth. Intelligent people are quite capable of understanding when explained that Paris is only a cookie-cutter circle only 1/26th of the agglomeration's real size - in fact, not explaining this to them clearly is taking them for idiots. Insinuation and misleading information is also a complete waste of time for the simple reason that readers will be sure to find the truth of the matter elsewhere, and such behaviour paints both readers and writers of such information as idiots.
If anything, Metropolitan is worthy of respect for his decision - it takes guts, especially after being the one to draw the line in the sand, to see and admit that there is a better way. Lastly, there is no sides in this; there is only fact, and this is very reason we are here. Thank you, Metropolitan. thepromenader 22:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
PS: Hardouin, Brooklyn is in New York. thepromenader 22:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Son of "Tallest structures"

Metropolitan,

After a moment's more hesitation about official geographical namespaces, I can agree to a new "in the Paris area" name. At least it's factual. If you consider the INSEE an "official" organisation, then I suppose you can consider "Paris area" as an official translation of "aire urbaine de Paris" - at least this is how they translate in their online English documentation.

How should we go about implementing this change? Do we have to vote on it? If so, we must wait for Hardouin's return. What do you suggest? thepromenader 15:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW - if there is no further comment I will open this to another WP:RfC and eventual vote. thepromenader 08:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about having not answered. Yes it would be a good idea to organize a new vote about this. However, I believe the best would be to wait for Hardouin's return as I'm not sure he would appreciate such a move being made when he wasn't there. --Metropolitan 13:53 26 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. For sure Hardouin wouldn't be pleased, and it is for this precisely I suggested we wait for any vote : ) In the meantime, I've opened a debate on the (general) "Placename" question on the "settlement" naming conventions page. It would be nice to clear this up once and for all for all articles - the lack of convention doesn't help quell the bickering any. Anyhow, thanks for the message and à votre service. thepromenader 15:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. What to do about "Tallest structures"? Shall we set up a vote? It's going to be a small one, but best have it all the same. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 21:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan Idea

A map you showed me some time ago inspired me. Since France's commune/administrative scheme is so rigid/backwards, why not begin series of articles on France's aire urbaine and unité urbaine areas? These would accurately describe France's real demographic growth, and because of all the INSEE documentation and statistics available, would not at all be original research and be completely verifiable. Perhaps one central article for all of France's UU/AU areas, then individual articles using the same name given to them by the INSEE. This actually would be an opportunity to create an interesting article on a relatively new topic without falling into original research.

The INSEE-defined name (Paris aire urbaine) is pretty straightforward, but translating it could be a problem. Not once in the INSEE site did I find "aire urbaine" translated to "metropolitan area" - in fact, their translation was "Paris area". This should not be complicated to iron out, but simply making up translations is indeed original research. I had a look again this morning at the INSEE and UN website (the latter has a international definitions standard in its statistics department), and would you know, they are both down.

One more thing to note though - I guess for now these articles would be purely demographical, because they would be limited to the existing use of the aire urbaine statistic - population, birthplace, habitation size, trade, etc. Anything outside that would be also original research. Even local economy is out of the question because ecnomical statistics are taken in départements.

Perhaps it is too early for this? The demographical side of this would be interesting though. I'm writing this off the top of my head - I suggest this to you because you seem to have an avid interest in urban development, you've said that I have 'turned you off' to contributing to such subjects. I don't think it's me though: it's the existing system. I think the above idea is a chance, rather than "bending" existing rules, to create a real and straightforward perspective on France's demographical growth.

Regards. THEPROMENADER 08:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CBD

CBD: Please look at the definition of CBD: it includes Opera and City of London. Similar business districts have been included for other cities in Europe and around the world. This is also the way CBD is understood; a central business district does not need to be a greenfield development like la Defense or Canary Wharf. Otherwise many cities would not even have a CBD (Manhatten, Chicago, etc)! Therefore I would adjust by stating La Defense it is the largest greenfield CBD or something like this in Europe. Right now you statement clashes with the definition of CBD.JGG 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tallest structures - "Paris area"

A few of us have managed to come into agreement over an "in the Paris area" title - as a former participant in the discussion, your views and vote on the matter would much be welcome at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your vote, but frankly I'm quite surprised at it - I thought we had some sort of agreement going there. Were it not the case, I wouldn't have called the vote in the first place - I may be stubborn, but I am not masochistic. We are at least four to know the fact of what's where, and at least three with reason enough to admit that the article title isn't there. Moving the article to a factual namespace that is both accurate and contestable by none is not such a big deal - please reconsider. THEPROMENADER 17:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As a main player in this debate, perhaps you should participate in the mediation case opened here [17] - an ouside objective view on this should clear things up quite quickly. Regards. THEPROMENADER 10:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we at all just come to our senses and just opt for "Paris area"? If I have to keep pushing fact it's going to end up being "Paris region" or "Île-de-France": this is a moderated case, and because of this Wiki conventions may come into play. Not that I care for conventions - if it's accurate, it's good enough for me. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 22:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
What does providing links to articles on the "Paris urban area" do to prove the accuracy of "in Paris"? I've moved to have your non sequitur "references" removed. Instead, provide references showing that the entire Paris urban area is called "Paris" - the whole point of the mediation. Anything else is off-topic, and a purposeful disruption to good faith debate. THEPROMENADER 09:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where are you gone?

You haven't participated in the discussion at [18] yet. That's where the discussion about your article is being conducted now. Promenader has once again made strong attacks against both you and me, and our good faith, so you should express yourself there. It's a bit tedious, because we have to repeat once again what we've said before, but then if you don't repeat things that you've already said, new people looking into the case will have no clue what your position consists in. Hardouin 10:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The above falls quite short of honesty for a few reasons: first off, nothing here "belongs" to anyone, so trying to incite feelings of proprietorship is wrong. Secondly, I have made no attack against no-one, so thanks for your false accusation - but if you would like me to make a case of bad faith against you, Hardouin, I very well can if you insist. By all means, Metropolitan, please do join in, but be sure to bring fact with you - this is a mediated discussion. THEPROMENADER 11:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] London claimed to be the largest city in the European Union

Have a look: User talk:Darqknight47#London population again and Talk:London#Largest city in EU. I tried to explain that London has a larger population by some measurements (city proper) but not by others (urban area), but all I got was insults such as "French and continentals have a chronic inferiority complex" and other such niceties. As you're quite knowledgeable about population statistics, you should express yourself at the London talk page. I also filed a report on the incident noticeboard about the user who made offensive comments: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MarkThomas's offensive comments. Hardouin 14:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, London is the largest city in the EU, by far. The Greater London status may be the one of a region but technically it works as a municipality and is also officially recognized as such. Metropolitan 17:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem here, as you full well know, is that the word "city" does not just refer to a municipality, it can also mean a connurbation/urban area in a larger sense. That's why claiming that London is "the most populated city" in the EU is POV, because although Greater London is the most populated municipality, it is not the most populated urban area. It's a bit like writing "Rome is a more populated city than Paris", just because there are more people living inside the administrative city of Rome than inside the administrative city of Paris. Although technically true, the sentence is completely misleading. Also, I don't think you have fully understood what's going on here with User:MarkThomas. This guy apparently hates Paris and this is nothing new. I discovered some crazy and offensive messages that he wrote against Paris some months ago. I presented the evidence at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:MarkThomas's offensive comments. Have a look. Hardouin 18:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promander's latest accusation

I just found out Promenader's latest accusation at Talk:Economy of Paris. This accusation insinuates that you're trying to bypass WP:3RR. I left a message on the talk page. You should also be aware that last night Promenader filed an official complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Economy of Paris. He was quite clever not to pronounce your name, but this complaint could lead to trouble for you, so you may want to answer Promenader's accusation. I will support you anyway. I am sick and tired of Promenader's endless streams of accusations and paranoia. Hardouin 12:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Read again, User:Hardouin. It is quite obvious that Metropolitan made it quite clear that the reverter is not he, even though I never accused anyone directly - and I believe him. What exactly are you trying to accomplish? THEPROMENADER 12:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did you know?

Metropolitan, do you know that I created approximately 300 articles and infoboxes about communes in the suburbs of Paris? (from Le Plessis-Trévise to Vélizy-Villacoublay to Garges-lès-Gonesse to...) Do you also know that I wrote most of the articles Commune in France and Municipal arrondissements of France? It would be kind of you to remove your comments saying that I am "questionning the legal organization of the territory" and that I "neglect excessively local institutions", because this does not reflect reality. I know that you're trying to be even-handed and not to criticize only ThePromenader and Captain Scarlet... mais des fois la balance penche plus d'un côté que de l'autre tu sais. Hardouin 16:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your little changes. Concerning your long message, which I didn't have time to comment earlier, I don't think it's a good idea to leave Wikipedia. There are very few people around who are knowledgeable about French things, in particular Paris things. If you leave, I will basically be left alone with Promenader, and it will be easy for him to contradict everything I say. The Economy of Paris article today was a good example. Promenader always uses spurious arguments to debunk things that I write (of course he doesn't care how much time and efforts I have invested in Wikipedia and in all the hundreds of edits that I have done over the years, he just debunks). Today he argued the Ile-de-France regional GDP cannot be used to describe the economy of the Paris metro area. He has already argued that before, that wasn't new. As you can see, on a superficial level, his argumentation looks impeccable: Île-de-France is a région, the Paris metro area is a metro area, they don't have identical limits, therefore we cannot use figures from the former for the latter. That sounds perfectly logical. Only someone who knows French and Paris things more in detail like you knows how much nitpicking there is in Promenader's argument. Only someone like you would know that actually both areas are almost exactly the same, and that for all purposes human scientists use Ile-de-France figures when writing about the Paris metro area because it's a very good approximation. That's why your presence is important.
Alone I can do nothing, because on the surface Promenader's arguments and accusations sound logical and true, and only a local knows they are just nitpicking. Trust me, I know how you feel, I have been tempted to leave Wikipedia for good many times. Absolutely all of my friends are telling me that I am wasting my time and that it is not important at all what's written on Wikipedia. The only thing that bugs me is that if we leave Wikipedia, we're basically saying "Ok, you won, your harassment was a successful technique, we leave the place." I don't think we should let harassment win. As you've noticed, Promenader spends his life in front of his computer and edits Wikipedia day and night, replying to your messages within 5 minutes of posting. The thing is, you don't have to match him. If you think Wikipedia is draining (which it is), just set yourself the objective of making one edit per day. You could answer messages and make edits just before going to bed, and that's it. Let Promenader edit all day if he wishes, let him write streams after streams of lengthy messages, you don't have to answer each and everyone of them. You know what I mean?
So I think you could still contribute, and be helpful in bringing sanity and a sense of proportion to the Paris related article, without having to spend all your days and all your energy in front of your computer. I'm telling you this as a friend really. You have an email address by the way? It would be easier to communicate. If you don't want to make your email address public, you can simply send me an email (I have registered my email address with Wikipedia). Perhaps it would be easier to exchange messages. Hardouin 21:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Grcampbell's behavior

Just to let you know that User:Grcampbell (aka Bob) has decided to act unilateraly on the skyscrapers articles, without waiting for the end of mediation. He split the list of skyscrapers into two lists: one for the City of Paris, and one for towers outside of the City of Paris. This of course goes against mediation, and he was reverted by both User:ALoan and I. However, he has now deleted all the edits that you made today (all the towers you added), arguing that if he's not allowed to change the article while mediation is going on, then no one should be allowed to change it. You'll appreciate that.

Yesterday (Tuesday) he also edited the La Défense article and 18 skyscrapers articles, changing the wording "La Défense west of the city proper" into "La Défense west of Paris". I've already explained what's wrong with that on ALoan's talk page (User talk:ALoan), so I won't repeat myself here. Check his talk page. This very uncivil behavior has to stop, and I notified the mediator. The La Défense article as well as the 18 skyscrapers articles should be reverted to how they stood at the start of mediation. Hardouin 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Check this out: User_talk:Grcampbell#La_D.C3.A9fense_towers_articles - he was well aware of it. Do you want a tissue? --Bob 23:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan, je te laisse apprécier la bassesse des commentaires de ce mec: [19]. Même si ce n'est pas moi qui est visé directement, je trouve ce genre de propos révoltant. Hardouin 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Malheuresement pour toi, Hardouin, il a totalement raison. Drop it, please. THEPROMENADER 23:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Revolting? There was nothing revolting in that statement. Did I insult the man? No. Merely trying to get across my displeasure at being called a hypocrit when there is nothing hypocritical in my statements. I want to use fact and references, not point of view like you do. and BTW, trying to disguise your comments in French won't work. And on the point of hypocrisy, I do believe that it is you who is the hypocrit, Hardouin, as you believe that we shouldn't change the article during mediation, yet you are all for changing it to reflect your point of view. Now THAT is hypocrisy in its purest form. --Bob 23:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Your attitude is both uncivil and unilateral, as for your comments all I can say is that they are extremely offensive. I have seen Metropolitan editing Wikipedia for about a year now. He's a serious and detail-oriented editor (a quality some people should learn), and he certainly knows Paris better than you do. Hardouin 23:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I left a little comment about knowledge and knowledgeable people on your talk page (since removed), Hardouin. The title reflects how long I thought it would stay there. Wiki will be judged by the verifiability of the knowledge between its pages, and nothing else. Intimidating proclamations of knowledgeability are an antisocial waste of time: for real knowledge, the proof is in the pudding. THEPROMENADER 09:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Get out into the real world if you think that was offensive!! --Bob 23:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't offensive, you're right Bob. It was simply wrong. Something weird for someone pretending to always stick on facts. No matter the articles I've edited, I always post references: You can check this for example in the articles of Paris, Italie 13, List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris, Metro systems by annual passenger rides or France national football team. Now I've well understood that facts don't really matter in your opinion. Metropolitan 23:27, 20 September 2006.
I was referring to saying that La Defense is in Paris, which you want to do by keeping with the current article title, and you were also saying that the GDP of Paris is that of the IdF without sourcing any references. As a scientist referenced facts are important. Now I've well understood that facts don't really matter in your opinion. Plain wrong and unsourced. Cite one example. --Bob 00:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Easy... your comment above. Full of wrong accusations. The title "in Paris" was chosen for its simplicity, not to distort the proper location of La Défense or anything else. Otherwise, I would have not listed municipalities for each building. Metropolitan 00:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC).
and for your information, the France national football team is so full of unsourced statements it almost deserves a verifiable tag at the top of the article. --Bob 00:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
And that's exactly the reason why I've done my little part in sourcing some of unsourced statements. Now I'm far to be one of the main editors of this page. So please don't address your complains to myself. Metropolitan 00:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

(Waving) Goodnight guys - take it easy. THEPROMENADER 01:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan has got his points of view but he has never gone anywhere near using the tactics Hardouin has to impose them. In fact, outside of the "Tallest structures" and Paris article, I have hardly crossed User:Metropolitan's path, and my only real run-in with him was because, through a series of extraordinary coincidences, I thought he was another sock-puppet of Hardouin's. We will laugh about all this some day - soon I hope. THEPROMENADER 00:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan, check User talk:Grcampbell#Paris Streets. Apparently he really doesn't like Paris, blanking the name "Paris" in almost every articles. It's becoming surreal. Hardouin 10:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Please ThePromenader, let me be the own judge of what I should consider as a personal attack and what should be removed from my talk page [20]. According to Wikipedia: "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly". So you have all interest in being cautious with it.

If all the accusations against me from Bob, Captain Scarlet and yourself should be kept, then I have no reason to remove this. Now, considering that Bob has confessed himself that he doesn't like Paris, I'm not sure something he claims by himself could be considered as a personal attack. Metropolitan 12:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

Please save the "poor me" angle. You were not even addressed through much of the above, and the worst abuse you underwent was having your own critique thrown right back at you - with justification and proof to boot. Stay cool and stick to fact. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Questioning validity and asking for reference is not personal attack. Hardouin's message was a quite pointed yet baseless accusation. This is an example même of Personal Attack, and anything of the sort can be removed on sight. There's no excuse for this kind of baseless aggression against newcomers, and, surtout, when the propos attacked is of the accuser's own invention. Of course, it is your talk page so do as you like. THEPROMENADER 13:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economy of Paris proposal

Looking at the complaints from ThePromenader and Grcampbell on the Economy of Paris talk page, I thought about this. Basically what they oppose is the use of IDF regional figures to describe the Paris metro area, especially GDP, even though as you rightly pointed out the difference between these two areas is less than 3%, and the margin of error due to converting currencies is larger than that. Anyway, there's no point arguing with them, nitpicking they're doing, nitpicking they'll do. What I thought is this: to solve this we could write a note on top of the article which would say something like "figures inside this article are official figures either for the statistical metro area of Paris or for the Paris Region, whose limits are very nearly the same as those of the metro area". Then, inside the article, whenever there is a Paris Region figure, we would say "this is a Paris Region figure", and people would know from the note in the intro that the Paris Region has a territory almost similar to the metro area. That way, it cannot be argued anymore that we're "bending figures" or not giving them their proper label. Paris Region figures will have a Paris Region label, and Paris metro area figures will have a Paris metro area label. What do you think? If you agree I'll make the appropriate changes. Hardouin 15:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan, si tu ne réponds pas à mon message on ne pourra pas faire avancer les choses. Ce n'est pas en faisant l'autruche qu'on va se sortir de ce problème. Hardouin 13:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Decidedly, Wiki is but a playground for some. You cannot calculate the fiscal differences of two areas by comparing their land area or population. Even the idea is embarrassing. I can understand Metropolitan's concern for an article of which he is the author, but asking him to support your original research is going a bit far. THEPROMENADER 14:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanket reverting

Greetings, sorry to disturb you but would you kindly not blanket revert my edits? As you may know La Défense is not part of the 75000 départment... my edits reflect this truth. Already in the article prior to my edits there are sections that spell this out... I'm just further clarifying that. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please respond here if you would. Thanks. (→Netscott) 23:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response but we're talking about départements here. Paris has it's own (75) La Défense is not in 75 (as I'm sure you know). Saying that these building are part of Paris is (using your words) a lie. One need only look to fr:La Défense to see how this is treated. If so many people (myself included) are expressing disagreement with your edits then you should be asking yourself ,"maybe I'm wrong?". (→Netscott) 00:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Even fr:Paris takes pains to explain this, "La Défense, qui ne fait pas partie de Paris mais du département 92"... why is there a problem here? (→Netscott) 00:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no theory here. To say that there is strikes me as puzzling. I'm not sure if you are aware of it but businesses in La Défense do not pay taxes to the Ville de Paris. From what I can tell you are editing based upon "original research". Part of Wikipedia's mission is to educate the people. People need to be educated that La Défense (found in 92) is not a part of the Ville de Paris (75) lest they become confused. I'm not sure why you're going against all of these editors and French Wikipedia's own articles on the matter? (→Netscott) 00:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
A possible solution for the "tallest" question could be to do like List of tallest buildings in New York City and separate the La Défense buildings into a sort of section like this. That way Wikipedia readers will better better informed as to the separateness of La Défense from Paris. (→Netscott) 01:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This version by User:Grcampbell corresponds to my comment above here. (→Netscott) 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Of course La Défense is not located in the city of Paris but in the Hauts-de-Seine département (number 92), this has ever been explained as such in the English wikipedia as much as anywhere else. However the Hauts-de-Seine département is as densely built-up as the inner London ! It does not consist about a scattered sprawl located here and there in the middle of the countryside and having an obscure link with Paris, it is a direct urban extension of it.

When specifying that we talk strictly about the city of Paris in France, we use the expression "Paris intramuros" which can also be written "Paris intra-muros". It means the city "inside the walls" in reference to the Walls of Thiers (Enceinte de Thiers) which have been built around Paris in 1844. The current borders of the city of Paris is located, since 1860, at the level of those former walls after world war 1 proved them as useless. Paris urban extension counted nearly 10 times less people than today's when they've been built (1 million people in 1844 compared to 9.6 million currently. The same urban extension counted 4.85 million people when they've been destroyed (half of currently).

The French Wikipedia makes direct reference to that French expression of Paris intra-muros. It is well-mentionned in the French Wikipedia article about fr:Paris, just check the table in the demography section having as title "Population de Paris intra-muros". The fact that institutionally Paris hasn't followen its urban extension shouldn't be a reason to make as if that urban extension never existed !

As for La Défense, it is located outside of the boundaries of Paris simply because there wasn't any available space in the city of Paris to build it there (the city of Paris indeed represents only 105 km², which is rather small compared to Paris urban extension). However, La Défense is also widely referred to as "Paris La Défense", you can realize it simply in typing "Paris La Défense" on google. La Défense marks the endpoint of the Paris historical axis, which starts at the Louvre, and continue through The Tuileries gardens and the Champs-Elysées to finally end up in La Défense. To say that La Défense is Paris major skyscrapers district is not a lie. It has been designed as such and since then it has always been described as such.

The large problem in sticking in Paris municipal boundaries to describe Paris is that it leads people to think according to their own countries municipalities, which often corresponds to the core of their urban areas, if not their urban areas as a whole. This is not true when French people talk about their municipalities for the simple reason that in most case the central municipality represents only a tiny portion of this core, and that's especially true in the case of Paris. What represents the core of the urban area is what is usually described as "la zone dense" (the dense area). The "zone dense" is an informal expression to designate an area having no institutional limits which represents Paris and the larger part of the 3 departments of the "petite couronne" (inner ring). That expression "inner ring" or litterally "small ring" is generally opposed to the 4 departments of the "grande couronne" ("outer ring", or litterally "large ring").

Paris and its three neighbouring departments counted 6.2 million people in 1999. They represent an area of 762 km² and hence the population density of this area is of 8,110/km². Check most of the official municipalities of European capitals, none of them are that dense.

Why do I explain you all this ? Because it is very important to understand how Paris is structurated in order to apprehend that city. Sticking strictly to official boundaries to apprehend a city is generally disputable, but in the specific case of Paris, or French cities in general, this is a pure distortion. The contiguous built-up area of Paris spreads on four hundred municipalities, four hundred. On average, the size of the municipalities in this contiguous built-up area is of 6 km², which is an extremely tiny size, especially for an average. If the purpose of wikipedia is to describe things accurately, then the specificies of French municipalites have necessarily to be taken into account. That doesn't mean ignoring them, that would be foolish, it simply means to not consider them as the only relevant description of the structures of French cities.

Sorry if this post is too long, but this is important. Metropolitan 01:22, 23 September 2006.

I very much appreciate you taking the time to explain your views, thank you. I was a bit concerned that edit warring was going to be the only way that any communicating would occur. I think that this version by User:Grcampbell (along the same lines as the New York article -which actually includes buildings found in completely separate states! - ) makes much sense. This particularly given the fact that the French Wikipedia version goes so far as to label their list as incuding all buildings in the île-de-France. (→Netscott) 01:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Your latest supposedly "including 100 buildings" edit does not make for an encouraging sign given that you've essentially reverted all of my edits simultaneously. You know even in the French version of the "tallest" article this is found, "La Défense, le plus grand quartier d'affaire européen, situé à l'ouest de la commune de Paris au cœur du département des Hauts-de-Seine ; les bâtiments y ont principalement une vocation de bureaux.". This should be telling you that it is wrong to be referring to "La Défense" as Paris. (→Netscott) 02:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
If I've brought back the list to the Top 100, it is not for any manipulative reasons, simply because this frames give a better descriptions of the topic. Indeed, the introduction talks about 3 main highrise districts, and the list summed up to the 50 tallest was dominated by only one of them, La Défense. It was mentionning few buildings of the 13th arrondissement and it was completely ignoring the Front de Seine. Metropolitan 02:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC).


French wikipedia is written by French people and is meant for French readers. Ile-de-France is something widely known in France. People often use the expression Ile-de-France when they want to talk about the "Greater Paris", meaning the whole urban area. Actually, you can't compare an encyclopedia written for people having a minimal knowledge of the specificities of French municipalities with the English wikipedia targetting a much broader audience. You have to adapt yourself to this level of knowledge. Otherwise, when people will see a mention about "tallest structures in Ile-de-France", they won't understand that this is meant to designate a rectangle of 100 km² which encompasses all the buildings. Knowing that the Paris metropolitan area spreads on 1,400 km², it's already an abuse to call the article the way you did. It makes believe those buildings are very far apart one of the other, when this is far to be the case.
You see Netscott, in your authoritarian moves to solve the dispute, you have neglected all this parameters which are extremely important. User:Grcampbell has absolutely no knowledge about what Paris represents. He lives in Marseilles, a city which is well-known for its rivalry with Paris. Once again, what I can't help myself to find unfair is that the users you're relying on doesn't deserve any trust. Granted, their position is legally valid, but this is used as a pretext in order to distort the truth about Paris and making it something a lot less influent than it actually, objectively, is.
Both ThePromenader and GrCampbell have agreed that they would accept the title "in Paris" as long as the majority of buildings listed would be located in the City of Paris. You can see this here. The thing is that 50 buildings mentionned in the page were hidden. In making them appearant, the proportion of mentionned buildings located in the City of Paris reaches 55%.
At that stage, their argument wasn't valid anymore. They even accused me of being manipulative, if not worse. How can you trust people using arguments as long as they suit them, and considering them as irrelevant once they don't suit them anymore ? Metropolitan 02:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC).
Sorry but I'm not trusting anyone's argument. I admit that I might have been a bit hasty to include "metropolitan area" in the title but make no mistake about it, a distinction absolutely has to be made between buildings found in département 75 and buildings found outside of that département. There's no "dumbing down" to be done. Readers are to understand that there's buildings in la "Ville de Paris" and there's buildings outside of the city regardless of contiguity or not. You are neglecting this fact and if others are disagreeing with you that's perfectly understandable. (→Netscott) 02:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice manipulation of the facts there. Again, you have failed to comprehend the reasoning. Also, I don't know where you got the idea that I live in Marseille... Look at my user page for the real information, and no, I have never stated that I hate Paris, please show me the text where I state that.
I have no knowledge of what Paris represents? I see. This is why I have reverted Hardouins efforts that state that the departement of Paris is called the Ville de Paris and that the departement and the commune are merged into one despite loi 75-1331 du 31 decembre 1975. To my knowledge that has not been superceded.
I was under the impression that people read encyclopedias to gain knowledge. If this statement is true, then why dumb the information down with flagrantly misleading statements? It is illogical to do such a thing. Stating that La Defense is in Paris is an outright falsehood. You have to clarify the statement with another word, be that Paris Region, Paris Metropolitan area, Paris urban area or something, as by stating just Paris is factually and legally wrong! --Bob 02:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
At this point if the division stays I'd be surprised if anyone'd disagree with the title being List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. If that is indeed the case then all that needs to happen is for the redirect to be deleted and the move back performed. (→Netscott) 02:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
It's actually not my version but the version formulated by User:Grcampbell which I put into place (I thought I had clearly explained that). To me his version really only made sense given the precendent set by the New York article. Without the New York precendent I would be pushing for another title ending in something like, in the Paris area or in the Paris region or in the Paris urban area. Wikipedia readers need to understand that there is the city of Paris and then there's other than the city of Paris, User:Grcampbell's version accomplishes that. (→Netscott) 03:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Yeah of course ! That makes perfect sense !

Actually, each time I see this picture, I tell to myself that the most accurate description of it is that it pictures the end of Paris extension in the forefront, then the satellite town of Neuilly-sur-Seine behind the first circus we see (place de la Porte Maillot), and far away, the satellite town of Puteaux on the back left, the satellite town of Courbevoie on the back right, and the satellite town of Nanterre behind them all. Saying that there is a unity of any kind on this picture would be a total lie which could only be motivated by the most pathetic chauvinism. Grcampbell's solution was undoubtedly the most reasonable. Metropolitan 03:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC).


Ok I'm going to explain this to you in a way that I think you may better understand. Can you tell me if one can take the RER A from Châtelet to La Défense with a standard carnet ticket? I know it can be done on Paris Metro Line 1 (much like one can take Paris Metro Line 12 to Mairie d'Issy outside of Paris). If not then why would it not be possible to take that trip on the RER for the cost of one ticket? (→Netscott) 03:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

You can reach La Défense with a standard ticket Netscott, it's simply more expensive. So if I understand correctly what do you mean, London is actually only the zone 1 of the underground network, because you have to spend more to reach zone 2. Outside zone 1, that's not anymore London but simply "satellite towns". That's sound.
It's funny you mention Mairie d'Issy, Netscott, because that's my subway station ! I guess you've never been in the satellite town of Issy. If that would have been the case, you would know that this independent satellite town has accomplished the absolute miracle to host more full-time jobs than inhabitants ! How is this possible ? Maybe its inhabitants have several full-time jobs, including kids and retired people ? Wait ! I'll write that on the article about Issy-les-Moulineaux ! That's probably the reason for it ! Metropolitan 03:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC).
So wait I can't take one of these Image:Paris-metro-ticket.png and hop on the RER A and go from Châtelet to La Défense and be able to exit the line legally? Why might that be? (→Netscott) 04:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. User:Netscott's ban for moving the "tallest structures" article has no reflection on his edits to articles having nothing to do with our mediation. Please do not get into the habit of baseless wholesale reverting - one Hardouin is more than enough for Wiki. THEPROMENADER 13:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have reason to revert, then you have to provide reason for your revert. A revert without commentary is without foundation - or in other words, baseless. Please keep this in mind when editing. THEPROMENADER 13:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You have again overturned not the one edit you criticised, but all the aforementioned contributor's edits. This is inexcusable behaviour and an obvious - not insinuated - breach of good faith. Especially when you know that your "opponent" can't revert you. Stop this. THEPROMENADER 13:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
ThePromenader, you have made a whole mess with Hardouin so that he could remove the word "proper", and afterwards, you think that a version of the article starting as "La Défense is a business district that forms part of the Paris urban area (unité urbaine), located west and outside of the official city limits in the département of Hauts-de-Seine (92)" is reasonable ? Don't you think it's a bit exagerated ?
"Located west of the city in the department of the Hauts-de-Seine" should be enough clear. What are you trying to prove ? That La Défense has no connection whatsoever with Paris ? Then, let's go for it ! Let's not mention Paris at all in the article. I'm all open to your "good faith". Metropolitan 13:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC).
No mention of Paris at all? Let's not be silly. Just put things where they can be found in other references and no-one can have any argument with any edit you make. THEPROMENADER 13:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, apologies - your first revert was to all the aforementioned contributor's edits, but your second was to just to one detail it seems.

I'm sorry, but the mess with Hardouin goes much further than the word "proper". What Netscott wrote was factually correct, but I will admit it does seem rather "pointed". Just revise it so that it no longer insinuates that La Défense is in Paris and I'm sure everyone will be happy. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second - you DID revert every one of Netscott's edits - twice. What was there wrong in what he wrote? I would say the word "outside" is a bit much, but nothing in the rest can be criticised as not being fact, and certainly nothing meriting a revert past what must be seven edits. I'll be back to look at this when I have more time. THEPROMENADER 14:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] images RER/CDGVAL

Salut...

De mon coté un coup de shift-reload a suffit, surement un pb de cache, ca finira bien par se corriger tout seul...

Mais sinon y'a un reel pb de doublons entre les version gif et svg, qui se marchent dessus en etant pas identiques...

Si tu pouvais verifier ca...

Gonioul 12:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plutôt bizarre

Je ne comprends pas pourquoi tu m'as envoyé un couriel si c'est pour ne pas ensuite regarder ta boite couriel ou y répondre. Vraiment bizarre comme attitude. De toutes façons j'ai décidé de me désintéresser complètement de ces articles. Honnêtement la vie est trop courte, et le Wikipedia anglophone est plein d'éditeurs avec un parti pris négatif contre Paris et qui cherchent juste à dénigrer ou rabaisser cette ville. Sur les autres Wikipedia on ne voit pas ce parti pris de dénigrement systématique. En plus, tu ne réponds même pas à mes messages, donc je te laisse te battre tout seul contre les moulins à vent. Perso j'en ai marre de me battre contre des mecs du genre JGG qui ne sont là apparement que pour faire de la propagande pro-Londres et rabaisser Paris. Hardouin 14:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Pourquoi te laisser des messages alors que tu les efface systématiquement takeover of my talkpage for the umptieth time ? Ce que tu reproche au Promenader est ce que l'on te reproche constament depuis nos premières rencontres. Le ping-pong va bien cinq minutes mais il faut à un moment prendre la résponsabilité pour ses actions. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Toi, le provincial de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, va régler tes comptes avec les autres ailleurs que sur ma page de discussion. Metropolitan 10:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Toi, le Metropolitain, je te demande de m'adresser sur un autre ton. Iterrer des aneries est une chose, parler familièrement en est une autre. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 11:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Cette page est destinée à ceux qui souhaitent m'envoyer des messages personnels, pas à ceux qui souhaitent regler leur compte entre eux. Metropolitan 18:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] France-related topics notice board

Metro- First off, thanks for the note on my page. As a rule I stay out of conflicts on the wiki. Who has the time? Who wants to expend the energy? Second: given all your great work on French stuff, I wanted you call your attention to the Wikipedia:France-related topics notice board, which could always use the input of a commited French person or Francophile. Cheers- NYArtsnWords 01:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cartes IDF

Je trouve ton message aujourd'hui. Je ne viens plus souvent sur Wikipedia anglophone. Le niveau de connerie ici est tellement élevé, je sais pas pourquoi tu t'acharnes à vouloir contribuer. Tu as vu que ALoan a craqué devant la pression exercée par ThePromenader et a changé le titre pour satisfaire ThePromenader. Donc maintenant ça s'appelle "in the Paris region", ça a été décidé sans consensus, uniquement parce que Promenader a fait pression jusqu'à ce que ALoan craque. Quelle nullité. Pas étonnant que je n'ai plus envie de contribuer à une encyclopédie soumise à la loi de la jungle ou du Far West, où c'est celui qui tire le plus qui gagne. Je suis quand même très étonné que tu aies laissé faire cela sans rien dire. La moindre des choses c'est quand même de protester contre ce changement fait sans consensus, juste parce que ALoan a craqué un soir devant la pression de Promenader. J'ai laissé un message sur la talk page de ALoan (User talk:ALoan). Je t'invite à en faire autant. Pendant des mois tu as répété que ce n'était pas une liste régionale, que c'était essentiellement une liste de batiments au coeur de l'agglomération, et maintenant si tu ne protestes pas tu es incohérent avec toi même.

Bref, après cette charmante découverte qui me confirme dans ma décision de me tenir très loin de cette encyclopédie très mal gérée, concernant les cartes, j'y avais pensé depuis longtemps, mais je ne l'ai pas fait car tout ça ne sert à rien au fond. Tout travail ici est rapidement remis en cause par des connards du genre Promenader et autres qui ne pensent qu'à nier la réalité d'une agglomération parisienne. Tu verras qu'ils remplaceront tes cartes par des cartes de départements. Une pour les communes des Hauts-de-Seine, une pour les communes du Val-de-Marne. Etc. Attend juste quelques mois, tu verras. Je les connais, je les ai déjà vu à l'oeuvre. Si tu tiens quand même à mettre des cartes, je pense que les cartes ne devraient pas s'arrêter à la petite couronne. Elles devraient contenir toutes les communes jusqu'à la Francilienne (A104). Prend un rectangle à l'interieur duquel la Francilienne contienne en entier (et les communes des villes nouvelles aussi). Je pense aussi qu'il ne sert à rien d'indiquer les zones boisées. Ça ne fait que rendre les cartes moins lisibles. Seules les limites administratives devraient figurer (je laisserais par contre les rivières, qui aident à mieux se situer). Rien ne sert non plus d'entourer la commune d'un cercle. Elle est déjà colorée, ça doit suffire. Fais simple. Enfin tu devrais indiquer en gros "City of Paris" au centre de la commune de Paris, pour que les gens puissent se situer. A toi ça te paraît évident, mais tous les étrangers ne connaissent pas forcément la forme de la Ville de Paris, et donc ils auront du mal à se situer sur ta carte. Hardouin 21:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Il ne fallait pas me demander mon avis si tu te fiches de ce que je pense. Quant à l'amour propre, ici il vaut mieux ne pas en avoir. Moi aussi j'ai passé des heures, et même des jours et des semaines sur des projets entiers, qui ont ensuite été effacé d'un coup de plume en une seconde par des mecs du genre Promenander. Alors tu sais. Quand aux cartes, je persiste à dire qu'il faut intégrer les communes jusqu'à la Francilienne. Je sais bien que c'est dur, c'est pour ça aussi que je ne l'ai pas fait jusqu'ici. Mais je te rappelle que j'ai créé des articles et des infoboxes pour près de 300 communes de banlieue, ce qui m'a pris plusieurs semaines, et si tu ne fais des cartes que pour les communes de petite couronne, alors tu laisse de côté la moitié des 300 communes, qui se situent en grande couronne. Tu t'embêtes trop à montrer l'urbanisation et les zones boisées. Il faut rester le plus simple possible, ne montrer que les limites administratives, sinon cela devient illisible. Essaie sans zones boisées et sans montrer l'urbanisation en incluant les communes jusqu'à la Francilienne, et voyons ce que ça donne. PS: sooner or later, Promenader ou Grcambpell remettront en cause tes cartes, tu verras. Ils diront qu'il faut créer des cartes par département. Ils créeront une carte pour l'Ain, une carte pour l'Aisne, une pour l'Aube, etc., et ils finiront par supprimer tes cartes en disant que rien ne justifie de montrer plusieurs départements ensemble, bla bla bla, même arguments que pour ta liste de gratte-ciels. Je vois déjà leurs arguments. Hardouin 22:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Je vois que tu as ajouté la carte aux communes de Seine-Saint-Denis a- sans tenir compte d'aucunes des remarques que j'avais faites, et b- sans même attendre que des gens répondent à ton message dans le template French commune. Pourquoi donc avoir contacté d'autres personnes si de toutes façons tu ne veux en faire qu'à ta tête? Je comprends pas la cohérence de ta démarche. Je répète une fois de plus que les infoboxes de Argenteuil, Sarcelles, Saint-Gratien, Massy, Vélizy-Villacoublay, Grigny, et près de 150 autres communes de banlieue dont j'ai créé les infoboxes, ne peuvent pour l'instant pas profitter de cette carte puisqu'elle ne couvre que la petite couronne, alors qu'il n'est pas si compliqué que ça de faire une carte couvrant toutes les communes jusqu'à la Francilienne. Donne-moi ton document source et je ferai cette carte moi-même si c'est le travail qui te rebutte. Hardouin 15:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


Non ce n´est pas du tout clair que les zones non vertes sont des zones urbanisées. A toi ça te paraît évident, mais à un étranger qui ne connaît pas vraiment la région parisienne, ce qui est le cas de la majorité des gens sur le Wikipedia anglophone, ça ne lui saute pas aux yeux. D'ailleurs tu as fait une erreur de débutant, tu as oublié de mettre une échelle, donc quelqu'un qui ne connaît pas la taille de la Ville de Paris n'a aucune idée des échelles sur cette carte, ni de ce qu'elle représente. Je pense qu'un Américain de base supposerait qu'il s'agit d'une carte des municipalités dans une très grande région, incluant de nombreuses zones rurales, parce que dans le reste du monde les municipalités sont beaucoup plus vastes qu'en France et que donc à voir ces très nombreuses municipalités sur la carte on s'imagine voir la carte d'une grande région, et on a aucune idée que le tout est en fait plus petit que la ville de Berlin et entièrement urbanisé.
Bref, comme je te l'ai déjà dit, il ne faut pas indiquer les zones boisées et les zones urbanisées. Non seulement c'est peu clair pour le néophite comme je viens d'expliquer, mais en plus tu fais une seconde erreur de débutant géographe (je dis ça de manière neutre, donc ne prend pas la mouche) qui consiste à vouloir faire deux cartes en une. Soit tu fais une carte administrative, soit tu fais une carte de l'utilisation des sols, mais tu ne peux pas faire les deux en une, surtout à cette petite échelle.
Enfin, quant à l'argument qui consiste à dire que la carte suffit car les deux-tiers de la population de l'agglomération vivent dans Paris et petite couronne, c'est un peu comme de dire qu'une carte de France qui couperait l'Alsace, la Bretagne, la Corse, et le Pas-de-Calais, pour gagner de la place, "irait" car après tout les deux-tiers des Français vivent sur cette carte. Tu vois l'absurdité du raisonnement.
Pour la deuxième fois, est-ce que tu peux me donner le document source? Les seules cartes que j'ai indiquant les limites communales s'arrêtent à la petit couronne. Hardouin 17:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
1- tu ne me donnes toujours pas l'information sur le document source. 2- tu te fous complètement de mes remarques, donc je ne comprends pas pourquoi tu m'as demandé mon avis au départ puisque tu avais déjà une idée bien arrêtée. Hardouin 18:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

...but once again this does not show what are the urbanized areas.

Ah. All I can offer you for now is a version (uploading now) that shows the UU - make this transparent in the application you are using, or change its colour, whatever. I do have another (somewhat approximate) plan showing actual urbanisation, but it must be adapted/traced/scaled to this one.

I do like your inset plans, especially the colours you've chosen. As for the area they cover, I would think it judicial to tailor this to the theme you are showing: if it is a commune's place in a département, show only the département - the same if it is the entire région. I am having "scale problems" as well for the "city" infoboxes, and am presently concocting a series of "inset" maps that show a) in the main map, a city's place in a région, and b) in an inset, that région 's place in an inset map of France. Anyhow, anything's possible.

I don't understand either the interest of excluding wooded areas/agriculture - their presence is informative if anything, and without them we can't tell where urbanism starts/ends. I will look for a more accurate "urbanisation" map if you like. THEPROMENADER 20:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Here you go, sir. Hope this is closer to what you're looking for. Cheers.
THEPROMENADER 22:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plainte pour insulte

Je note que Promenader t'as accusé d'avoir mené une "opinion-pushing bad-faith-based wear-'em-down campaign" ([21]). Je te conseille vivement de ne pas laisser passer de telles insultes et de te plaindre auprès d'administrateurs, en particulier auprès de User:ALoan qui est l'administrateur qui a craqué et qui a changé le titre de l'article sur les gratte-ciels parisiens pour faire plaisir à Promenader. Avec Promenader, si tu laisses passer quelque chose, il en profite pour aller plus loin la fois d'après, donc ne laisse pas passer ça je t'en prie (je ne peux quand même pas porter plainte à ta place). Hardouin 14:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pas si compliqué

Créteil
Enlarge
Créteil
Argenteuil (carte rognée, villes nouvelles sacrifiées, communes plus grandes)
Enlarge
Argenteuil (carte rognée, villes nouvelles sacrifiées, communes plus grandes)

Voila, ça ne m'a pris que 15 minutes pour faire une carte montrant les communes jusqu'aux villes nouvelles, en utilisant la carte de Promenader (qui comme d'habitude est intervenu dans une conversation qui ne le concernait pas, preuve qu'il m'espionne en permanence). Bien sûr, la carte n'est pas super nette puisque je fais avec la carte de Promenader, où les rivières sont trop larges et les limites de communes moins précises que sur la tienne, et je dispose de logiciels peu performants. "City of Paris" est peut-être aussi trop gras, à la réflexion il faudrait le faire en maigre, mais bon, c'est juste pour donner une idée. Comme tu peux le voir, l'absence des zones boisées rend la carte beaucoup plus lisible. D'ailleurs regarde Cuauhtémoc, D.F. Sunnyvale, California, ou London Borough of Lambeth, et tu verras qu'on n'inclut pas les types d'utilisation du sol (urbanisé, rural, boisé, etc.). Ce qu'il faut pour les infoboxes c'est des cartes administratives. L'échelle est trop petite pour qu'on mette autre chose que des limites administratives.

Essaie de faire comme mes cartes avec ton document source, et voyons ce que ça donne. Si au final les communes sont trop petites quand la carte est dans une infobox, alors il faudra rogner la carte, en "sacrifiant" les villes nouvelles, comme sur la dernière carte en bas. Hardouin 00:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

PS: je ne comprends rien à ce que tu m'as raconté de "paranoïa" et de "distanciation". Qui a parlé de "distanciation"? Et qu'est-ce que tu entends par là? Je ne te suis pas. Hardouin 00:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, le problème avec des cartes aussi larges, c'est que justement elle ne font pas apparaître l'étendu de l'urbanisation. On ne sait pas ce qui est urbanisé et ce qui ne l'est pas. On perd l'idée qu'il puisse s'agir d'un ensemble urbanistiquement cohérent. Je veux bien travailler sur ce genre de modèle pour localiser les communes de grande couronne, mais en ce qui concernent les communes de petite couronne, je préfère m'en tenir à mes plans, avec les espaces verts, qui d'ailleurs ne rendent pas les cartes aussi confuses que tu le prétends. Juste une question au hasard, tu es originaire de la grande couronne ? Metropolitan 01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
PS: Sorry for the mistake. Because of a bad copy/pasting, I've signed that message as Hardouin, but it was actually me, Metropolitan, who posted it. Metropolitan 11:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That was certainly odd! Don't you sign with "~~~~" like everyone? THEPROMENADER 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I get it - Metropolitan, you want to use the Paris agglomeration as a theme for the map (and locating communes within), not départements or régions. In that case you'd have to show the urban growth and cut the map just beyond it for this to make any sense to the reader. Of course doing the same without the urban growth won't make any sense at all.
I'm not so sure though that using the ephemerious paris agglomeration as a principal map is the best of ideas - communes place themselves in départements and régions before anything else. Of course the agglomeration theme is important - why not as a second map? One showing the administrative location, and another showing the location in a continued urban growth. In fact you could start a whole new category on that theme, although it would change often. In fact, you could extend this theme to all of France's major urban areas. THEPROMENADER 08:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually ThePromenader, my idea was mainly that it was silly to locate municipalities in inner ring départements on map showing only their own specific département. Those four central départements represent together only an area of 750 km², which is very small. Furthermore, I don't find very informative a locator map which wouldn't show the "city center", which is the city of Paris. That's why I've decided to make the current locator maps showing Paris arrondissements and communes of inner ring départements.
On the other side, Hardouin didn't appreciate those maps mainly for the reason that they don't show municipalities of the outer ring départements which belongs to the urban area, if I've understood correctly. And indeed he's right, we cannot locate them with my maps showing only inner ring départements.
I like your idea about a map showing only municipalities belonging to the urban area, but the issue is that the urban area is freakin' huge. It represents 2,700 km² and reaches Mantes-la-Jolie and Melun. As such, a 220px locator image showing the whole urban area, municipalities will never appear distinctively as they are too small. Visibally, Hardouin is aware of this issue and that's the reason why he focuse on the central part of the urban area.
Actually, the scale of the map showing the location of Créteil pictured at the right of this text seems already too big for me. Some municipalities such as Gentilly, le-Pré-Saint-Gervais or Saint-Mandé are nearly invisible. However, I would be ready to work on a model similar to the one of the Argenteuil map, but only if the urbanization is well-pictured on it. If I insist in the need to picture urbanization on those locator map, it's simply because it's that urbanization which gives a coherence to them. Otherwise, with the small size of municipalities, this has strong chances to be perceived as a pointless map of villages surrounding Paris. And as such, a map of minimal significance. Metropolitan 12:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Probably the best would be to continue this discussion over here so that anyone could participate, what do you think ? Metropolitan 13:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, good idea. THEPROMENADER 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I see what you mean by size. As for the "raison d'etre" of a "commune location" plan, what would that be? You have to ask yourselves how communes would locate themselves, and I don't think it's in priority in rapport with the nearest large agglomération... départements, rather.
How about a plan of the département with an inset showing the departement's place in the région, complete with "urbanised" info? Example, the inset would look like the plan I uploaded, and the main plan would be the region... this schema would make the urbanised info both relevant and a matter of consequence. THEPROMENADER 13:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
PS: This is 'your baby' - I'll just give you any tools I can. THEPROMENADER 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan, je crois que tu n'as pas compris. Il ne s'agit pas d'une version provisoire, ou d'une version beta de ma carte. Il s'agit juste d'une illustration de ce que je te disais pour que TOI tu fasses la carte, parce que moi, je te le rappelle, je ne dispose pas de ton document source, je ne dispose que du document de Promenader, qui n'est pas d'aussi bonne qualité que le tien. Est-ce que tu peux donc essayer de faire la carte comme je l'ai présentée dans l'exemple de Créteil, en mettant l'échelle en bas à gauche, et "City of Paris" dans la ville de Paris (sans arrondissements)? Prend l'exemple de Créteil qui est le plus large, et après on verra si on rabote la carte pour que les communes apparaissent plus grande. Au passage, il ne faut pas se fixer sur Gentilly, Le Pré-Saint-Gervais, ou St-Mandé. Il s'agit là de cas vraiment particuliers qui ne reflètent pas la taille de la majorité des communes. On ne peut pas décider de la taille de la carte juste pour trois cas particuliers. Voici où tu devrais couper la carte pour obtenir le même format que ma carte Créteil: frontière nord d'Osny, frontière ouest de Maurepas, frontière sud de Corbeil-Essones, frontière est de Bailly-Romainvilliers. Hardouin 14:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commune != arrondissement

Metropolitan,

Your adding your "petite couronne" plan to Paris' arrondissement articles is inappropriate and confusing to say the least. Arrondissements are not communes, and petite couronne communes have nothing to do with Paris' arrondissements. Again someone not knowing any better would think that they are one and the same.

There are many suitable plans of Paris you can use - please set this straight. THEPROMENADER 09:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The locator maps you're talking about have been made for Paris and the inner ring departments. Not strictly for the inner ring départments. Considering that altogether the 4 departments in question represent an area of 750 km², it's not silly to represent them in the same map. Someone knowing "better" than me would find this even more obvious than I do. The articles for each of the arrondissements are very clear on the fact that they consist on subdivisions of Paris. And the articles for each communes of the three inner ring departments are very clear in the fact they are not subdivisions of Paris but only neighbours. Each of the four departments are well visible on the map and hence I don't see how this could be confusing. As such, someone knowing less than I do wouldn't have much difficulties to understand what belongs and what doesn't belong to Paris.
My initial maps didn't picture the Paris arrondissements. However, many people around me found it silly to have such an empty space in the middle of the map and considered that it wouldn't be that bad if arrondissements would also be pictured on them. If you really want, I'm ready to create an article about Paris and inner ring departments to repeat this once again below any single map but frankly, I don't believe this is really worth it.
In all honnesty, I don't really find this that bad to picture Paris arrondissements in their environnement. You can of course hide that environment to the reader, but this would certainly not lead to make available informations any sharper. Metropolitan 13:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC).
Yes, well Wiki is not interested in any points of view about "truth about environments", and your plan is confusing to the average reader - he may get the message that you are intending for him, but it is not a clear nor accurate one, and this is clearly visible to anyone knowing any better. Your commune plans are perfect for situating communes. The article is about an arrondissement of Paris, not communes - please fix this or I will. THEPROMENADER 14:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
PS: Sorry for my shortness but I'm also short on time - your intention is clear to both of us, so don't do this please. Any further discussion will be based here as I've not the time for anything else - give the reader relevent information without any confusing "extras" please. THEPROMENADER 14:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
PPS: Even without this there are other reasons that you should not be including your plan in so many articles - didn't you propose to discuss the area the plan should cover? This is in total disregard for that, as you seem to be ignoring both Hardouin and my propositions/suggestions. I don't see the point nor informational value in presenting only the petite couronne - it is not an administrative entity or officially named entity in itself (thus will never be part of any address or "locale information" in any reference), nor does it cover the entire Paris agglomeration - so as a plan it fails for both administrative location purposes and even for the more ephemerious place in the Paris agglomération value. Perhaps this region has some personal importance to you, but not to the average reader who hasn't a clue what you are showing him. Especially without the built-up/agglomeration info. Perhaps a bit more work, and, surtout, a bit of patience, please? THEPROMENADER 14:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
PPPS: These plans are very unsuitable for the "Paris arrondissments" articles. There are no arrondissements outside of Paris, and arrondissements are not communes. The image you are presenting is confusing/misleading, so fix it please. THEPROMENADER 14:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
ThePromenader, there are actually municipal arrondissements in Marseille and Lyon, though I really fail to see where you're going on with this. By the way, what do you mean by "your intention is clear to both of us" ? Is this some kind of threat ? My intention is indeed very clear as it consists in localizing properly Paris arrondissements and communes of inner ring départements. By the way, I won't stop there as I've also planned to use this model to locate La Défense, Paris woods and the departments in themselves. How is this a problem ? Do you want those entities not to be located properly ? Metropolitan, 16:29 15 October 2006 (UTC).
I think my use of "outside" was clear. Inner ring departments have nothing to do with Paris' arrondissements. Paris' arrondissements should be located within Paris. Look, the plan is unsuited to arrondissement articles, so don't make things complicated, okay? THEPROMENADER 17:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Netscott again

Did you see User:Netscott's latest extremist atitude: [22]? He insists that the picture at the beginning of the Paris article should be called "Paris region skyline" instead of "Paris skyline", because, I quote, "La Défense is not part of the Ville de Paris". This is getting really sureal. Even the French Wikipedia call this picture "Paris skyline" ("panorama de Paris"). Please have a look at this.

Otherwise, I must for the first time in a long long time agree with Promenader above. There's no rational to have a map of Paris and Petite Couronne. They do not form any sort of separate administrative entity. It would be better to have a larger map that doesn't stop at administrative borders like I showed above. Take into consideration other people's remarks instead of going at it alone. It's not helping. Hardouin 18:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The same problem with Netscott is repeated in the La Défense article: [23]. Hardouin 18:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
If my contribution as an outsider to this debtate is useful, please use it. Of course it is the "Paris skyline" and not the "Paris region skyline". As Paris is part of the skyline there should be no reason not to keep it simple and call it the "Paris skyline". "Paris region skyline" sounds strange in English. What's next? Will people argue the Eiffel Tower is not in Paris because part of it is in the airspace above? Or will they argue that CDG is not the airport of Paris? Or will they force tour operators to promote the term "Paris Region" instead of "Paris"?  :) JGG 10:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I already notified Netscott about any overzealous "separation". The only thing to remember here is that Wiki is a reference - when explicitly placing something (that will be later cross-referenced), one must be precise. When one says "Paris skyline" one means "skyline belonging to Paris", and no one will argue that La Défense doesn't belong to Paris, just in the same way as CDG airport is a "Paris airport".
Recent arguments have exposed a widespread certain POV that had gone undetected until now, and I think the "extra attention" to "Paris area" descriptions was a counter-move against any chance of it reappearing. Really, no big deal, and it's a whiz to fix. THEPROMENADER 12:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes I fixed it and I understand the origin of the debate. There are some more serious problems with many of these "city articles" though.JGG 12:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paris photo

Enlarge

Check Talk:Paris#Photo at the top. Promenader deleted this picture to the right which appeared in the introduction of the Paris article and replaced it with a cliché touristy picture of the Eiffel Tower. Apparently this picture showing modern Paris with La Défense was too much for Promenader's Paris-is-a-small-city-and-a-tourist-theme-park POV. I have restored the picture in the introduction and asked his author whether he could provide a picture with better proportions for the Montparnasse Tower. Have your say. Hardouin 13:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Now we also have User:Netscott who deleted the image just 50 minutes after I restored it. Apparently these guys don't like to show the image of a modern Paris with skyscrapers. Hardouin 14:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hardouin. Hold the insinuative name-calling please, and no need to turn every edit into a war. The foggy picture in question was there for some time - changing it for another should not be a drama, so don't make it one please. I'm sure there are many other and better pictures you could propose, so why don't you find some and propose these as well? If the quality's good I'm sure no-one will object. THEPROMENADER 14:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This picture to the right really doesn't do the Paris article justice. 1. The perspective is all wrong (so much so a disclaimer has to explain this?). 2. The air is smog filled. 3. It covers more than la Ville de Paris. Although User:ThePromenader swapped this image out for a much more esthetically pleasing image, User:Funnyhat was the one who suggested it. Obviously there's support for the image's removal from the article. (→Netscott) 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Creteil within the 75/92/93/94 Departement

Hi, I just saw that in the french Wikipedia you deleted my map of Creteil inside the Val-de-Marne to replace it by an otherone in .svg and with 4 departments. I like your map and plan to extend its use to the other town of the Val-de-Marne but also the Haut de Seine and the Val de Marne. Have you already done that job or willing to do so? If it's not the case, I'll do it. I still have 2 questions/comment:

  1. in matterof PI, how have you done this map? what sources have you used?
  2. You use a green/red color code to point out the town. I rather use a green/bleu color code because for colorblind as myself, the green/red color code isn't visible. (8% of men are color blind and the green/red defficient is the most common one).

You can answer on my user discussion page on the french WP http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Dude

[edit] List of tallest Skyscrapers.

Follow talk page please. Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_in_Europe Elk Salmon 01:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nanterre

Kindly be mindful of not falling afoul of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. You have so far reverted 3 times today on the Nanterre article (as I have reverted twice). If you revert a fourth time you will be subject to blocking in accord with Wikipedia's blocking policy. Thanks. (→Netscott) 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You guys, really. Improve articles, don't revert them. The fact that a contributor made changes/added info meant that there was improvement to be made - don't simply cancel this. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 17:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
French definition of a suburb (i.e banlieue) according to wikipedia: "La banlieue est la zone périphérique urbanisée autour d'une grande ville."
1. Nanterre belongs to the Paris urban area according to the INSEE.
2. Nanterre isn't inside the city of Paris according to French official administration.
From points 1 and 2, I conclude that Nanterre is a suburb of Paris. As a result, I hardly understand how saying that it is "what could be considered as a suburb" is a beneficial edit. Sorry ThePromenader, but there is absolutely nothing to keep from it.Metropolitan 16:37, 7 november 2006 (UTC).
You are blanket reverting all other beneficial edits because of the words, "what could be considered as a suburb"? Please cease such nonsensical editing behavior as it is not helpful. (→Netscott) 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, that phrase is gone now, and the fact that the commune is near the centre of the Paris agglomeration is now even very clearly stipulated where no mention was made before. Metropolitan, you were blanket-reverting most every edit made by that other contributor, not just that phrase. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 17:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[24] made on November 7, 2006 to Nanterre

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 24 hours.

This [25] is not the right spirit.

William M. Connolley 20:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Ticket-t.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ticket-t.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/t/User_talk%7EMetropolitan_9f3b.html"