Talk:Paris

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Peer review A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.
Portal:France
 France Portal
Paris is within the scope of WikiProject France, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to France and Monaco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments, explaining the ratings and/or suggest improvements.)
This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Peer review Paris has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
To-do list for Paris: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Tune up language.
  • There are a few many claims without citations - authors, please help.
  • Abridge history section
  • Better, better placed photos

List by Je suis 20:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Last modified by THEPROMENADER 11:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment on this to-do list in the already creating discussion below.
Good articles Paris has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Paris is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Paris as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Bulgarian language Wikipedia.
Talk Page Archives Paris Talk Archives
Main Paris talk page



Contents

[edit] Resolution

It has been brought to my attention that there is a certain level of unrest here. I think that we should work together to resolve it (I believe there is also some mediation underway, and I am not involved with that). May I ask that everyone here (and none of thise is based on claims or comments) remains WP:CIVIL, and if you fear that something could upset someone that you try and make your comment another way. Also, everyone needs to be prepared to comprimise. I also think it would help if when making a claim that we try and cite a relevent source. Remember that everyone here is trying to just improve the articles, and that we should not stand to prevent development. If you are thinking of reverting an edit/making an addition, I think it may help to give a full breakdown here on why each of items were modified, as well as citing sources on the article.

There seems to currently be rather a few areas needing discussion, so please do make comments here. If items have been previously reverted, I think that discussing here will help to make progress. Please however do not just revert edits without involving in discussion.

It may also be helpful to read the french version of this page (if you can read french!) for guidence to clarifing a point if no relevent sources are available. Also remember you can cite a french source if you need to, but it is probably best to try and clarify it or find an english alternative.

I hope this helps in some way. Ian¹³/t 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The Editing Talk: Paris is such an an important part of the wikipedia process - I am riveted by the conversation engendered by the discussion of Paris Metropolitan area population - so much so that I've linked Editing Talk to parislogue.com. It seems like the wikipedia editing talk will go down in history - along the lines of Diderot. (Paris Loguer 02:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Wrong photo title

About the Nighttime view of Rue de Rivoli, It's not the rue de Rivoli, but the Place Colette on the rue Saint-Honoré. If you change the title you should change the picture too...

[edit] Photo at the top

The current photo accompanying the introduction is interesting, but I don't think it's the most appropriate for the top of the page. It creates a false impression that the Eiffel Tower is surrounded by skyscrapers and moreover, that it is dwarfed by the Tour Montparnasse. A photo of the Eiffel Tower alone, or of the Arc de Triomphe, would be preferable in my opinion. Funnyhat 23:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more... the photo also shows La Défense which is not even a part of la "Ville de Paris". (→Netscott) 23:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ach, Netscott... (grin). Let's put the "old standard" back again. THEPROMENADER 13:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Nota: in our past discussions, I did find it amusing to note the length of the lens used for images "proving" that La Défense is "in Paris" - this one has to be at least a 500mm lens : ) THEPROMENADER 13:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Not sure why User:Grcampbell wants to subjugate the image you've added ThePromenander for the infobox...but the infobox sure looks pretty ugly as a lead image. For a pleasing esthetic I tried to stack the Eiffel tower image up against it but I was reverted.... got another idea on how to "pretty up" the article? (→Netscott) 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd like the photo up top as well for esthetic reasons, but do see the informative value of having the infobox first. Depends on what you want - to the point, or pretty. Let's leave the infobox first for now. I would really like to find a TOC solution though. THEPROMENADER 21:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Infoboxes in general go at the top of the articles and is more informative this way. The way that Netscott stacked them ended up with the image being side-by-side with the infobox which was just overkill and looked bad. --Bob 23:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You must be seeing something I'm not - the photo lined up nicely underneath. I assume that you're using IE Windows as a browser? Anyow it's nothing jjjanyone could fix, short of adding an extra styled <div> around what is supposed to be clearing right... THEPROMENADER 09:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The photo deleted by ThePromenader shows more of the city and urban area than a photo of the single Eiffel Tower, a very dark one at that, which gives the impression that somehow there's nothing standing out in the city except the Eiffel Tower. Clichés should be avoided here. Next thing someone will propose a photo of the Moulin Rouge as the photo to put in the lead. If Funnyhat thinks the current photo is not good enough because of the size of the Montparnasse Tower, perhaps he could find a better one. I have sent an email to the person who took the picture, and asked him if he could take another picture in which the Montparnasse Tower wouldn't look so tall compared to the Eiffel Tower. He said he would do his best. I'm waiting to hear from him again. Hardouin 13:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Best not to exaggerate your POV. There are many other photos throughout the article showing La Defense and other parts of the Paris agglomeration. Nothing symbolises Paris any better than the Eiffel tower - that's the only reason it's there - recognition - in addition to the photo's obvious aesthetic value. THEPROMENADER 14:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
PS: We'd best put the Eiffel photo back until you get an answer from User:Thbz. Thanks for your understanding. THEPROMENADER 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
My only understanding is that you've been doing your best for months now to hide the reality of a modern world metropolis with more than 11 million inhabitants in the metro area, and instead present a cliché image of small Paris, the touristic central city with only 2 million inhabitants within the Périphérique beltway. You've been aided in this by the occasional "allies" such as User:Netscott or User:Captain scarlet. Each time User:Metropolitan or I have tried to present the reality of a modern metropolis with 11 million people and one of the largest economies in the world, you've branded us as "propagandists", "people with an agenda", or, last but not least, " a couple suburban kids doctoring a few low-traffic high-ignorance pages with the goal of making a city seem big enough so they can pretend they live there" ([1]). Here you're using false pretenses to remove an image of modern Paris showing skyscrapers and dynamism, and replace it with a cliché image of the Eiffel Tower. The goal of Wikipedia is not to propagate quaint clichés, but to enlighten people and present realities that they may not be familiar with. Hardouin 15:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no conspiracy, FairAndBalanced. Your agenda, on the other hand, is very clear. The image is of poor quality, as you have yourself complained on Thbz' talk page - that's it. The fact that it represents your particular POV wasn't even in the question, so leave it be until a better is found. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 16:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Well, it's good to see the photo changed. Hardouin, I understand your point, but when you're talking about the FIRST image that people will see when they article, I think it only makes sense to have an image of its most famous landmark. Naturally, there is room for other photos below. Funnyhat 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (Final?) FA Drive

After leaving the article for more than two months, I'd like to head for a final clean-up, another peer review, and finally recommend this article for Featured Article status. Please help! If anyone has any improvement ideas, please add these to the "to do" list. THEPROMENADER 11:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further reference articles

There are further historical articles about Paris at the following URL: http://www.oldandsold.com/articles35/paris-1.shtml

These could be useful references. Smithville 02:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most visited city in the world...=

Either the information for Paris is wrong, or the information displayed currently for New York City on the tourism section is wrong. The NYC page suggests they have 40 million tourists, whereas Paris claims only 30 million. I don't have time to find out which is accurate but I suggest this is removed or the NYC page is clarified. ny156uk 23:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Have 'been bold' and removed the bit I mentioned above, feel free to re-add but we should make sure that this and the NYC articles are not giving out conflicting information. For now left showing annual tourism amount but no longer the claim of 'most viisted'. ny156uk


Paris actually receives 75 million visitors annually.

[edit] PARIS

PARIS NEEDS TO PUT MORE INFO ON THE INTERNET......... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.139.141 (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] "Paris Syndrome"

I've read two articles on the BBC News website on a phenomenon amongst Japanese tourists called "Paris Syndrome" (found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6205403.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6197921.stm. I think this might be worthy of mention in the article and possibly a mention of the Parisian attitude to tourists, which I'm sure many people will have experienced! --Mouse Nightshirt 19:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could be a first-hand witness to that phenomenon - my wife's Japanese - but I think your subject proposition, in this rather generalistic article at least, deserves a passing mention at best. As for tourism and Paris' dependance on (and attitude towards) the same, I do agree that a more elaborate mention could be made therein. THEPROMENADER 00:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I read that as well, but on MSNBC. How worthy for an article on Paris? Don't know. Take people from any culture far removed from that of Paris and place them there for a couple of weeks, bound to have an impact on them... --Bob 07:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

...I've removed another one today that was to a site concerning the city of Paris, but wasn't a reference to any precise additional information. It's hard to draw the line on what is or isn't acceptable for inclusion here - "Paris" is so full of commercial-oriented touristic cruft that once we let one non-information-oriented site come, they all will. So for now the rule is strict strict strict. Yet perhaps there could be some discussion here about what should or shouldnt' be included as an external link. I would think it safest to remain strict. THEPROMENADER 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

...after giving the www.metropoleparis.com website a good looking over (I do know it well, but not completely since its early beginnings), it does indeed have tons of information about Paris - but it is not really "reference-style". All the same, I am replacing it for the time being - but am considering dividing the existing into "official" category and "Other English-speaking sites dealing extensively with Paris". The line has to be drawn somewhere (inclusion criteria?) or the article will be literally swamped with linkspam from every tourist-grabbing endeavour selling (something in) the city. THEPROMENADER 00:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
...I would like to add www.bonjourparis.com but am sensitive to your concerns about opening the flood gate. However, after looking at the metropoleparis site it seems BonjourParis.com would be equaly as appropriate. Bonjourparis.com has significant amounts of original content on Paris that would not be available anywhere else. I would be interested in what you think. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miles202 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

If you do plan on adding other English-speaking sites, would you like to consider listing parislogue.com[2]? I try to vary the posts to touch on a wide range of subjects ranging from historical to current events, fashion and tourism. (I'm new to the Wikipedia boards so I wouldn't be so brazen as to edit in a site link without your go-ahead for its appropriateness.) (Paris Loguer 22:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Medieval Paris?

I find it hard to believe that nothing happened in Paris between Roman occupation and the 19th century. If there are any experts on Medieval Paris, please pitch in a hand.Just H 18:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - someone removed the entire "middle ages" section! It's back now. THEPROMENADER 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro Rewrite

I rewrote the introduction's middle passages, and rearranged the rest, because it was repetitive and redundant. If you have any further improvements to add to mine, please go ahead, but wholesale reverting to the former version without comment is unwarrented. There is little excuse for such "attachment". Thank you. THEPROMENADER 22:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ckoicedelire, your attachment to "a" former version is very reminiscent of another contributor under another name. Please refrain from further uncivil editing habits - thank you. THEPROMENADER 22:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I do agree that the text can be improved upon, but this does not warrant reinstating a former over-elaborate version and simply cancelling the work of another. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 22:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the reversion, as the new version is far superior. However, I am also rewriting this again and adding references. Please do not wholesale revert back to an inferior version just to push a POV. Doing so is vandalism, especially as this has happened 6 times in less than eight hours. --Bob 07:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you did: reverting of that sort only makes Wiki a stagnating "draw-the-line" hell. Let's target the problems, solve those, then improve the quality of the result. That, at least, is progressive.
I do like your changes, but something should be said about Paris being only the centre of an agglomeration - even if this agglomeration isn't called Paris, Paris is its origin and centre, and it is something as a whole. Something like "the city is X size; it is the centre of an (urban area) of X size. This takes the city's overflowing of the French commune system into account (its immobility) , and gives a real idea of the size of the settlement as a whole. This need only brief mention, and the rest of the article can dwell on Paris itself, as the city is quite different - in origin, shape and history - from the rest. THEPROMENADER 09:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, but at the same time, I think we mustn't dwell too much on this point and become bogged down and cluttered. --Bob 17:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes - which is why my mention of the subject, although to the start of the introduction, wasn't even one line. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Metropolitan, re-(re-re-re-re-) inserting extensive info on a city's suburban region into a city article is most certainly not "objectivity". The introduction now contians more info on the city's suburbs - and even its damn commuter belt - than on the city itself. Thinking objectively - especially in regard with most other "real" generalistic articles on the city subject - Isn't this just a tad ridiculous? THEPROMENADER 22:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Please save the speeches about the "importance of the urban area as a whole" - this article is not on the "Paris urban area", as the article on Chicago is not based on the Chicago urban area as a whole, nor is any other city article themed like that for that matter. We've been through this hundreds of times before, so to both you and Hardouin, who no doubt called your attention to this: enough already please. THEPROMENADER 22:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

PPS: Rather than the usual cut n' paste revert war editing (typical to a very few here), how about editing with the article and readership in mind, instead of the staking of one's own territory (in the article)? Contrary to this, triving to make the article comprehensible to a (possibly) ignorant reader is what one can call "objective". Thank you. THEPROMENADER 08:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Summary to AGAIN reverts by Metropolitan : If I wanted to, I could cherrypick hundreds of reasons why a city's commuter belt need no mention in the introduction - aside from the obvious, that is. Paris is much more than an 18th-century settlement - just for starters - so the importance of Paris is both older and other than the comparisons you make in your revert commentary. Feel free to discuss this instead of simply wholesale reverting to a former version of your own personal preference. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 16:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: Your edits were sloppy (with redlinks) with namely provocation in mind. You even removed info about the very subject of the article. Apologies, but this cannot stand. Feel free to comment the revised version. THEPROMENADER 16:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
PPS: What's more, Metropolitan's former version had "biggest city in the EU", "biggest urban area in the EU" and "biggest aire urbaine in the EU" statements in the same paragraph - although information on the former was later replaced with the latter: Isn't that a tad odd and repetitive? We can do better than that. THEPROMENADER 16:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The figure of 11,5 million for the metroarea is acceptable and relevant though, I won't reverse the edit a 3rd time but this should be brought before wikipedia's administration for moderation. Each countries have different administrative subdivision, so the exact term for the 2,1 million figure should be "municipality" (commune in French) and not "city", I'm changing this to reflet it is only applied to the Paris commune (here it is not the political regime but the wider term) as this last point is undebatable. Matthieu 18:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong in mentioning Paris metropolitan area population figure? This data, obviously crucial to understand the real weight and the significance of a city, can be found in the introductions of the London, Madrid, LA, Tokyo, etc. pages. And it's perfectly normal. Insisting on the fact that Paris is merely a 2 million inhabitants city is just going to induce an erroneous understanding of Paris importance in the world and Europe. I dont see how a "2 million inhabitants city" can be considered as one of the 4 global cities in the world, the 6th world city regarding GDP and the 2nd business center in Europe. It doesn't make sense if you dont provide information about the demographic weight of the metropolitan area. And if this information is given for other world cities in the introduction, why should Paris be an exception? I dont understand the rationale for fighting so much against mentioning this figure, or maybe I understand it too well. Fluffy12 19:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What "other articles are doing" is hardly relevant, especially in the light that there exists no world equivalent for the French "aire urbaine". If we were to take the US "metropolitan area" standard and apply it to the French system, we would have a limit defined by a solidly-built area extended to the nearest administrative limit - In the US case, county; in the French case, commune - which would give, in the French version, a definition closer to the French "unité urbaine" than the "aire urbaine". The INSEE prefers the term "area" (aka "Paris area) to the term "metropolitan area" (existing nowhere in the INSEE website or documentation) to describe the same regions. Thus the application of the term "metropoltan area" to the French "aire urbaine" is purely fictional. May I point you to, for example, MSN Encarta that defines the "unité urbaine de Paris" as the "Paris metropolitan area". Thus you can only apply relevant terms to relevant figures connected to terms, especially here, readers can understand and reference elsewhere. Go figure. THEPROMENADER 20:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
But I digress. There is nothing wrong with mentioning the girth of the Paris agglomeration later in the article; unfortunately, for the introduction, the girth of the city (the subject of this article) has not yet grown to match this, so it cannot be qualified as the same. The same for the Chicago urban area, and the same for the New York City urban area. Paris will just have to catch up. Until then, if you would like to speak of the whole of the Paris agglomeration as one, best start an article called "Paris urban area" or "Paris agglomeration". Unfortunately "Paris" alone as a name cannot be qualified as the same as its agglomeration or aire urbaine - even insinuatively so - for this or any other reference. THEPROMENADER 20:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Sorry but you made a lot of logical mistakes in your reasoning and thus your entire argumentation is relevant, let me explain you why:
First, you can use the US metropolitan area standart and apply it to the French system: in the French case, the nearest administrative limit would be the "region" and not the "commune" (as in the US you use the "county" and not the "municipality". So no problem to use an American standard for the Paris case. We will find again the 11,5 million figure.
Secondly, even if you don't want to use the American "metropolitan area" for Paris in the way I explained to you, why do you refuse to use the French concept "aire urbaine" to describe a French city? The fact that there is no world equivalent is not relevant, after all, as a Frenchman, I read articles about New York or LA using the "metropolitan area" standard which doesn't exist in France, and doesn't exist in a lot of European countries either. But I think it's normal to descrive an American city with an American concept. If I need more information about it, I can look for a definition myself, or a link may be provided. The same could be done for Paris and the French concept "aire urbaine". There is nothing wrong in it, since it's done for American cities.
Thirdly, you say that we must not mention the Paris agglomeration size in an article about the city of Paris only. Then, why articles about Madrid, London, LA, Tokyo, Milan, etc do bother mentioning (and sometimes in avery heavy way) the size of the agglomeration, in the very introduction? Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedy, I think "what other articles are doing" is essential for the sake of homogeneity, seriousness and impartiality of Wikipedia. Or otherwise, I wont hesitate to eliminate any mention of the agglomeration size in all the cities articles mentionned above.Fluffy12 07:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems you missed or misunderstood a few points. "Metropolitan area ≠ aire urbaine" - this translation is the sole invention of a single Wiki contributor. I understand that Americans understand the term, but actually that is the problem - what they're thinking of when they read that term has little to do with reality. The INSEE does not use the term "metropolitan area" to translate "aire urbaine" for the simple reason that it is not the same.

No it is not a wikipedian invention. I'm an administrator on skyscrapercity (a site on urbanism) and the term "metropolitan area" is very commonly used there. Not just in the French forum section but everywhere, it's just a sort of international standard. Matthieu 09:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand that it can be used as a vague general term to describe the growth around a city/outside of city limits, but the sparse éparpillement of Paris' couronne péri-urbaine is not this. In fact, some publications (MSN Encarta, for example) would say that Paris' unité urbaine (urban area) is its "Metropolitan area". When mainstream references start using "metropolitan area" as a translation for "aire urbaine", Wiki can too. THEPROMENADER 10:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

For the information of outside readers: A "metropolitan area" in the US is the limits of an urban area extended to its county border. The French "unité urbaine" is the limits of a built-up area extended to the limits of its commune. The French aire urbaine is created by linking any commune having more than 40% of its population commuting to a unité urbaine. So, as you can see, they are not at all the same.

I don't see how I can have anything against making mention of "aire urbaine" where the need be (and this term is preferable to "metropoltian area"), but keep in mind that an "aire urbaine" describes an "aire urbaine". An "aire urbaine" is not a city.

You misread me somewhere, as I'm actually for the mention of the agglomeration size - it's important to show the real demographic attraction that has Paris. But this has to be done in context as this agglomeration is much bigger than the city itself: Paris is backwards, but Paris is Paris, and this is an article on Paris, not the "Paris agglomeration". THEPROMENADER 10:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A "metropolitan area" in the US is the limits of an urban area extended to its county border. This sentence is not true. Check the article United States metropolitan area which says that: The counties containing the core urbanized area are known as the central counties of the MSA. Additional surrounding counties (known as outlying counties) can be included in the MSA if these counties have strong social and economic ties to the central counties as measured by commuting and employment. Usually the US Census Bureau uses a threshold of 25% commuters to include outlying counties in the metropolitan area. In the French case, INSEE is much more conservative because it uses a threshold of 40% to include communes in the metropolitan area. I agree with Matthieu and Fluffy here, the majority of city articles I have read include metropolitan area figures in their introduction, so I think this figure is legitimate in the Paris introduction. There seem to be more people who would like to have that figure in the introduction than to have it removed, so I will re-add it to the introduction. If some people disagree with that figure, they should ask the administrators for some sort of mediation as Matthieu suggested. Gwennaël 12:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hardouin, you neglected to mention that the definition of Metropolitan area differs from one part of the US to another. But even this point is moot as, as you have so stated yourself, an aire urbaine does not share the same definition as a metropolitan area, thus cannot be presented (or "translated") as such. No institution in existence does this, nor any reference - so neither can anyone here.
You'll also note that the US does not make a large use of the "urban area" statistic. European cities do, and, in a detail that is not negligable, the "urban area" at the moment is the only UN-sponsored world standard. Also, the urban area is important because it denotes the real physical size of a city, whereas the definition of what is a "commuter belt" can be pretty well anything, and differs greatly from country to country. So which is more precise and practical? Go figure.
Let's write an article that informs, not one that apes other practices elsewhere, or uses other practices as a vague excuse to include our own place of residence in the article as if it was the city itself. THEPROMENADER 13:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've left the "aire urbaine" info in the introduction, but modified it to reflect the differences in "real-world" translations and definitions. Also, Paris is the #2 urban area in Europe - even the reference by the statement shows Essone (D) is #1 - so stop reverting this please. THEPROMENADER 14:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paris Cleanup Opposition

You know, it's pretty &#$%^ maddening when, after leaving the article alone for months in order to give others a go at it (and having the disinterest for this article confirmed), that even the first attempts at shortening and improving the article since months are opposed by a frantic flurry of sock-puppet reverts to a phrasing written by a single Wikipedian months before. This is behaviour both disruptive and uncivil, and should it continue, it will get the attention it deserves. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolitan area ranking

Metropolitan area = aire urbaine (in French)

Urban Area = agglomération (in French)


So:

Paris urban area estimation for 2007 is 10.1 million inh. (so it is UE's largest)

Paris metropolitan area for 2007 is 12 million inh. (so it is UE's second largest after London)


END OF THE STORY PLEASE!!

This link provides the latest "comparitive source": http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/chifcle_fiche.asp?ref_id=CMPTEF01103&tab_id=18
...unless one can find 2007 estimates for Essen (presently #1 in the EU) included in a similar already published comparitive list compiled by a respected demographics organisation, the above is the only reference to date. Wiki contributors shouldn't compile "comparitive essays" of their own - this is Original Research. End of story indeed. THEPROMENADER 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clubbing

I do live in Paris. The clubbing "ad" is pretty inaccurate and dated. First, highly selective means nothing. Second, there are many other places, like Milliardaire, VIP Room (close to the Queen and usually celebs) but more importantly, it always change and depends on the party more the club itself. I'm not a regular wikipedia user, so someone speaking English can rephrase this info better than me. Please see some French sites like www.parisbouge.com also.

[edit] Semiprotect the page

Due to increased ip vandalism, I have made a request to semi-protect this page. STTW (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good move. This page should be in the top half of the "Wiki's most vandalised articles" list. Thanks should go to users such as Atlant for always keeping an eye open... thanks! THEPROMENADER 12:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden TOC

Instead of revert-warring over this, how about a bit of discussion?

I can very well see reason for a hidden TOC, and this is nothing to do with nonexistent 'Wiki standards'. Yet I don't like the idea of having no TOC at all, either. Would it be possible to make a 'reduced TOC' having the 'main subtopics' ( '==Whatever==') only?

I'm divided on this - but would prefer to have a hidden TOC rather than an overly-long one, at least until a better solution is found. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the hidden TOC until a better solution is found - please continue discussion here. I will be alerting concerned parties about this. THEPROMENADER 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
There's been quite a bit of support for the TOChidden on a number of articles. Editors find that the massive amount of blank space in the lead is distracting and not very esthetically pleasing. People are used to using such a user interface across the web as far as "hidden" content is concerned so I don't really see a problem having the TOC be one click away (no utility is lost at all whatsoever). (→Netscott) 01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I've seen that support, and see sense in it - and do find the present TOC system to be rather half-assed in the bargain. I also see that the 'hidden' TOC is still visible to people using non-javascript non-graphic browsers. But what of making a 'first-level heading only' TOC? This could be even more useful IMHO. Can we look into this, perhaps somewhere else? THEPROMENADER 01:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review Comments

Please leave any Peer review comments here.

Lack of citations: Rather than go through the article and make a bit of a mess of it, what I've done is detail where I believe the FA crowd will expect to see citations in this sandbox: User:Zleitzen/Paris sandbox. My flags have not been an exact science - but it should give an idea of what is required. It may look daunting, but sections like the history section could be covered by only 2-3 main sources, preferably reputable historical book sources, with other points patched together with web citations. Some of the flags may seem so obvious as to not need citations, and much of it I knew to be easily verifiable. However, they'll still need to be visibly cited to escape the FA hawks. It's an exceptionally well written article by wikipedia's standards - I added strike-throughs to only 2-3 sentences, these I believed were a touch too personal and bordering on original research. However, I do think the article is too long to pass FA at its current length. The education section in particular could be farmed out to a sub article leaving a paragraph or so remaining.-- Zleitzen(talk) 05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/r/Talk%7EParis_8a09.html"