Talk:La Défense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can we redo this page so that the text doesn't overlap the right margin? -- Zoe

Zoe, on my 1024 by 768 wide screen I get no overlap on the right margin.
Brion, I don't understand why you have reverted my careful placement of text and pic caption. I had the caption text entirely below the picture and not as it is now (spreading all across the page) and also I had the text flowing nicely down the right hand side of the picture. Now it's back as it was before I did that work. What's the reason for the change? It looks ugly now but I view you as too important a person in Wikipedia to merely revert what you've done. I expect there's a good reason I haven't thought of. -- Arpingstone 09:23 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... the previous version looks a little clunky but perfectly acceptable at 640 x 480, and is just fine at 800 x 600. (or any higher resolution, of course.) In contrast, Recent Changes is darn near unusable at 640 x 480. What's the point of messing up the page for the vast majority of users (at 800x or higher) when - let's face it - 640 x 480 is unusable on Wikipedia anyay? Tannin 09:45 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, Tannin, I can't follow what you are saying. Can you explain a little more? Is it that my 1024 by 768 screen leaves loads of room for the La Defense text to flow down the left hand side but on a lower resolution screen there's not proper room for the text to do that? Does this mean that contributors should think about how changes will look on 800 by 600 screens as well as their own (probably higher) resolution screens? If so, this is a point I've never seem mentioned in any Wikipedia help article (and I think I've read them all). BTW, I did not supply the pic, I just wanted to improve the look of that article.-- Arpingstone 10:09 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)


That is pretty much Brion's view in a nutshell, Adrian. (At least Brion's view as I understand it.) It's not my view though.
It is certainly important not to allow images to get so big that there is no room for the text to flow around them. The question is, at what screen resolution do we consider this issue? At, say, 1024 x 768, nearly all web pages are very usable. At 1152 x 864 and 1280 x 960, the same applies. At 1600 and above, lots of webpages start to have layout problems, as do pages at 800 x 600. And once you get down to really low resolutions - 640 x 480 and below - it becomes very difficult to navigate the Internet.
There are still pages around that look OK at 640 x 480, but the great majority are no longer usable at low res. And the great majority of users are running 800 x 600 or higher. (I'm in a good position to know this, as when I'm not editing Wikipedia, I build, upgrade and repair computers for a living. My working day is a constant steady stream of people bringing computers in to be replaced, upgraded, or repaired, and it's getting really rare to see a system running 640 x 480 pass across the workbench. We get maybe 10 to 20 systems come in on any particular day, and we only see a 640 x 480 job maybe once or at most twice a week. We always notice because we switch them up while we are working on them and have to remember to switch them back when we are finished in case whatever incredibly ancient moniter they are running can't cope.)
My point is that the idea of catering for users with low-res screens remains a very important part of web design, and Wikipedia should not forget that. However, the meaning of "low-res" changes as the years go by. "Low-res" these days is 800 x 600, "standard res" is 1024 to 1280, "high-res" is 1600 or more. We should certainly cater for low-res users by making sure that Wiki pages are readable at 800 x 600, even though they may well look a bit odd. But we should not extend this idea to absurdity by trying to cater for very low res users at 640 x 480, let alone the ultra low-res that some PDA screens have.
Bottom line is, if you ain't running 800 x 600 or better, you are going to have a lot of trouble even getting onto the Internet to find Wikipedia, let alone surfing anywhere else bar this place. (See for yourself: set your screen to 640 x 480 and go visit 20 random sites. Write down how many of them are reasonably navigable.) The Wiki 250px picture guideline, in other words, was appropriate some years ago when average res was 800x, but there comes a time when you have to stop degrading the viewing experience of the vast majority of users by catering to a tiny minority of people still running a 16-year-old screen format.
Tannin 11:00 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)


PS: I just saw your addition. In a word, yes. We should always (IMO):
  • Aim at optimum appearance at the standard resolutions (1024 to 1280)
  • Aim at usable appearance at low and high resolution (800 x 600 & 1600)
  • Accept that we can't please the very, very small minority of users who still run 640 x 480 or lower.
Short of impractical exotica like Javascript page pickers and very smart dynamic HTML engines, it's not possible to create a page that works at weirdo resolutions - this includes very low res like 640 x 480 and below, and also ultra-high res in the multiple thousands of pixels. -- Tannin
Thanks for the info, I appreciate the very full explanation. So, allowing for all you've said, would you care to choose which version of La Defense, after all the discussion, you would keep? If you prefer Brion, that's fine. If you prefer mine, would it be unwise to revert the GrandMaster?
Changing the subject, do you know how I change my visible username, at the end of a contribution like this, to Adrian (arpingstone sounds so unfriendly.) -- Arpingstone 12:11 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)
Well, I had an ulterior motive. I think it's time there was a general discussion of this issue with a view to bringing the policy up to date. I'll have to hunt around and find the right page and paste the above in, I guess.
I prefer your version, of course. You can revert the GrandMaster if you want to. I'm chicken! :)
You should be able to go to Preferences up in the top right corner just above the search box and write in your preffered nickname for signatures there. (On the right, sixth from the bottom.) I've never tried it though. If my sig to this post comes out as "Tony" then it works! Tony

I think we should keep Brion's version. The older version does have a problem at 800x600 if the user has the Quickbar turned on. (I assume some people do use the Quickbar, although I don't.) --Zundark 12:37 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Ahhh ... what problem? Here it is at 800 x 600. (Colours look a little funny - I squashed to 16 colours to save server space.)

Image:Image-wrap-example-8x6-404.png

Even at 640 x 480 it's still perfectly acceptable:

Image:Image-wrap-example-6x4-432p-.png

Tannin 12:59 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)


Tannin, it's not a question of resolution so much as the width of a line of text; text is easier to read at ten words per line or less. Resize your browser to see (but wikipedia's layout doesn't allow less than about 15) -- Tarquin 13:10 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Tannin, I see that your browser wraps the URL. Mozilla doesn't, which is the problem. (Zoe's browser presumably has a similar problem.)

I think the discussion has focused too much on screen resolution. There are a number of other factors which affect the way the page displays:

  • Size of browser window. (Not everyone chooses to browse in a maximized window, so this may be lower than the screen resolution.)
  • Choice of font and font size.
  • Choice of browser.
  • Wikipedia preference settings.

So the the concept of "optimizing for 1024x768" isn't really meaningful.

In general people will (usually without even thinking about it) optimize things for their own combination of choices/settings. Unless these are fairly extreme, this is not a problem most of the time.

(By the way, Recent Changes is fine for me at 640x480, with all my other settings as normal.)

--Zundark 13:28 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Mozilla wraps it (v 1.2a), Internet Explorer wraps it (v 5.0), Opera wraps it (v 6.05), I had to go right back to Netscape 3.02 to find one that doesn't. Tannin

Strange. Mozilla 1.2.1 doesn't wrap it on my computer - the URL goes straight through a right-hand Quickbar. (Maybe my Mozilla settings are messed up or something?) Anyway, I'm not going to complain if someone reverts Brion's change, but please remember that Zoe had a problem with the old layout, and she's unlikely to be the only one. --Zundark 14:35 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)
It might be a problem with the right-side Quickbar. I was having trouble using it on the right with Opera 5.X and 7.X. However, I haven't sat down to compile a useful bug report, yet. -- Stephen Gilbert 16:40 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I just discovered that I have Netscape 4.08 on this machine too. It wraps the URL just fine. But the CSS breaks it here and there - i.e., the rest of the site - Recent Changes & etc is very ugly indeed. I'm well aware that people unconsciously optimise for their own favourite setttings - I've written web pages (hand-coded, none of this FrontPlague crap that some think counts as web design) and my job means that I spend 5 days a week working on other people's computers. (You wouldn't believe the horrible setting some people like!) Of course fonts and browsers and screen size settings vary. That's what web design is all about - trying to find a good, flexible, middle-of-the-road setting that lets you get your content out to as many people as you possibly can.

In the end, it's quite pointless uglifing Wikipedia because "it works better in 640 x 480", because - let's face it - people running 640 x 480 quite often don't have a CSS-capable browser anyway. I don't want to go on and on about this topic, but this is something we really ought to be getting right. Tannin

I've removed the problematic URL altogether, because it doesn't work. (I get a DNS look-up failure for www.corbinwalters.com.) With this URL gone, there seems no reason to avoid Arpingstone's layout. --Zundark 19:13 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I just think it looks dreadful to wrap a tiny one-sentence paragraph halfway down the side of an image that takes up most of the window (and much worse to try to stick a link section next to the image too!) If you prefer the caption to match the width of the picture, I would agree; my apologies for not fixing that.

If the body text were significantly longer than it is now, I would not object too much to wrapping it around the image. However, as it stands, it looks bizarre to my eye to wrap -- particularly to force the text to the right of the image, which is visually distracting. Left margin break is much more disruptive to my reading flow than right margin break (particularly as we have a ragged right margin in any case.)

I must say I'm surprised this much talk accumulated over one little margin! :) --Brion 19:54 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Location

Hey can somebody tell me, what arrondissement is La Défense in?

The answer is written in the introduction, La Défense is actually located at the west of the city proper in the heart of the département of the Hauts-de-Seine. The district is spread across three municipalities: Nanterre, Courbevoie and Puteaux. So it not in any arrondissement, it's in the western suburbs. :) Metropolitan 23:02 20 may 2006 (UTC).

[edit] CBD?

Knowing that La Défense is not even located in Paris itself but in the suburbs, can we really say that it is a central business district? In my opinion it's not central at all :) --Grippenn 08:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment Grippenn, I'll edit this part of the introduction. Now this being said, La Défense is still located in the inner suburbs, in the heart of the urban area... hence it's not as it would be located at Mantes-la-Jolie or Melun. But your point is still valid and I'll make the change. Metropolitan 12:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photographs in high definition

Hello

the external links doesn't show photos in high definition

If you want you can add my website for people who want to see some photos (100) in 2048 * 1536.

koakoo

Merci beaucoup pour les photos merveilleuses, koakoo! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.219.75.76 (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] West of and adjacent to...

If this is incorrect factually, re: there are defined cities between paris and La Defense - then obviously this proposal does not work. But we should be clear that La Defense is aprt of the metropolitan area. If so the current compromise seems to be à propos - since it is clear that it is considered part of the Paris metro - but outside the exact boundaries. --Trödel 23:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Meaux or Rambouillet are part of Paris metropolitan area, La Défense is located in the core of the urban area (the contiguous built-up area). The fact that the city of Paris is so small compared with its urban area (it represents only 3% of it) should not be considered as a pretext to present La Défense further than it actually is. Check this picture and you'll probably understand what I mean. "L'agglomération parisienne" (Paris urban area) represents a coherent unity. It would be a mistake to take advantage of the exceptionally small size of French administrative municipalities in general to give a distorted image of Paris realities.
After all, where else than in Paris do we talk about building a circular metro line, fully underground, which would be located fully outside of the central municipality ? That's the case with the Orbitale project, and actually, the weirdest is probably that the Paris municipality is ready to partially finance it (Indeed, the reason is that this line would reduce congestion of the central metro/RER network).
As for the use of the "adjacent" word, I'm not sure that it is technically correct. Granted, the municipality of Puteaux shares a border with the Bois de Boulogne which does belong to Paris, but that border isn't located at the level of the district of La Défense. Neuilly-sur-Seine is actually located between La Défense and the city of Paris in itself. I guess that using the expression "located in the inner suburbs" or something alike could be a better compromise.Metropolitan 23:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC).

[edit] La defense, one of the world's major centres of international finance?

The article states: "La Défense is the largest purpose-built business district in Europe, and one of the world's major centres of international finance."

I think that second part of the sentence destroys a lot of the credibility of the who article. OK, I can live with the assumption that other business centres in Europe were not purpose-built (i.e. they evolved), but I think la Defense is certainly not one of the world's major centres of international finance. Firstly, it is not even Paris' most important financial centre - most of which is still based in the avenues around the Arc de Triomphe. Secondly, Paris has never been seen as a major centre of international finance. London, Frankfurt, Zurich, OK, but Paris is stretching it too much. Even BNP, the only major French Investment Bank, has its European Investment Banking operations located in London. I do not want to change the article, I'll leave it to this discussion group, but I do believe that these exaggerations do serious damage to the overall credibility of the article. JGG 11:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought for a second there that that mishap was because of my rewrite, but in fact "and is one of the major financial centers in the world." was the original version. Perhaps someone knowledgeable about the realities of the international situation could fix this with a couple references and clear this up for good. JGG, if you can do this, there is no reason why you shouldn't, so by all means, do. THEPROMENADER 12:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Please have a look at http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb146.html, table 4. This does not say how big the centres are but how well connected they are. Paris is simply not on the list for the banking/finance nodes. Anyway the issue can be addressed easily: Which non-French bank has its global or European investment banking head office in Paris: none. The statement in the article as it is today really harms the credibility of the overall article. JGG 16:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"The major French banks, insurance companies, and other financial bodies are all centred on Paris, predominantly in the main financial quarter on the Right Bank around the Stock Exchange (Palais de la Bourse) and the state-owned Bank of France. Scores of foreign multiservice banks have branches in Paris, but the city is not a dynamic centre for specialist activities such as merchant banking and venture capital investment. The Paris Stock Exchange, though expanded and modernized in the 1980s, still handles little more than one-fifth of the volume of the London Stock Exchange.

Paris has developed greatly since World War II as a centre for international commerce, especially in the new skyscraper quarter of La Défense, where many large companies are situated. The city is one of the world's most popular sites for international business conferences, often hosting more than 200 a year. It has several major modern convention centres, notably the Palais des Congrès at the Maillot Gate."

"Paris. Economy." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD - ret. 27 Sept 2006
Okay, the jury's in on this one. Right you are. THEPROMENADER 22:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


NEw message from ChrisDVD

ok, here is what Wiki said : "The Paris urban area is among those hosting the most skyscrapers in the European Union:[1] as of 2006 there are 12 skyscrapers with roof height above 150 meters (492 feet) and 2 more under construction (compared to 10 such skyscrapers in Frankfurt, 9 in London, and 4 in Warsaw). Most of Paris high-rise buildings are located in three distinct areas..."

so i think this should help a bit. the fact that the stock exchange in Paris (euronext) ain't as big as the one in london dosn't have to do with the fact that london's is bigger. London's is importent with American Affair, while paris' and Frankfurt seem to be more European affairs. Also, La défence is fast growing, with a few 300 -320 meters tall building, and more to come. ChrisDVD

[edit] External Links

the external links have grown overtime and now seem to be too many for this article. The style guide recommends, "This section is for listing a small number of high quality sites which most readers will find useful. See WP:EL for details." --Trödel 18:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)