Paris has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 21, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 12, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 5, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 25, 2007 Peer review Reviewed September 19, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted July 7, 2013 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Good article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:Vital article France: Paris / French communes GA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Paris task force. This article is within the scope of WikiProject French communes, a project which is currently considered to be inactive. Cities GA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Olympics GA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

130.216.218.47 (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see User:SiefkinDR has started a new wave of enlargement of the history section. Is this an article about the history of Paris or about the city of Paris ?? Der Statistiker (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, Siefkin why have you been expanding it? It's now back up to 190 kb and looks pretty long again. I thought you were going to work on periods of Parisian history articles? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm moving all of SiefkinDR's edits since August 13 here for discussion. All his edits concern the history section, which I have reverted to its August 12 state. Here below is the history section after SiefkinDR's edits from August 13 to August 15. They should be moved to the History of Paris article. The history section, even as of August 12, was already too bloated and should be trimmed (I'll let the trimmers work on this ;) ). Der Statistiker (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SiefkinDR: I hate to see time and effort wasted but really this article was already long enough when it was 160 odd kb. It definitely shouldn't go above 180. I wish you'd put your efforts into writing detailed articles by period of Parisian history like Medieval Paris instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A travel pamphlet (Lawrence, Rachel; Gondrand, Fabienne (2010). Paris (City Guide) (12th ed.). London: Insight Guides. ISBN 9789812820792. — with an average customer review rating of one-out-of-five stars on Barnes & Noble) is being used as a citation for the history section. Surely a more scholarly work exists to replace that? Depaderico (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What subjects should be included in an article about a city? The weather and the hour at which cafés open? How can we write an article on Paris and ignore entire chunks of its history? Paris and its history are one block difficult to break because every monument, building, bridge, even its cobblestoned streets spell history.

There are articles difficult to fill because not enough knowledge about them or simply not much to write about. Here we have the opposite, an article about a city that has so much history that the difficulty comes not in digging for events worth writing about, but in eliminating meaningful events.

Out of curiosity, I compared the history section of several cities (decreasing order below):

78 336 bytes Paris (fr.wiki)

61 440 bytes Paris (en.wiki)

59 904 bytes NYC (en.wiki)

58 368 bytes Rome (en.wiki)

53 248 St Petersburg (en.wiki)

41 984 Paris, Texas (!) (en.wiki) - not bad for a town of 25,898 inhabitants that saw the light of day in 1840.

As for the size of articles (any rules & regulations?):

285 043 bytes St Petersburg (ru.wiki)

276 835 bytes Paris (fr.wiki)

259 794 bytes NYC (en.wiki)

241 545 bytes Madrid (sp.wiki)

193 526 bytes Paris (en.wiki)

What I think should be done at this time is:

• first go on with the editing/writing as being done, which is correcting mistakes and (yes!) adding details
• then when all is done, have our designated contributor-chief editor, i.e. Siefkin, go thru the article & remove all the details then judged not necessary & bring them to the various articles he has created. This way, he will pick material already edited & referenced and, the Paris article will be done.
• then, only then and not before, everyone should come in & give their opinion, as it is difficult to try to create something right while others are constantly on your back with a measuring tape.

Going thru such an article demands a lot of time, thinking, checking etc. and what comes out at this time may not be perfect, but perfection will not be reached in one session. It is comparable to making a statue, at one time it has hardly any shape & there is too much plaster. We are now removing some of the plaster & giving it some shape. However, it still will be a large statue as the article is on Paris (France) not Paris (Texas).--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made some small changes in the text, and some big changes in the images, something which which I think really needs improvement.

• I corrected the date of the founding of the University of Paris. (middle of the 12th century, not 1200). The incorrect date is still in the article.
• In the Middle Ages section, I added a mention of the building of the Louvre, Notre Dame, and Sainte-Chapelle. How can they not be mentioned in a section on the history of Paris?

• I put the sentence on the Enlightenment in with the the French Revolution, which is much more logical than including it with the Middle Ages.
• The existing article completely ignores Louis-Philippe. No mention of the Place de la Concorde, Arc de Triomphe, Napoleon's tomb.
• The existing article says Paris was "practically unscathed" by World War II, praises Choltitz at length, and mentions a 1966 movie. I added a sentence about the infamous 1942 roundup of Paris Jews, which shouldn't be ignored. Paris was not "practically unscathed."

• The existing article completely ignores events in Paris history since since the 1960s, with the exception of a vague paragraph about social change and unrest and some sentences, outdated, about Sarkozy's urban reforms in 2007. No mention of May 1968, of the Pompidou Center, Mitterrand, the Grand Louvre, La Defense, the Opera Bastille, the National Library, the Musee du Quai Branly, Mayor Delanoe, or the Velib' program. This section badly needs updating.

• As to images, the article really, really needs improving. It has a total of five images and three small and almost unreadable maps.
• It has one dark and gloomy image of the baths at Cluny, when there are beautiful images of the the ancient art of the city from the Carnavalet Museum.
• For the period from ancient times to the 18th century, It has a 19th century painting of what Clovis might have looked like, and an image of the chateau �of VIncennes, which was far outside Paris when it was built. There are beautiful medieval images avaiable of the Louvre, the Palais de la Cité, Notre Dame and Saint Chapelle. Why not use them?
• The 19th century section has no images at all except a small map. No images of the Paris Opera, Eiffel Tower, Paris boulevards, Paris Expositions.
• The 20th and 21st century articles have only one image from the Liberation. No images of anythiing since 1944, other than a small map of a proposed future transit system. No images of the new monuments, museums, parks, and changes in Paris.

I agree that the article could be shorter; there's more than there needs to be about early French Kings and about the Second Empire and Paris Commune. But I don't think the way to fix it is for one editor to immediately delete all the changes by another editor. I think this should be a collaborative effort, with all editors working together to make it better. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed before. Read the previous discussions above. Everybody agree that the history section is too long and not proportionate to the rest of the article. If you feel like things are missing in the history section, you should only add them if you remove other sentences in the section, so as not to lengthen it. Things should be summarized in the most abridged form. Images should also be limited to the minimum. Free free to expand the economy or transport sections. They are very small compared to the history section or to the equally bloated 'Landmarks by district' section. Let's recall that this article is about today's Paris, not about the history of Paris or its tourist circuit. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense. I will edit and reduce the size of the history section, and when possible will include links to more complete articles on those topics, and to the history of Paris article. Some of the text on transport in the history section can move to the transport section. I do think the history section needs better pictures than it has now. .SiefkinDR (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the edits to the history section, the article is now down to 189,000 bytes, compared with 194,000 on August 14, when this discussion began. I hope we can hold it at this level, and that future additions on history can go into the history of Paris article, or into existing and future history sub-articles. Comments and suggestions welcome. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for using a single image of any kind in the infobox. The type of composite image to be used is now being discussed below. De728631 (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:Der Statistiker has reverted for the third time the lede image. Formerly a composite image showing a variety of monuments and panoramic views, Statistiker has repeatedly inserted an image showing only the Eiffel Tower with a lager view of La Défense (part of the Paris Metropolitan Area but not Paris) filling the background. I will revert this edit once again, as I believe the general public would benefit more by seeing other monuments in addition to the well-know Eiffel Tower right from the start of the article. Most other articles about major cities use composite images in the lede. This one should be no exception. Opinions welcome. Coldcreation (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipédia says that "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." But there is no consensus on this montage, there never was any consensus. So we have to discuss. This picture is part of the infobox and the infobox "consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles." But it isn't the case here. The Arc de Triomphe, the Louvres, and the Eiffel Towers represent surely not the real Paris. This amateur montage represent the TOURISTIC Paris. Asks a Parisian where he is most often during his days. Ask him where he works. And then you will see how Paris is. There is an article from the INSEE for more informations: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=ip1129 Sesto Elemento (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the photo montage that was forced in this article by an editor last year presents a cliché touristy view of Paris as seen by (some) foreign visitors. It would be like having a montage on top of the China article showing the Great Wall, a boy eating rice, an old man with Chinese beard doing t'ai chi ch'uan, and a bicycle in one of the few streets left of old Beijing. Not that these views wouldn't show China, but they would show only a certain aspect of China, completely disregarding the forests of skyscrapers that typify the modern Chinese cities, or the busy seaports, the big car traffic everywhere. Well it's exactly the same with the montage: not that it doesn't show Paris, but it shows only a certain aspect of Paris, and one that is more curios than encyclopedic. I don't think Wikipedia was created to propagate quaint old clichés. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh We went through this for months last year. Those are the best known landmarks internationally. La Défence does NOT give a a fair balance of the feel of the city. Paris is not New York City. Find something of real concern to worry about. Please move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This photo montage does not give a fair balance of the feel of the city. Paris is not a tourist resort solely made of monuments and old buildings. Minato ku (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it's also not a metropolis city of skyscrapers like New York. The montage image identifies landmarks most associated worldwide with the city and it looks perfectly appropriate. If you don't like it as a citizen, read French wikipedia instead. Has canvassing for support on that shoddy architecture website taken place again as it seems very suspicious you've all turned up at once again.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is saying it is, but these are the recognisable, even iconic, images of Paris. - SchroCat (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have had stability over the montage image recently, so it's a bit depressing to see a revert war breaking out again. Perhaps (esp Der Statistiker) the discussion could run it's course, rather than have you try and crowbar your personal preference in? - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but no but yeah but no La Defense is not in Paris, and it is not representative of Paris. Perhaps one day (soon) it will be a part of Paris, but presenting things like it already is is a lie. I've had at least to witness a few (often the same) hankering for participancy in the "World's Tallest Erections" competition since more than ten years already, so... enough? The OR POV of a few cannot trump reality. The lede image is fine how it is. THEPROMENADER 19:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps Wikipedia was not created to "propagate quaint old clichés" - but it certainly was not created to dispel them either. The picture is fine as it is. Timbouctou (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minato ku, which bit of "stop edit warring and use the talk page" are you having difficulty in understanding here? The last stable image on the peg was the montage. It was there during the GA process, which gives it a measure of consensus. You are edit warring to your preferred version based on nothing at present. The etiquette here is to use the talk page to discuss in order to change the consensus, not just mindlessly bloody revert to your preferred version while the rest of us re discussing. - SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I see Der Stastiker is also too stupid to understand the concept of discussion, and is content to mindlessly edit war despite a discussion being in progress. Rather pathetic way to ensure people are too pissed off to discuss things properly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, this montage is not right because it is only propagating old clichés, old clichés which are very far of the reality of Parisian life, even if La Défense was located inside the city limits of Paris, you would do your best to exclude it. The problem is not the location but the fact La Défense shows a more modern view than the usual tourist stereotypes. Curiously, here many people here hate the modernity when it is about Paris.

Note that the picture shows the Eiffel tower, Trocadero, Haussmannian and other buildings buildings and La Défense, it is not just one type of architecture, this is more a balanced view than a montage of only old monuments. Minato ku (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no logic in your argument. For how many Parisians is La Defense "the reality of life" exactly? I stayed there 3 or 4 times when I was in Paris and La Defense is completely deserted after 6 pm. Timbouctou (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was at La Défense at 8pm no later than last week, and it was full of people. Lots of people sitting at the terraces of cafés that they have installed all across the esplanade and enjoying one of the last warm summer evenings. The stores were also very busy. That was between 8pm and 9pm, on Tuesday last week. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As many people works long after 6 pm in Paris (especially white collars), la Defense is not deserted at 6 pm, the main area is busy until the closure of the shop in the shopping mall at 8 pm even after because of the restaurants in the mall.

Anyway even if La Defense is not busy at night, at least there is many local people going there during the day unlike around the Eiffel tower, Notre Dame and Louvre whose are almost only frequented by tourists. Minato ku (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the montage has been in the article for some time. Any change, if challenged, needs to be agreed upon before it is implemented. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I say that the cityscape picture focusing on the Eiffel Tower has illustrated this English version of the Paris article for years, and that it still illustrates the French version of this article. The anger generated by such a consensual image is highly suspicious. Some people apparently believe this article is their private property. Metropolitan (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what is 'suspect' ; ) The English article montage is better and more informative than the French article one (and the quality of that image ~sucks~); why are a few insisting on one image that says something about Paris that's not true? A few of you have a die-hard obsession for La Defense, not Paris, that is an evidence that has since long become quite tiring. THEPROMENADER 21:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Défense is Paris just as Mount Rainier is Seattle. Or perhaps you're also going to change the picture at the top of the Seattle article and tell them Mount Rainier is not in Seattle and should not appear there? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys can do all the word-twisting, apples to oranges comparisons, cherrypicking and wikilawyering you want, but that will never change the fact that La Defense is not in, nor representative of, Paris. THEPROMENADER 21:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which way monuments would be more "representative" of Paris ? No local goes here ! The cityscape with the Eiffel tower, Trocadéro and La Défense is maybe not the best picture but at least it gives a much better representation of Paris with a mix of monuments, ancien and modern architecture; a mix of landmark, residencial and office buildings. Minato ku (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been living in Paris since twenty three years and I see those monuments all the time. What I don't see is La Defense (and I, or anyone I know, hardly sets foot there), and how can anyone honest really even try to insinuate that, when media of any sort wants to show Paris to the world, La Defense is the image they use?
Really, a few of you guys are taking a very local 'suburb' complex (that our North American friends probably won't understand), mixed with your own desires to be in the 'big-city big-erection race', and trying to use Wikipedia as a pedestal to make your WP:OR "reality" seem "true".
Enough already. THEPROMENADER 22:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Promenader, the very own official magazine published every quarter by the Paris City Hall uses the view with La Défense on its cover. See here: [1]. So why, oh why, are you trying to be more royalist than the king? Next thing you're going to tell us that the Paris City Hall is lying by showing La Défense on the cover of their information magazine? Der Statistiker (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...And what's especially annoying about all this is the sneakiness of it all: you can't say, in text, that "La Defense is in Paris and that's really what Paris looks like", because you'd have no sources for such affirmations, and be laughed out of the house because of them... but you can say it through that image that you seemingly hold so dear. THEPROMENADER 22:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see more the Montparnasse than the Eiffel tower and I am pretty sure than more parisians sees the Montparnasse building on daily basis than the Eiffel tower or Louvre or Notre Dame. So why the Montparnasse tower is not visible in the montage ? About saying than that nobody goes in La Défense, there are hundred of thousand people working there, several hundred of thousand people shopping and using the transportation hubs, it is much more than the Eiffel tower. 6.7 million vistors at the Eiffel tower, 45.6 million visitors at the Quatre Temps shopping mall in La Défense. Minato ku (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minato ku, you are edit warring and at the limit of 3RR, despite there being an active discussion. Please have the manners to continue the discussion, and not mindlessly revert again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that quite belligerent revert. Tell everyone else to discuss 'your' preferred version after imposing it, but if the discussion isn't going your way... sigh. Herein, any change will be discussed here, gentlemen... THEPROMENADER 22:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I'm not too fond of the skyline picture in the composite image. It's too small (on my screen anyways) to make much of an impact. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why should an image of La Defense (over any other possible image) have more 'impact'? THEPROMENADER 22:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for the La Defense image. I'm just saying the composite could perhaps be improved. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, all of you involved, instead of just being led by the 'arguments' here, go and look at the facts for yourselves elsewhere. Maps, articles, whatever you want, and you'll see that La Defense is not in Paris, nor is it used to represent Paris. It seems that a few here are trying to pull the wool over other people's eyes because they think that those contributing to this article are ignorant. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 23:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're lying. The very own official magazine published every quarter by the Paris City Hall uses the view with La Défense on its cover page to represent Paris. See here: [2]. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're cherrypicking, partaking in ad hominem ('Lying'? Why? But I'm not the one with no argument), and promoting a 'reality' that you know very well is not true. And there is some sort of 'conspiracy' going on to 'suppress' an opinion that anyone looking any further than this page would find is not true? Really. You're the one promoting your agenda, and you have no argument. THEPROMENADER 23:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, what you're saying about the skyline picture being too small was pointed out by me and several other editors to the owners of the article last year (to Dr Blofeld who created the montage and put it on top of the article without asking for consensus on the talk page beforehand, to SchroCat who stubbornly enforced Dr Blofeld's change without consideration for the opinion of other editors), but it was discarded out of hand (I remember that Dr Blofeld at the time vaguely promised that he would modify his montage to make the skyline with La Défense more visible, but he never did it). As for us, we cannot change his montage, as is too obvious considering what has happened these past few days. This is one of the ugliest case of WP:OWN I have seen on Wikipedia so far. Dr Blofeld single-handedly rewrote 80% of the article last year (June, July, August), and there's not much we can do about it, because either he or SchroCat revert us almost immediately (I had several good faith edits last years reverted by SchroCat without any regard for the time spent by me to research the information and write it down in the article; I can bring in diffs if my statement here is challenged by SchroCat). As for Promenader, for as long as I've seen him around, he's always had this weird obsession that anything one inch beyond the administrative borders of the City of Paris set in 1860 does not belong in this article, even if it's the largest business district of Paris and is visible from pretty much everywhere in Paris. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm.... Lies, damned lies and things that Der Statistiker writes. You still seem to be very bitter that your OWNership of the article was questioned by people who have the temerity to disagree with you. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the picture of La Defense in the montage is not visible, with such a bad quality even with a bigger screen you will see nothing. This is done on purpose to make it invisible. We had already a long discussion about the bad quality of this montage. The fact that La Défense is in suburbs (a very close suburbs at 3.5 km or 2 miles of Arc de Triomphe) is not the real problem, the real issue is its modernity. The current montage is clear, no trace of modernity should be used to represent Paris (Pyramide du Louvre is the sole exception but it is because it became a cliché landmark) even if there is plenty of modern buildings inside the City limits.

Paris is not a museum frozen in the 19th century, there are many modern districts inside the city limits of Paris. The 13th, 15th or 19th arrondissements are not less representative of the city than the 5th or 7th arrondissements. Minato ku (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's forbidden to show the modern side of Paris, don't you understand?

Photomontage of Tallinn, displaying the city as if it was some sort of US skyscraper city:

File:Tallin collage 33.png

Photomontage of Vilnius, again displaying the skyscraper district prominently (is Vilnius more associated with skyscrapers than Paris? I don't think so!):

Photomontage of Warsaw, same thing:

Photomontage of Paris, only old monuments, no skyscrapers please, it's France with bérets and baguettes:

This is beyond ridiculous! One of the major world cities, one of the biggest and most modern economic hubs in the world being forced by a few editors to hide its vibrant modernity on Wikipedia because some people have watched too much Moulin Rouge and Ratatouille. Guys, Paris is not a Woody Allen movie, and it's certainly more modern than Tallinn, Vilnius, or Warsaw. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The few 'examples' I have looked at so far have their towers in the cities talked about in the article. Paris is not in this case. Apples to oranges, yet again! If you were honest, you would say: "Look guys, I know La Defense is not in Paris, and not many people in the world would recognise it, but it would be cool to somehow show a more modern side of the city." But rather than risk having that rejected (because you know it represents an untruth), you try to convince (the hopefully ignorant) others that La Defense is Paris. So bravo for both being condesceding and dishonest in your arguments, and motivating those who know better than that to work doubly hard to dismantle them. THEPROMENADER 00:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, blah, let's just drown any points we don't like in authoritative-sounding hyperbole about how we're 'right' about how things 'should be'. Well, they aren't that way, so you cannot pretend they are so here, that is the very definition of WP:OR. La Defense is not in Paris, nor does it represent Paris. Period. THEPROMENADER 23:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Rainier is not in Seattle either. It's located much further away from the municipal borders of Seattle than La Défense is from the municipal borders of Paris. So by all means, if you mean what you say, go and change the picture in the Seattle infobox and tell people there that they can't use this picture because it contains elements which are not in Seattle. You can't have double standards and apply something to the Paris article and not to the Seattle article. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, apples to oranges yet again, it is obvious in that photo that that mountain is well outside the city. You want to pretend that La Defense is in the city. THEPROMENADER 00:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your ad hominem certainly doesn't help. Nobody is "pretending" anything. Stop with your baseless accusations for a change. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What ad hominem? Stating that what you're trying to show is untrue, and inviting everyone to see that for themselves? That is not ad hominem. Outright calling someone a liar, as you did, on the other hand... but if evidenceless affirmations and empty accusations is all you have as arguments, I suggest you give it a rest. THEPROMENADER 00:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Good night! ; ) THEPROMENADER 00:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(sigh) I would be okay with moving the rather spectactular panorama that is there down to the bottom, meaning that we'd see more of it. But telling us that that (expletive) shoddy 'marsden' image alone is a 'better' representation of Paris, no way. THEPROMENADER 00:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the aerial view in the montage doesn't add much - on my screen it's so small that nothing is visible, and it could be almost any city, I have no problem with showing Paris monuments; I can't imagine an article on Paris that doesn't have a lead image showing the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower, as London shows the palace and the houses of Parliament. I would keep the image as it is. Now please, let's stop the personal attacks and bickering and get on with improving the article. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the 'like' button, here? ; ) THEPROMENADER 07:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as if the montage image doesn't have an image looking towards La Defense anyway. A better all round balance.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Defense is clearly not visible in the current montage, the image pointing to la Defense is ugly and in a very low quality. I have no problem with showing monuments in the leading picture but I have a problem with a picture showing only cliché monuments, Paris is far more than that. Everything here is done to diminish the modern functionnal form of Paris. Without the fight of some editors, there would be no modernity, no diversity, no economy and etc in the article. If you could write that Paris was only a small resort town with only 2 million and nothing else than tourism and old things, you would. Just higher in this talk, Dr. Blofeld wrote that Paris is not metropolis, say that to the 5 million passengers in the crowded subway, the millions of workers. The promenadeur says that Paris and its suburbs are two completly different things, say that the millions of commuters from the suburbs who come everyday inside the city and hundred thousands people living in the City doing the oposite. In other city articles this doesn't seems to be a problem to include some important leading suburbs, especially if this suburb has for postal name Paris La Défense, if this suburbs is served by the same public transports networks (Paris Métro RER RATP bus Tram), if this suburb shares the same police and emergency services (Prefecture of Police of Paris) but here in Paris according to some people the limit should be strictly considered. Is the Périphérique worse than the Berlin wall in the mind of some people ? Minato ku (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

La Défense is clearly part of the Paris Metropolitan Area. That is the article in which to include images of it, not in the Paris article which strictly is about the city of Paris, i.e., that which is located within its 20 arrondissements. Anything outside of the 20 arrondissements is outside of Paris. As for the image for the infobox of this article, it is better to show a composite of several sites, including the Eiffel Tower, rather than just show one image of the Tour Eiffel with a panorama of La Défense filling the background. The latter gives the wrong impression of Paris. Coldcreation (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on all counts. This article is not and has never been strictly about the administrative City of Paris within its 1860 borders, otherwise half of the article should be deleted. And the view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense gives a wrong impression of Paris only to those who imagine Paris is like a Woody Allen movie. The skyscrapers of La Défense are visible from pretty much everywhere in the city and have become a visual reference for Parisians just like the old monuments. As for a composite image being better than a single image, there was never a consensus about that, and many city articles still use a single image (for example the Seattle article which I have already talked about). Der Statistiker (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardouin, I've had to put up with your repetetive evidenceless affirmations (that 'this article is not really about Paris, but the Paris Metropolitan Area (<- itself WP:OR terminology of your design))' since ten years already, and now I have to watch you do it all again... because you were hoping for a sneaky 'no contest' or a new batch of people 'too ignorant' (in your mind) to know that you're spreading untruths? THEPROMENADER 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the montage-composite could be improved why not do so, make a new one, present it here, and we can discuss the new version (within which you could consider including the image of La Tour Eiffel and La Défense). As it stands now, the image of La Tour Eiffel and La Défense, alone, is not representative of the city of Paris.Coldcreation (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to improve the montage. In fact I created one which shows both the old and the modern Paris (see to the right), but surprise, surprise, it was rejected without any discussion by the little clique who control this article. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Learn some manners, drop your attempts to OWN this article, AND STOP EDIT WARRING!. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pot calling the kettle black! Lol. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FOUR times in 36 hours? Please revert again - go on, just once.... - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I see another editor has decided to edit war over the image while the discussion is in progress. And it's another newbie. Not suspicious, oh no, not at all. Anyone for meatsock? And once again, they are aided by Der Stastiker warring again – who has managed to revert for the FOURTH time in 36 hours. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If any of you or your 'parachute friends' try to force 'your' preferred image or revert again, I am calling for admin intervention. Change will come only after discussion is finished here. THEPROMENADER 12:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly User:Der Statistiker, no one controls this article. Secondly, your composite image is clearly not representative of Paris. The Chinese districts are but small sections of Paris confined predominantly to the 13e arrondissement. The image of the Pompidou Center is so cropped one wonders what it is supposed to mean, aside from being a collection of tubes and pipes (better to show the entire edifice). The street scene with the Tour Montparnasse n'a aucun intérêt architecturally, or culturally, as neither the building nor the street scene are well depicted. You could probably do better than that.Coldcreation (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely true. Wikimedia Foundation controls this article, when you think about it. Secondly, the image of Chinese districts is representative of Chinese districts. The collection of tubes and pipes is actually the first thing that comes to mind when people think "Paris" outside the tourist context. And who are you to disparage Tour Montparnasse? Because when I think of Paris, I usually think of phallic symbols. Timbouctou (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is not a picture of a chinese district, I can easily reconize Rue Saint Anne (1st/2nd arrondissement). This street is pretty famous and popular among parisians as the Japanese district. This big error of location gives some clues about the knowedge of Paris that claim some people.

The street with no interest is Rue de Rennes, one of the main shopping street in the left bank in Central Paris.

In my opinion what matters in an encyclopedia is not what people think or believe but the accuracy of the information, this is not a tourist guide Minato ku (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ThePromenaderUser:Coldcreation: I don't know the Statistiker, where did you get that out ??? So i'm surely not a "parachute friend", but you're apparently pathetic...I LIVE in this city, and I can tell you that this multi-picture does NOT represent well Paris. The real Paris (the Paris that you surely don't even know). No, there are not just 18 and 19th centuries buildings in Paris. That's what you try to pretend with a very bad photomontage. Still, another photomontage has been proposed and only one personn is talking about it. Only One. So stop frozing conversation and rejecting all proposition. Sesto Elemento (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, after months of inactivity, a few contributors trying to impose the same image all swoop down on the same article at the same time. What are the odds? (counting fingers, then toes) Damn, if I count any higher this is going to get indecent... but I love the feigned indignation! (applauding) ; ) THEPROMENADER 13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough I lived there for five years, and it's very common to me... Secondly, do not call other editors names: you know nothing about them, their background or their thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I've lived here since twenty-three years, so I know full well the what and the why of what's trying to be imposed here. Paris is a bit backwards (especially for your Skyscraper forum), mais, c'est la vie ! THEPROMENADER 13:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A ThePromenader SchroCat (talk) : Another montage, by me Sesto Elemento (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montage Paris 2.png

Funny how that hazy, badly-coloured picture always gets in there... it must have taken at least an 800mm lens to make those distant suburb towers look so close to Paris. Are the other photos just accessory to this, why those in particular? That's not the best picture of Notre-Dame at all, in fact, if I didn't live here, I wouldn't have recognised it (all true, but I'm just poking now ; ). THEPROMENADER 14:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is the point of your comment ? I've integrated the Arc de triomphe and Notre Dame (le Louvre was already here), and you're still crying ?!? Are you fucking serious ? Sesto Elemento (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiping tears (of laughter ; ) I'm simply pointing out that 'your' preferred image is always the centre of everything. Don't you have a better one? For sure, not very many people (not even me) have the sort of equipment it takes to make towers ~4km outside Paris look that close, but I suppose you're willing to sacrifice quality for your... cause... ; ) THEPROMENADER 14:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the picture of the Seine in the old montage, it's quality ? And the ugly thing in the center-right (it looks like a photo of a TV screen), it's quality maybe ? What a bad faith ! Laughing out loud ! And yes I prefere by far away this new montage than the old one. I took a step towards you with this new montage. But who is doing any effort ? Sesto Elemento (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly better quality and colour that your blued-out image, and the Montparnasse image is not pretty either. If you have a better proposition, of course you have to work for it, just like the person who proposed the existing montage, but for now I don't see 'better' being promoted, I see La Defense being pushed. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can say whatever about if La Défense is in or out Paris, but you cannot say it do not reprensent the city: La Défense is clearly the financial center of Paris, and just ask people of which city La Grande Arche immediatly make think of. I don't understand, when we speak about La Défense you say it is outside Paris, and when we propose pictures whith inner Paris tower and/or modern architecture you say it is not representative: does the representation of Paris only goes through your eyes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clouchicloucha (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(waving pom-poms) Another parachuter from www.skyscrapercity.com! I said the Montparnasse tower picture wasn't pretty, not an improvement, mkay? And 'yabut' any way you want, La Defense is not in Paris, and does not represent Paris! Your orchestrated agenda is quite clear now. (finishes pom-pom dance) THEPROMENADER 16:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ThePromenader, SchroCat, Welcome everyone to the brand new montage ! A new photo of Notre Dame, and a photo of the Eiffel Tower more lightened and more contrasted. That seems far better ! Sesto Elemento (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris montage3.png

So you affirm, as though it's final. I say no of course, because, not only is all that work on that La Defense image in particular you're pushing (henceforth named), the rest looks like it was thrown together as an afterthought, no effort even on the spacing. But no, adding spacing does not make it any better: you guys have an obvious 'tower mission', and must execute it at... any cost. To the suburban-tower-imporation machine! (bugles sounding) THEPROMENADER 16:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see that you're not only bad faith, you're just a little troll. You asked before a better picture, I improved it, I put better photo of Notre Dame (why did you precised that it wasn't easily recognizable if it is to finally say that it will never be good ?! Couldn't you just you shut up ?) You said that I had to change the pictures myself, I had. And another thing: why did you asked me to come here to speak, if it isn't to find a compromise ? Whatever, enough time wasted with you. Sesto Elemento (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the joy of "discussing" with ThePromenader, Sesto Elemento. Personally I've long stopped trying. As for your montage, it's still a bit too touristy for my taste, but of course much better than the current one by Dr Blofeld. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For fuck's sake Sesto Elemento, do you really have to keep edit warring to force your preferred version onto,the page instead of letting a consensus develop? How arrogant are you that you are prepared to ignore all other opinions except your own? - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of letting a consensus develop ??? Are you blind, illiterate or something else ??? I just proposed 2 montage 2 hours ago ! Open your eyes, and you will see. The promenader is not trying to develop a consensus. He's just opposing to everything. EVERYTHING ! I try to make a concensus with serverals montage. Sesto Elemento (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, fuck off with your insults. Secondly, it must be said, what an awful image! I am flexible about what is contained within the montage, but the Eiffel Tower blurs into the background too much, the Notre Dame is almost unrecognisable from that angle, and the, quite frankly, fucking boring image of who knows what in the bottom right? It's piss poor and n utter embarrassment. Yes, the Pompidou could be in there instead (but not the close up, which is unrecognisable unless you've seen the building), and yes to Notre Dame, but not that angle (or the previous side view either). As to you forcing your preferred version after only two hours on the talk page, you do realise that this in an international website for people to comment from around the globe? You may have been around in that two hours, many were not: they were asleep, or at work, and have no time to say just how terrible your suggestions have been. Your attempts to try and impose your version, regardless of the opinions of others is, frankly, despicable.

Most of all, take it down until the discussion has reached consensus: you are acting utterly dishonourably here, but I suspect you don't fully understand what that word actually means. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These two latest montage versions (Eiffel tower with La Défense, Arc de Triomphe, Louvre, Notre Dame, Montparnasse tower with Rue de Rennes) seems good to me. I am not against some clichés monuments as long the montage is not only made of those. So this mix seems to be a good compromise Minato ku (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted that particular hissy fit of belligerence, since its authour is apparently too arrogant to.

All you 'tower guys' aren't here to edit wikipedia, anyways, you are just trying to use it as a soapbox for your [skyscrapercity.com] tower-fanboi faux-message shout to the world that "Paris is a city filled with big towers, too". And, just by coincidence, all of you are pushing one rare image that, coincidently, at least to the unsuspecting, makes it look as though Paris is a city with tons of towers in it. It isn't.

What makes this most annyoying is that you all know very well the reality of the situation, and are intentionally attempting to spread disinformation. My sense of humour is gone, boys. THEPROMENADER 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A rare image?? This "rare" image is used by the Paris City Hall: [3], as well as by the Paris article at the French-speaking Wikipedia: fr:Paris. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rare in the way that that photo was taken with a lens so long that the distant towers seem right behind the Eiffel tower. The fact that you have only that image to push is proof of its rarity... or do you have another, better one? ; ) THEPROMENADER 18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, You are insulting me with your "arrogant", "acting dishonourably", "despictable" and other stuffs. Sure that's less woth than me....Secondly, you are not flexible. Not even more than promenader. ""I'm flexible, but I found not the Tour Eiffel picture good, the Notre Dame picture too, and the Montparnasse Tower picture is boring."" We don't have the same definition of "flexible"....The montage is not my prefered version, it's something called "a step toward you", thing that you never, ever did in the entire discussion. Apparently, talking to you is as usefull as talking to a wall. I'm not forcing everything, you're just trying to keep an, franckly(as you say all the time), awful montage. There is even a picture in center-right, where we can see absolutly nothing. How terrible my suggestions have been ?? And where are yours ?! Oups, there is none...And you can keep you your "despictable" for you. Can you try to be more open ? But the problem is that I suspect you don't fully understand what that word actually means... Sesto Elemento (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'He said I said' and opine all you want, but that won't change the fact that La Defense is not in Paris, nor is it representative of Paris. You are attempting to use Wikipedia to broadcast a lie. If this weren't the case, you would propose another image to better the quality of the article, but since propaganda is your aim, you haven't, and you won't. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe how the image has suddenly become problematic after all this time. Prompted by nothing but a bunch of amateurs on a piss poor architectural site who like skyscrapers. Good news, you can create as many montages of them as you like in the wiki commons. Just leave the image which the majority of regulars are fine with alone.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have understood that what matter is neither the quality (the picture is ugly) or the accuracy (just tourist clichés) but having a stereotyped cliché image of Paris. Paris is not just made of monument and showing cliché monuments is not representative of the reality of Paris Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a tourist guide, it needs to show a wider view of the city. La Défense as one of the most important business district of the city is as much as its place in the montage than the monuments. Wikipedia is useless if it just made to confirm the stereotypes to the others instead of giving real informations about the city. Minato ku (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunalty, there is no like button. :D I've created a new montage. I hope you will like it, and I hope the buildings aren't too recent for you two (because apparently you 2 decides). I hesitate to put the Arènes de Lutèces, but it would have been too confusing with the anthic Rome. I'm sorry I let the Eiffel Tower in colour (and not black-and white like you should like it), I forget it. Sesto Elemento (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montage X.jpg

That's actually funny, Sesto. And you actually worked on the spacing this time! ; )

Like you, I'm also dismayed at the ville musée effect going on here, but what you have attempted to do (in about the worst way possible) is preempt the government and pretend that changes they should make have already happened, and that just ain't what Wiki is all about. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 20:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This being en.wiki, which I enjoy very much, I'd rather stay out of this lively discussion, as I can understand everyone's point of view & think it is good for everyone to air out their ideas. However, this concerning Paris, I would like to give my thoughts on a couple of points:

• The new montage with La Madeleine, put together by Sesto: The pictures represent some of the old & some of the new(er) Paris, although not going all the way to modern architecture, thus avoiding "la raffinerie", i.e. Beaubourg. Each picture in particular is fine but something bothers my eyes & I believe it is the weight: at the bottom is a street like that of an old town in France with one- or two-story houses, and at the very top, the wide picture of the big Madeleine sitting on top of the Arc de Triomphe, with under a small picture of the Seine, and below the already mentioned street. My first impression was: "My God! What if the Madeleine falls on the Arc de Triomphe, which will in turn fall into the Seine... that street down there is going to be flooded & all its houses crushed!" Going to the left, is the Tour Eiffel on top of fragile-looking Tour Saint-Jacques. Difficult to put these pictures together with proper balance. The Eiffel Tower has to be ankered to the ground in a corner, the Seine has to flow at the bottom, and there is something to do about the size of the pictures so that the ensemble is not top-heavy.
• My other point concerns La Défense, which we all agree is not in Paris... yet, would I add, as one hundred years from now, it will be, just like Montmartre is, that some 150 years ago was a village overlooking Paris. And just like Montmartre is seen from everywhere in Paris, La Défense is also seen from different parts of the capital - not from everywhere -, mainly on its Axe historique of which the Grande Arche is the most western end - a will of its creators and the "king of the French Republic" at time of its construction. The problem with photographs showing La Défense from the Eiffel Tower, is that they are taken with back turned to Paris, thus showing very little of it & missing all monuments, except for what is in line with Champ de Mars in front of the Eiffel Tower. What has to be used is a photograph taken from La Défense toward Paris, which would show all of Paris, y compris the axe historique all the way thru the Pyramide and the Louvre, its origin, which also happens to be part of Paris oldest history. That way we would get Paris across the centuries in one picture.

Looking for someone with a good camera or a satellite picture? Tout est possible nowadays. --Blue Indigo (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cringe when I see architectural photos which fail to have the necessary perspective correction, so that a building with vertical lines is made to look like the lines converge, or when pointing the camera up at a building, it looks like it is falling over backwards. This is discussed in any introductory book on photography, and in Perspective control. Such images are just bad snapshots and inappropriate in an encyclopedia. An architectural photographer would have made adjustments on a view camera by raising or lowering the lensboard relative to the film plane. Alternatively, Photoshop offers perspective correction. A building which is not a pyramid (or inverted pyramid) should not be made to look like one. Edison (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How about just putting an image of a cat? Everybody likes cats. We can wrap it in a French flag and position it in front of a fresh croissant. Or maybe a picture of a guy bored to death sitting behind the wheel in a hopeless traffic jam, smiling at the camera, with Arc de Triomphe in the background. Now that would really be "reality of life in Paris". Timbouctou (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*"a guy bored to death sitting behind the wheel in a hopeless traffic jam"? Surely you're talking about London there? - SchroCat (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and to avoid cliches, we can alternatively replace the cat with an alligator, the flag with a copy of the New York Times and the croissant with a donut. And the background for the bored guy can be an Egyptian pyramid. Timbouctou (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for the donut! Let me count... two, so... two against... none! Okay, we have consensus, we win! And don't even try reverting, it's too late, the vote's over ! THEPROMENADER 13:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry we do not want PAris to look like America. Just would like see the different part of the city, its culture and the reality of its economy and urbanism. Inner Paris ALSO include Montparnasse tower, Bibliothèque François Mitterrand, La Villette or Centre Georges Pompidou. For other animals, not my cup of tea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clouchicloucha (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what happened to the donut? But we said the donut won! (scrunching eyes, closing fists, shouting upward) "I want my donuuuuuuuut!" THEPROMENADER 20:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't include Tour Montparnasse, the least Parisian and least loved building in the city. There's a good reason they decided to cancel further skyscrapers. Otherwise the current montage is very good. Why don't we close this discussion and move on? SiefkinDR (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it is loved or not, this is one of the most important and visible building of the city. It is more centrally located than the Eiffel tower

I don't understand what mean "the least Parisian", I didn't know that "Parisian" was an such a restrictive term that it excludes everything that does not correspond to the stereotypes. Most of the French media shows the Montparnasse tower when they speak about Paris, it is noted as a monuments on maps. Minato ku (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SiefkinDR (talk) We would like to put the montage you have seen, but 2 people, THEPROMENADER and SchroCat (talk) don't want that. I proposed many montage, they refused everything. And they are not moderators, they are 2 people like you and me. I could re-take the montage and put another better pic of MOntparnasse, or something else, they say that they wouldn't accept anyway....Sesto Elemento (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't lie. I have not "refused everything": I have pointed out that some of the images used in one of the suggested montages were not very good, while I accepted that the buildings themselves may be OK to include. That means swapping out images with better angles, not just that I "refused everything". If you could try and be honest it would make life easier on everyone. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave out any people from Scotland with something under their kilts. --NE2 03:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the latest revert: "There is no "talk-page discussion in progress", there is only obstruction by a few editors. Sesto Elemento was entitled to create a new montage, given the criticism of the old one, see WP:BOLD"

The latest addition by our friend Der Statistiker, defending his meat-puppet. When discussion is not going your way, deny it exists! And authoritiarian-toned wikilawyering trumps consensus and fact, too. All carefully crafted around an oft-counted three-revert tally, I'm sure... you guys are behaving despicably. THEPROMENADER 21:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and the reverted-to thing up there isn't even finished, look at the spacing! It's not about quality, is it? It's all about misusing Wiki as a disinformation platform; your behaviour these past days shows that only too clearly. THEPROMENADER 22:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with User:ThePromenader. It begs belief that Der Statistiker cannot let this go after all the discussion and policy violations we've witnessed on this page. If anyone would suggest a topic ban, I'd listen.Jeppiz (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Raising hand) Thanks, Jeppiz, but how does that happen? THEPROMENADER 23:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to WP:ANI. It's just incredible to what extent Der Statistiker and Minato ku can disrupt this page.Jeppiz (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of them, Jeppiz? THEPROMENADER 05:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the quality, ThePromenader, have you seen the quality of the montage (the one with an invisble picture of la Defense) ? The spacing is maybe correct but the quality of the pictures is horrible, this means that as long the modernity is not visble you don't care of the quality. Trying to show Paris as if it was a sole mix of old monuments is disinformation.

I am not interested by your war among editors but by the way that Paris is shown in Wikipedia, I find rather disturbing that an encyclopedia does no go further than the usual Hollywood clichés! Minato ku (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly entitled to that opinion. You are not entitled to violating Wikipedia's rules to enforce it.Jeppiz (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not violated the rules ! Minato ku (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question of definitions. You take care to stay just outside violating 3RR, but you most certainly edit war actively.Jeppiz (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not more than you and the other editors who participated in this discussion. If I am violating rule in this case, you are also violating the rule. Minato ku (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited Paris two times in five years. If that's your idea of edit warring, do go ahead and report me. Don't forget to report any other user who edited an article more than once every five years. But your bizarre accusation just shows what kind of level we're discussing at.Jeppiz (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last two editions you have made in this article were to revert the picture, so, you are actively participating to an edit war if there is one. Minato ku (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Der Statistiker and Minato ku, it is time to move onto to something else. Personally, I think the montage looks absolutely great as it is! Cassianto^talk 00:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You think it is great because you only know Paris through usual stereotypes. What do you would think if London was only represented by few cliché stereotypes ? I note that you have never participed at the Paris talk or edition but that you know Dr. Blofeld and SchroCat. Minato ku (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a member of there skyscraper forum clique, that's a bit rich! - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm was led to believe Minato ku, that this is a "talk page" where people "talk". So because I haven't edited this article before, does that exempt me from all discussions? Cassianto^talk 08:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviours of Shrocat and Promenader here are typically described as ownership behaviour: Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles#Examples_of_ownership_behaviour

Posting an urban landscape of Paris focusing on the Eiffel Tower to illustrate the article on Paris cannot be compared to "posting a cat". This is pure troll to assume otherwise. I insist on these points:

• The picture is currently used on the French version of the article.
• The picture has been used during years for the Paris article.
• The article of San Francisco is illustrated by a similar picture of its urban landscape dominated by the Golden Gate, which isn't technically fully located within the City : San_Francisco.
• A city cannot and should not be reduced to the strict administration managing it under its name. According to Wikipedia a city is defined as a relatively large and permanent human settlement : city. It is under that definition that city's article should be elaborated. This has been the rule on Wikipedia since its origins.

I don't know how exactly we can alert Wikipedia administrators on these points. But this should be done. This article is not the private property of Promenader and Shrocat. Metropolitan (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, FFS, more trolling by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about? (And that's about what ownership is, not about the choice of image) I claim no rights over this article at all, and have discussed possible changes to the montage above, disagreeing only on the angles of some of the images used. If you are going to be so uncivil (and yet so terribly wrong) in your opening sentence, you say more about yourself than anything else. As to "insist"-ing on anything... This is a discussion to reach consensus, not somewhere for you to insult others and insist upon anything. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL it's so obvious the canvassing which has gone on off wiki. That they're even commenting when the image is not going to change and think they can force something is quite amusing. It's an image. Why the big fuss? Move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'skyscrapercity.com members, most all of them, save their wily ringleader.

Funny that we're not expected to notice that they are all on a mission (and, just by coincidence, all at the same time) to put that one low-quality and rather unattractive picture there (there are ~millions~ of others to choose from), and no other. Why? THEPROMENADER 13:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Shrocat to not edit the title of the section I've created. Once again, this talk page does not belong to you. Metropolitan (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per the MoS, section titles need to be neutral. As per the comment from an administrator's comment below: desist with the personal attacks, or take it to ANI if you think you have any evidence at all to do this.m- SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT ERASE MY MESSAGES - This behaviour is infraction with the talk page guidelines as clearly described here : Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments Metropolitan (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RESTORED MESSAGE - Thanks for your tips. I'll indeed take it to ANI and I've neutralized the title without completely changing the nature of the topic (which was the purpose of your action). Metropolitan (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

To reiterate: what's being thwarted here is an aggressive off-Wiki campaign effort to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. Mkay?
I almost feel badly for the skyscraper city.com people (and whoever else was off-wiki called here): they've been played like a fiddle. THEPROMENADER 14:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I may start issuing warnings or even go straight to blocks if this behavior persists. First, stop edit warring over the section header. The non-neutral header was that way I believe before my comments below. I don't see what difference it makes at this point. Nor do I object to changing it to Eiffel Tower, but I won't tolerate battling over it. Second, ThePromenader, stop with the attacks (lies, etc.). This is not the forum for it as I said below.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll tone my earlier writ down a bit, but I felt the need to make clear what's really going on here. I have nothing more to add, and I'd only be repeating myself, anyway. THEPROMENADER 14:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that nobody is addressing Metropolitan's fourth point:

• A city cannot and should not be reduced to the strict administration managing it under its name. According to Wikipedia a city is defined as a relatively large and permanent human settlement : city. It is under that definition that city's article should be elaborated. This has been the rule on Wikipedia since its origins.

Yet this is exactly the crux of the matter here. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the crux of the matter is his edit warring (despite an admin saying "stop edit warring over the section header"), and the fact that the section header is fundamentally untrue. If it had one tiny, microscopic shred of truth, he would, could nd should have gone to ANI. That he hasn't is more than enough proof that it is not a serious accusation, but just an excuse to throw out yet more untrue, incivilities round. Enough is enough, and this needs to stop. – SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The crux of the matter is... that unreferencable WP:OR novel idea has been forced in the same way on this article by Hardouin since ten years now, and it's still WP:OR. THEPROMENADER 18:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article regarding the Paris Metropolitan Area. This article is about Paris (not say, Courbevoie, Saint Cloud, or La Défense). This has been addressed repeatedly here. Coldcreation (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then in this case the article should be renamed "City of Paris", and the "Paris" name should be left for an article about Paris in a non-narrowly-administrative sense. This is exactly what has been done for Brussels. There is the City of Brussels article for the narrowly-defined commune (municipality) of Brussels proper, and there is the Brussels article for the city of Brussels in a larger sense. This is also the case for Sydney (compare City of Sydney and Sydney). It would be ridiculous if the Sydney article contained information and pictures only about the narrowly defined "City of Sydney". Yet this is exactly what some editors are trying to do in the Paris article. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.. - SchroCat (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also WP:NOTESSAY and WP:SOAPBOX. THEPROMENADER 18:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The claim by Metropolitan is quite simply false. There are a number of users opposed to showing areas outside of Paris as the main image for Paris. We are well aware of the canvassing of those from the Skyscrapercity project with their agenda to impose images of skyscrapers regardless of whether they are representative or not. Nobody requires you to like how Paris looks, but it's a simple matter of fact that there are next to no skyscraper in Paris. Tour de Montparnasse is very much the exception. This is something a large number of users have commented upon, not just the two users Metropolitan mentions.Jeppiz (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then can you explain me why the Tour Montparnasse markets itself in its own advertisement as offering "the most beautiful view of Paris" illustrated by a picture offering the exact same angle on the Eiffel Tower:

• Advertisement #1 : "the most beautiful view of Paris"
• Advertisement #2 : "the most beautiful view of Paris"

Why would they do so if "no one considers this image as picturing Paris", maybe they are bad marketers? And similarly, can you explain me why the official magazine of the City Council of Paris also use an image from the same angle on its cover:

• Cover of the Paris City Council magazine with as caption "Paris, attractive capital"

I respect your general considerations, but I hardly see how they are relevant to the case. Yours respectfully. Metropolitan (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The topic has been brought to the Administrators Noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this issue. Metropolitan (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we go back to some of Sesto's montage suggestions for further discussion? At least he was trying to be constructive with his suggestions—many of which had merit—although some of the angles of buildings I didn't agree with. If we can possibly look objectively at one or two of his suggestions along lines that we can all agree on. I hope that, despite people ignoring what admins have to say, we can possibly get through this without any more stupidity from any party. Can we start with File:Montage X.jpg, shown on the right? - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Looking at File:Montage X.jpg I agree it has merits, but I'm not sure La Madeleine is ideal, it's rather imposing. I'd favour le Louvre, including la Pyramide, as it's a nice mix of both old and new File:Louvre_Museum_Wikimedia_Commons.jpg.Jeppiz (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's not anything wrong with the current one though, not to mention it looks more striking. The top image makes it looks like Athens! All of the landmarks in my montage are very well known worldwide. Why anybody would remove the Louvre beats me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, I also think your montage, the current one, is the best option. I don't think Sesto's is bad either, but I do prefer the current one.Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I generally prefer Blofeld's montage overall too, although there is one image I think you should consider dropping: La Défense. It's just too small for a montage; nothing is discernible in it unless you click on the image to enlarge it, and you have a large spralling image of the same area in the economy section. Each landmark should ideally be identifiable by just glancing at the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's a nice image, but in the montage at small resolution not really helpful. Open to updating that one image with a different one.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I think 'instantly recognisable even when small' is capital here. For 'Long' images like that, I'd say the Pont Neuf, panorama of the Champs Elysées (arc de Triomphe small in centre), the Louvre image (already there) I like a ~lot~... but that Madeleine image, one would say Greece ; ) I'm not particularly against having a La Defense distant skyline in there (if there is room for it after priority), just don't try to make it look as though it's ~in~ (or ~is~) Paris - but that's actually quite a hard thing to do.

(after looking at existing montage) I really think we could keep it KISS and keep the strength of the present montage if we changed just the bottom-right and long bottom image. The 'night-pont-neuf' image is a bit... busy. THEPROMENADER 18:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad: that bottom image is actually pont des Arts. But see? ; ) THEPROMENADER 18:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, Paris should be reduced to old tourist clichés, this is what do you mean? Rename Wikipedia into Lonely Planet if this is to make a tourist guide. It is not because tourist don't know or don't like the modern sides of the city that it is not revelant and should be hidden ! This is an encyclopedia, we don't care of tourist, what matter is the functionning Paris. (the global multicultural economic power, not the accordeon and café) Minato ku (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. The montage should have the city' best known landmarks within them. That mean tourists and any body on a world scale. The London montage for instance has three of its best known landmarks. I'm sure Schro living in the London area could think of dozens of other landmarks he thinks worthy of picturing too but would agree that on a world scale those are among the best known. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So which bit of Sesto's montage don't you like here? - SchroCat (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All of it. The top image makes it looks like Athens, and the bottom images could quite frankly be in Estonia for all I know.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minato ku, did you read the comment by Bbb23? If you have a constructive suggestion, please do add it and take part in the discussion. If all you're interested in is to heap cynical scorn at those who disagree with you, then don't write. There is nothing inherently better with a skyscraper from 2014AD or a temple from 2014BC. What matters is whether they are representative and illustrate the article. In the case of Paris, there are a number of well known monuments that represent the city, regardless of how well known they are by tourits. There are hardly any skyscrapers at all in Paris except Tour de Montparnasse. The current montage is representative of Paris.Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, why there is no tour Montparnasse ? It is one of the most visible building in Paris. Minato ku (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeppiz (talk), SchroCat (talk), and the others: Please, tell me that you're joking...The image with the Madelaine is a joke You understand that ?! This montage I made is completly bullshit ! You don't even know what "irony" means ?? I put the oldest buildings of Paris I've found, I have even put the Rue Irénée Blanc, a street that looks like part of a small village, and you, you are saying "Hmmm that's very very old, I love that !" A huge LOL ! Pfff, you're completly over the top...My REAL proposition is the previous montage I've made, this one. Sesto Elemento (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sesto Elemento, I think they were ironic too. They responded to your irony with some irony of their own. A good way to bury the real debate. Now if everybody could stop the diversions... Cats and 19th century photographs of La Madeleine have nothing to do in this discussion. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if you correct the spacing between pictures on this montage. Minato ku (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us who are interested in discussing the article and the image have been quite unanimous. We prefer the current version in the article, but are open (and of course obliged) to discuss changes to it with serious, good faith users. If someone has a change to suggest and to argue for, I'm all ears.Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is we? As we have no trust in each others and a consensus seems improbable, I think it would be better to have the opinion of more neutral editors. Minato ku (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When saying "we", I was thinking of the users Sesto Elemento choses to ridicule, including SchroCat, ThePromenader, Dr Blofeld, Coldcreation, Betty Logan and myself.Jeppiz (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to say that I am not interested in discussing the article? The use of "we" is not appropriate. Minato ku (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to come here by SchroCat on my talk page. I'm not sure what brought this page to Mike V's attention, but I can readily see why he locked the article. The problem on this talk page is I see little effort to reach a consensus on the disputed images. Instead, all I see is a bunch of sniping and accusations. Obviously, if that's all you can do, then either the lock will be continued or editors may be blocked for edit warring once the lock expires. That would be up to an administrator evaluating the situation.

My suggestion is that you forget about how much you apparently hate each other and focus on the content. There are, of course, other tools besides discussion on this page that you can use.

If you believe that there is editor misconduct and you have sufficient evidence to back that up, then take it to the appropriate noticeboard. If you don't have enough evidence, then stop making the accusations in the first instance because, in that context, they constitute personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, this, by ThePromenader, is frankly despicable. You talked about hate. I think that's exactly what it is. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: "I see little effort to reach a consensus on the disputed images. Instead, all I see is a bunch of sniping and accusations." That's because there is already agreement on the montage and this has been hijacked by a bunch of amateurish skyscraper fanatics. It's served the article well for over a year without complaints, and it will continue to do so.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ernst, if you want us admins to keep an eye on this, it would be nice if you could point us to the supposed agreement on the montage. I'm thinking about closing the discussion below, after it's run its course, but I'd like to know what all happened. Please don't give me a laundry list of diffs, but rather one (or two) solid discussions with clear consensus. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: See the "consensus on the image section" below for a brief indicator for support among most established editors. Sesto Elemento, Cloudicloucha, Minato ku and obvious 2A01 are not only editors but moderators from skyscraper.com [4] [5] who created accounts on wikipedia purely to stack votes and try to force this through here. See the article history. The other opposers are mainly Metropolian, who strangely turned up last July August 2013 after long being inactive to support Der Statistiker after a previous article disagreement and Cadem who of course has recently had a run in with Cassianto which I heavily criticized. I see very little evidence from established respected editors that the current montage isn't acceptable. Above all I'm concerned that no admin has stated that they've found the behaviour on this talk page suspicious nor have protected this page from being edited by newbies trying to sway a "vote". Consensus in favour of the image should be clear, especially if you discredit the editors from skyscrapers.com who are trying to push an image of Paris with skyscrapers. What I ask for now @De728631: or Drmies is an admin to semi protect this talk page permanently from brand new accounts and to leave a permanent notice at the top warning of our policy on Meatpuppetry trying to sway consensus. This page has a history of disruption from people creating accounts to try to push something, I think that's a perfectly legitimate request.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is moot now; De and I were working on this at the same time, but they were a few minutes ahead of me. I don't see the need for semi-protection, though: we have a consensus, underwritten by two admins, and attempts to either subvert or change that with some disruptive frequency will be dealt with. (Also, feel free to make fewer edits. Because of all these edit conflicts, something that should have taken five minutes has taken twenty.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for the disruption on numerous occasions by Der Statisker with obvious canvassing off wiki to stray to sway consensus from sympthaizers on skyscrapers.com, currently reported at ANI with a topic ban request, Jmabel has closed that asking Der Stat to stay away from conflict here. If he interferes again in future then it will be enacted which is fair enough. My concern is that this page is a target for new editors pushing a point, so if not any blocks, at least a warning at the top warning against canvassed support and that if this happens again it'll be punished?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since my comment was conveniently ignored by the people accused of WP:OWN in this article, I'm creating a new section for it. Der Statistiker (talk) 19:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that nobody is addressing Metropolitan's fourth point:

• A city cannot and should not be reduced to the strict administration managing it under its name. According to Wikipedia a city is defined as a relatively large and permanent human settlement : city. It is under that definition that city's article should be elaborated. This has been the rule on Wikipedia since its origins.

Yet this is exactly the crux of the matter here. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article regarding the Paris Metropolitan Area. This article is about Paris (not say, Courbevoie, Saint Cloud, or La Défense). This has been addressed repeatedly here. Coldcreation (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then in this case the article should be renamed "City of Paris", and the "Paris" name should be left for an article about Paris in a non-narrowly-administrative sense. This is exactly what has been done for Brussels. There is the City of Brussels article for the narrowly-defined commune (municipality) of Brussels proper, and there is the Brussels article for the city of Brussels in a larger sense. This is also the case for Sydney (compare City of Sydney and Sydney). It would be ridiculous if the Sydney article contained information and pictures only about the narrowly defined "City of Sydney". Yet this is exactly what some editors are trying to do in the Paris article. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you try this 'argument' on the unsuspecting since ten years already, Der Statistiker. Haven't you learned from the last... hundred times? THEPROMENADER 19:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with Der Statistiker. the metropolitan area is the WP:COMMONNAME, not the strictly defined city limits. Another wonderful example O'Hare is Chicago's most famous airport, but conveniently just outside the city borders for tax purposes. As the cities have grown to consume their suburbs, the concept of the city changes. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What brought your attention to this issue, Gaijin42 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePromenader (talk • contribs) 06:25, 26 September 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

O'Hare is inside Chicago city limits.

PS: Paris Metropolitan Area --NE2 03:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apples to oranges, again: nothing of the sort exists here, and nobody here knows what a 'Paris Metropolitan Area' is.

Or are you really proposing that Wikipedia rewrite French terminology and usage for them, or tailoring them for what other countries are "used to hearing" ? THEPROMENADER 06:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing that this is a naming issue rather than a content issue. There will always be two articles, one for the city inside the Périphérique and one for the metro area. Right now, the former is at Paris and the latter is at Paris Metropolitan Area. If the articles are moved, all the discussion here will still pertain to the former: the city of Paris proper. --NE2 06:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comment wasn't directed at you, NE2, sorry that wasn't clear. THEPROMENADER 07:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By my count ten editors support the current image, and six oppose. That seems to me a general consensus, until someone can propose a better image and win majority support for it. The only alternative I can suggest is to go back to the single image of the Eiffel Tower, which would also be fine with me.

To those who are making personal attacks, please stop. Do you talk to your friends and colleagues this way? SiefkinDR (talk) 10:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Friends and colleagues don't behave like Der Stat and his meat puppets!! It's become ridiculous. And the six opposes are hardly all valid opposes. Count only those from established editors..♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With that last 'oppose', the 'meat' may have become 'sock'. Look at the signature - odd. THEPROMENADER 10:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome the intervention of SiefkinDR, and I agree with Dr. Blofeld that at least three of the opposes are obvious meatpuppets, perhaps even some sock, as they only registered to edit this page. That probably explains quite a bit of the heated atmosphere, but I concur that we should leave it behind. The montage is fine as it is, and there is a strong consensus among regular Wikipedia users for keeping the current version.Jeppiz (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's clear. One thing User:Betty Logan made a good point about though is the image looking towards La Defense which at smaller resolution isn't very clear. Would File:Notre_dame_de_Paris_vue_de_la_tour_montparnasse.JPG be an acceptable replacement?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an image with Notre Dame, if you add this one you should remove the zoomed picture with the Pont des Art toward Ile de la Cité. Minato ku (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Minato ku, it's a nice image but perhaps not the best we could find. I have no strong feelings on the subject, but here are some thoughts. We could add Centre Pompidou, as it's famous and more modern than the current images. Alternatively, we could also consider adding a view from some street if we want to get away from only monuments. There would be lots of options, everything from Le Marais (Rue des Rosiers could be an option as Paris has Europe's largest Jewish population) to one of the larger Boulevards (Boulevard Haussmann, Boulevard Saint-Germain) or Champs-Élysées (but then without L'arc de triomphe). Again, these are just some suggestions.Jeppiz (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just uploaded a picture I took from Centre Georges Pompidou where we can see Montparnasse tower, Saint Jacques tower, the Conciergerie, Saint Sulpice church. The picture is moderately zoomed and shows a more diverse view than just old monuments File:Tour_Saint_Jacques_and_tour_Montparnasse_from_Beaubourg.jpg. EDIT: Trying in smaller size, the picture may be a bit too dark Minato ku (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best if we just stop discussing this for the time being. I have some other work I want to be doing and I don't think this urgently needs to be change.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to use one huge composite image. I changed the collage to be individual images here but it was reverted for some reason? The images look better quality, can be enlarged AND... can be selected individually. Wonderful hey? Then you can gain consensus for each image individually. I propose we remove the collage and discuss each image, starting from the top, adding them individually to the article once consensus is established for that image. Thoughts? Also I think that four lines of images is too much. Three is plenty. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Just extracting what was possibly the most constructive (yet drowned) contribution in all this. Rob's version is much better (clickable larger images), and he's done all the layout already; all there remains to do is switch out the photos, if the need be. THEPROMENADER 15:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On my computer the two middle images are sticking out of the left of the image so it looks hideous. Why is that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I didn't look at the code, but it could be a browser-compatibility layout issue. There is indeed no rush for this, but, Rob? THEPROMENADER 17:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the arrangement of those images required a table which different browsers handle differently. Newcastle upon Tyne shows a collage made using simply line-break tags. Rob (talk | contribs) 20:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a web-guy - do you mind if I have a look later? I'm really surprised that Wiki hasn't worked css into its code yet (css positioning directives called by a single 'class' word). Tables, really? THEPROMENADER 22:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest we declare a moratorium on further changes to the lead image. The discussion has been going on for much too long, with very little accomplished. If people would like to add images, please add them to the appropriate sections of the article. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, 11 Wikipedia editors supported retaining the current composite image. Those editors include: SiefkinDR, Coldcreation, Jeppiz, ThePromenader, Dr. Blofeld, Cassianto, Darkness Shines, Jaguar, Mariordo, SchroCat and Tim riley; far outnumbering those opposed to the image (most of who were non-Wikipedia editors, drawn here for the sole purpose of attaining artificial consensus). The fact that the dubious coercive plan to insert skyscrapers into the the article did not materialize is exemplary of the website's policies and guidelines set out from the start of the foundation. Experienced editors enforced these rules by deleting or modifying non-compliant material. However, in this particular case, Wikipedia's high openness has led to some concerns, in detriment of its accuracy of its information: contributions of new community members suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position. Such recruited members are considered analogous to sockpuppets and should be sanctioned accordingly. Finally, as a community member and active editor here at Wikipedia (and Wikipédia), it pleases me to see that, despite dubious activity, ‘reason’ used to deliberate and discuss the issue according to universal procedures established for the good of the general public at large has prevailed. Coldcreation (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather surprised that most of the cultural aspect in the Paris article seems to be limited to the early of the 20th century. Espect few aspect like the opening of the Branly museum which is wrongly depict as the newest museum of Paris (we are in 2014, this is not 2006. 8 years have happened and several museums have opened during this period) there are very few things about Paris modern culture.
-The music, France and Paris have one of the largest hip hop scene in the world ? Why nothing is said about this in this article nor in music of Paris article? Yet the rap is more popular among the population than the accordion which is pretty much restricted to tourism trade.
-The cusine seems to be too limited on french foods while Paris is full of restaurants from all over the world (and especially its former colonies), we need to make the reader understand that the food in Paris is not limited to French cuisine. The current sentence about this is not clear. It can be understood as "almost every cuisine from the sole France" because the previous sentence only speak about the internal migration and not the international migration.
-About the festivals, in my opinion too much is said about the Bastille day history but almost nothing about other festivals. No Gay pride, no Chinese New Year, no Techno parade, no Nuit Blanche, No fête de la Musique...
Obviously I just wrote few limited examples among many others and while the role of this article is not to list everything that exist in Paris, the absence of some important points is problematic in the understanding of the city. It gives the impression that Paris culture stopped at WW2.

I don't think that somebody reading the section culture of Paris could understand the contemporary culture of Paris. This section needs an overhaul, not in its structure which is good but in its informations. Minato ku (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right Minato ku, "the role of this article is not to list everything that exist in Paris". That's why there are links within this article to other main articles such as Culture of Paris, Music in Paris, Art in Paris, List of museums in Paris, French cuisine, Economy of Paris, Landmarks in the City of Paris, Paris districts, List of visitor attractions in Paris, List of parks and gardens in Paris, History of Parks and Gardens of Paris, History of Paris, Timeline of Paris and many others. Coldcreation (talk) 05:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that a some more attention could be paid to modern cultural places and organisations (Cité de la Musique, Cité des Sciences, etc.), but I don't think their 'impact' can compare with those from years past, and yes, this article is already far too long. THEPROMENADER 06:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point was not about the places, the culture section should not become a resume of all the museums of Paris. I don't see the need to speak about the Cité de la Musique outside a specific article about the Parisian museums. My point was about the cultural aspect of Paris in broader way. Today the rap has much more impact on the city than the bal musette but nothing is said about it.

By reading this section you have the impression that the culture of Paris is stuck in the past. This is far to the reality of this vibrant cultural hub. Minato ku (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Minato ku that contemporary culture is under-represented in the article and it would probably be a good idea to expand on it.Jeppiz (talk) 10:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just providing a couple examples. Another good cultural indicator is the radio stations listened to here, and the type of music they play. THEPROMENADER 11:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody is quite welcome to talk about its hip hop scene and more contemporary culture, but try to keep it condensed and neatly written and use book sources in the given format if possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Minato ku would like to have a go at it. By and large, I think the ideas they put forward are sound and relevant.Jeppiz (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appeared today - a few here were interviewed for it. The article neither asks questions nor gives answers, but it is a pretty good 'emotional outline' of what went on... it's behind a paywall, but you can see the first excerpt here. Cheers ; ) THEPROMENADER 19:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As yet discussed, the current selection of photos is a very particular point of view of the city : the point of view of an (american) tourist. This photomontage should be a little more representative of other points of views. It should at least show :

• an organ of power : Paris is a political capital. Maybe the Elysium Palace or the National Assembly. Senate can be good too (jardins du luxembourg) ;
• Metro : it is not possible to avoid the Parisian subway in Paris. Maybe a metro station, or better, the whole map of the metro, that would give a good overview of the geography.
• A photo with humans and/or traffic. On the current photo, Paris seems to be a desert. Maybe a photo of the Grands Magasins at 14h should give a more realistic view of the city.
• Any (of a very large) list of the second part of the XX century or XXI century building. you don't like Montparnasse tower, there are a lot of other (Institute of Arab world, National Library of France, Bastille Opera, City of Science, musée du quai Branly... ). There are also several buildings from Le Corbusier, and even to the headquarters of the PCF a nice building although too much politically oriented. Note that Montparnasse tower is more seen as a monument than a classical building, and so it is the only one of the town, just as other monuments : Eiffel Tower, Arc of Triumph, are all unique... That is not the same philosophy than in New York. The same differences of philosophies applies to bridges when comparing Paris and San Francisco : in Paris there are a lot of bridges, all different, in SF, the is the Golden Gate bridge...

By the way, it is possible (but I am not sure it is a good approach) to select a photo by period : roman empire (thermes, arênes), Medieval (Notre Dame, Sainte Chapelle... ), etc.

PS : sorry for my bad English Cheers, v_atekor (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your title, v_atekor, to widen discussion to the entire article (and so I can add me two cents here ; )

Some additional suggestions for a more 'Modern' article:

• History - the history section should move down in the page. Way down.
• Lede - I'm not so sure the 'origins' history is so necessary in the Lede. Perhaps a single phrase inserted as the beginning of the "Paris is the home of the Louvre" paragraph - this would make for a shorter Lede, too.

• Landmarks by District - 0.o - this should go to an article of its own, perhaps into a merging of the other linked articles.
• Culture - Unless Paris directly influenced any artistic work, I don't find it particularly useful to indicate it here because the artist simply lived or visited Paris. I think a more 'dynamic' description of the culture today would be helpful, too.
• Other stuff - just small things like "Paris is the greenest city after..." in the Economy section (?), and perhaps a rearrangement of the sections ('climate' at the top, really?). And yes, v_atekor and the French Wikipedia article had a good point, there's not much about the 'Métro' here... Paris must be one of the densest in metro lines per m² of all the world cities. THEPROMENADER 09:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I full Agree. Is there a standard organisation for English cities articles ? The one of the French article is quite standard for the French cities. I think we can translate the French article, full featured, with a gold star, maybe adapting it to English readers ? v_atekor (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's just do what's most informative ('right'). I just looked at the French version, and I am in admiration of the demography section... there are few other global cities with an administrative/demographic makeup like Paris' (no intercommunality, no 'city and area' association/organisation/administration - although they're working on it) and this should be explained in a clear way. As for translation, the English version requires a bit more 'context' explanation (that is already 'compris' by French readers ; ), but for sure, yeah, this should definitely be an FA article. THEPROMENADER 10:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello v_atekor,

RE your suggestions: Some contributors were working on the article, section by section, with the understanding (such was my belief) that, in order to have it "length-readable", details judged not necessary in this general article of/on Paris would, after work over, be transfered to specific sub-articles, such as History of Paris and others. To reach that goal in an organized manner, some of us were spending hours of research & editing. Now that access to the article has been denied for about one month (my last entry was on 18 September), criticism is given on what's wrong with the article: you are not telling us anything that we did not know; we are quite aware of it (please read some earlier discussions above) & were doing our best to address the problem, line by line, section by section, with as much accuracy as possible, which takes time. Consequently, at this time, talk of ever reaching FA goal sounds like a dream that may never come true. Also, the addition of pictures would be more logical when article is completed.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, give him credit for caring, that sounds really dissuasive. Probably my suggestions are on the 'to do' list too, and I'm not aware of it. Why would an FA be so unreachable? THEPROMENADER

Worse things have been written on this page beside my suggesting politely - beginning with "Hello" & ending with "Best regards" - to user v_atekor that he read previous discussions on the very problems he points out. If the article had not been subjected to an edit war about the most representative picture of Paris, at which time it was impossible to add a point virgule to it, then blocked for so long, its orderly editing would be done.

As for the FA goal, no doubt that it is reachable, but there is a lot to do before it gets there, and it takes time. While to some the article seems too long... a lot is missing. For instance, the section Photography: 4 short lines & no mention of Daguerre? Literature: on the French side, only Hugo, Balzac & Dumas, père in a little over 5 lines, while Hemingway manages over 2 lines. Other foreign writers mentioned are all anglophone, not a single Russian, not even Ivan Turgenev who, in 1875, was elected vice president of the Congrès International de Littérature, of which Hugo was president.

The above just to say that adding + subtracting + editing + reviewing + discussing + warring + blocking = long way to FA.

Thank you, user v_atekor's, for your comments & please understand that, after reading your remarks, I wanted to make you aware of the fact that a lot of what you are saying has already been taken into account, that we are, or rather "were" working on it until we got stopped: I was only stating the facts.

Best regards,--Blue Indigo (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must be not-so-new here ; ) THEPROMENADER 07:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "not-so-new here"? List of contributions should give you an idea. --Blue Indigo (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dat vass a jöke! The usual expression is "You must be new here". THEPROMENADER 15:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

0.o - your contributions list is not that long - mille pardons! I figured from your "adding + subtracting + editing + reviewing + discussing + warring + blocking = long way to FA" that you had been around a while ; ) THEPROMENADER 15:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read the French Paris article, the more I like it. They've done an admirable job of organising the article in a way that leads to a better understanding of the city/agglomeration itself (rather than catering to international ignorance about it). It includes lengthy sections (lodging, etc) that are more 'local' in nature (and understanding) that could be reduced here, and there's a certain lack of rigeur when it comes to references, but overall it's great! Even its language is succinct; I'd be more than happy to help with translations if need be. THEPROMENADER 07:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can start to translate soon. Tell me which paragrapher you will work on, and I will (try to) translate others. Because I am not a native english writer, I wont ever write on the main, on the public page. I will put all the stuff in a draft on my personal pages to be corrected before. v_atekor (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said the structure of the French article was admirable, but I was careful in my wording to avoid giving the idea that I was suggesting simply translating the article into English. The only parts where it would be constructive to do this is the demography section (minus, as I mentioned, the 'lodging' and other 'local' concerns), as it tells it exactly how it is in a rather succinct way, and it's "straight from the horse's mouth", to boot. Apologies if I gave the opposite idea. THEPROMENADER 16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's right, but that make few differences. We need a base to start, and I think this article is good enough to build an English FA. It will be improved, better explained for English readers, references can be enhanced and discussed... but that will be a second step, once the English article will be at the level of the French one. Don't start by the end. v_atekor (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can we begin by requesting that the article be unprotected, so we can get back to work on improving it? I agree with Blue Indigo; it's frustrating that we can't work on it, and the announcement at the beginning the the article is blocked is an embarrassment.

I believe we did reach a consensus that the existing image, while not perfect, is acceptable to most editors polled and shouldn't be changed now. The purpose of the opening image is to show that this article is about Paris, France and not Paris Texas, and to have clearly identifiable images that say 'Paris'. We can, however, discuss here, section by section, what changes and improvements can be made within the article. There are some good suggestions above for improvement which merit further discussion here, and decision by consensus here in the talk page. Can we proceed this way? SiefkinDR (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I urge people to look at the articles on London, New York, and Berlin, which I think are good models for length and organizational structure. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Paris Texas is a very small city (with no high-rise unlike Paris France), there is absolutly no way to confuse both. To go back in the subject I think we should remove the protection. Nothing can be done about the cultural section, comparing with articles of other cities I believe that it is to long. Minato ku (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no way to confuse both Paris (France) and Paris (Texas)? Please take a look at article on Paris (Texas) on fr.wiki:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_%28Texas%29

--Blue Indigo (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be unprotected on 25 October [15]. After the article published on Le Monde newspaper [16], it's been recalled on the French talk page that hiding specific dimensions of a topic is considered WP:POV [17]. The current montage doesn't even show the actual city, only a collection of lifeless landmarks close-ups. For the matter, this has raised enough concerns in France for the story to be also mentioned on a major radio, Europe 1 [18]. This is why, I believe the better way to calm things out is to go for the conservative option which is to use the same image in the English version than the one used in the French version. An image which is a good consensus as it does show the Eiffel Tower, the undisputed symbol of the city, but also its urban surrounding landscape and its full dimension as a metropolis. That's the only way in my humble opinion to reach WP:NPOV in this case. Metropolitan (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) So the only solution is to give you what you want (because appeals to authority, appeals to popularity, appeals to antiquity, with no clear expression of fact?). That is not what normal editors do, it is what people with agendas do. And people with agendas corrupt constructive discussion, as you have done just now. THEPROMENADER 06:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But thanks for the heads-up about the radio blurb, I wasn't aware of it. Like the article, not asking or answering any questions, just a 'fait divers' playing on the emotion of the whole thing. But thanks. THEPROMENADER 07:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan, as you are already very aware, there is a consensus against the single image, and that was agreed upon by two admins, De728631 and Drmies. Although consensuses change over time, it is disruptive to start banging the same drum again so,soon after the debate has closed. If you wish to open the whole topic again—a disruptive move, in my opinion—it is unlikely that the page protection will be removed. - SchroCat (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ShroCat. The question of the lead image has been settled by consensus. We don't need to recycle the old arguments. We need to move on with improving the content of the article. SiefkinDR (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question of the lead image was NEVER settled by a consensus, otherwise it wouldn't have drawn the attention of various media. It was IMPOSED by Dr. Blofeld without prior discussion, and then defended stubbornly by his friends from the GA project, people who otherwise have never edited the Paris article. This is NOT consensus. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See #Consensus on the Image?: the closing admins thought otherwise. Time to move on to more constructive areas of debate for the future of the article. - SchroCat (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin had no idea of the entire history of this, and you, more than anyone else, are not entitled to give any advice about this, given that you are the one who triggered all of this by reverting the article in July 2013 to reinstall the photomontage of your friend Dr. Blofeld without any explanation or prior discussion on the talk page: [19]. All of this stems from you coming into this article, which you had never edited before, solely to revert it to restore Dr. Blofed's tourist photomontage. This you cannot deny. I've provided the diff. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were two closing admins, De728631 and Drmies, who reviewed the information: they closed the thread to keep the current montage. That's all that matters: move on to more constructive areas of debate for the future of the article, and try to retain some shred of AGF. If you continue to press the montage point, it is unlikely that the article will be unlocked. I find it quite sad, and rather underhand of you to shamlessly canvass on French Wiki for people to vote on the issue here, as well as to attack editors on this site. That is a rather shameful stance. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, baseless attacks from you. WP:CANVASS explains clearly that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions", which is exactly what I have done. I have not told anyone to vote in this or that way. Can you explain to me why you have NEVER edited the Paris article in a constructive way (as in adding information, rewriting badly written parts, updating figures, etc), and you only always appear either to defend your friend Dr. Blofeld or to attack people in the talk page here? I, unlike you, have provided lots of content to this article over the years, to the point of spending hours to design maps, create tables, etc., and I don't spend my life only on the talk pages or the administrators' noticeboards unlike some people here. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it is a lie to say you have not tried to canvass support. Roughly translated you have said: "Your help at all would be welcome to end the deadlock . We cannot accept that a handful of Canadian-English publishers impose their vision of Paris to the world". To try and claim that you "have not told anyone to vote in this or that way" is simply untrue. There is nothing baseless in what I have said: you have gone to another website and tried to get them to vote on an issue here that was closed by consensus three weeks ago. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as per WP:CANVASS: "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions". There is a handful of Canadian-English publishers who try to impose their vision of Paris, no one can deny it, and I'm not ashamed to repeat it here. All I've asked is for knowledgeable French editors to come to the Paris article and express their opinions about this, because there is indeed a deadlock since none of you is willing to compromise. I have not told the French editors what opinion to express, in fact it would be rather counter-productive given how independently minded the French usually are. All I've said is they should air their views to see if we can move from there. But as usual, you resort to the old Stalinist trick of framing your "opponent" as evil to have him liquidated. It's tactics and harassment like this which increasingly push contributors away from Wikipedia. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to step away from your lies, as little constructive comes from trying to discuss anything with you. Thanks for calling me Stalinist: I'll add that to the rest of the insults you've thrown my way, and note, once again, that there is a consensus to retain the current image. That fact you don't like it means little to anyone, as it is the consensus that carries the weight, not the POV of the most disruptive editor. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is "disruptive" about discussing things on the talk page? Talk pages were created for this very purpose. What's really disruptive is when some editors make wholesale reverts and delete the contributions of other editors to the article, as you've done here and here. As for insults, you're the king. Anyone reading this talk page can spot your "fuck off" and other niceties. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just recall that De728631 has been considered involved after he blocked me during 3 days, a decision proven unfounded and cancelled after the appeal from Caden [20]. It is cristal clear that there's nothing solved here, and I agree with SiefkinDR, Minato ku and Blue Indigo that the article has many other flaws that we could address first.

• Culture: the section is indeed too big and should be thought as a glance inviting the interested reader to explore the Culture of Paris detailed article. We can also feel a certain trend to mix that section up with the more mainstream Culture of France article. I think an overhaul is necessary in order to focus more on the key elements to understand what is specific to the Paris identity: theatres, the movie industry, impressionist school, few key writers and singers, and the current state of today's Paris cultural life.
• Landmarks by district: that section, currently listing 450 different buildings, is totally unreadable in its current form. It should be replaced by a more general "Monuments and Landmarks" section, if not by an even broader "Visitor attractions" section with not more than 20 different mentions. Once again, there is already a standalone article for the Landmarks in the City of Paris which is more reader-friendly for those wanting to explore a more detailed list of those.

Even if that doesn't solve ongoing conflicts, focusing first on these 2 sections is probably the best way to get back to more constructive contributions to the article. Metropolitan (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the personal conflicts out of it. I agree that the Landmarks in the City of Paris is more reader-friendly, but it indicates (without reference) that the Val-de-Seine ([21]?) is in the 15th arrondissement (!) and that La Defense is in the 17th arrondissement (!!), and the Plaine-Saint-Denis is in the 18th arrondissement (!!!)? There's nothing wrong with mentioning these, but not like that. THEPROMENADER 08:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Landmarks in the City of Paris might be more reader-friendly in an impeccable presentation, but also - in addition to your mention of the parachuted Val-de-Seine, La Défense & Plaine-Saint-Denis, there are other *monumental* errors. Consequently, maybe it should not be given as a model of perfection:)

--Blue Indigo (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those "monumental errors" are due to Dr. Blofeld. Before Dr. Blofeld started editing the article last year, Val de Seine, La Défense, and Plaine Saint-Denis were listed in the sub-sub-section "In the Paris area", distinct from the sub-sub-section "City of Paris" (see this version of the article as of June 23, 2013). After Dr. Blofeld's massive rewriting of the article, Val de Seine ended up in the 15th arrondissement, La Défense ended up in the 17th arrondissement, and Plaine Saint-Denis ended up in the 18th arrondissement (see this version of the article as of July 7, 2013). I then tried to correct these errors and many other errors introduced by Dr. Blofeld, but all my edits were reverted in two wholesale reverts by SchroCat who had never edited the article before and came here only to "protect" the work of his friend Dr. Blofeld whom he knows from the DYK and GA projects (see these two wholesale reverts by SchroCat here and here). This to clarify the situation for people who haven't followed the entire history of this. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These "monumental errors" were based on wikipedia's existing category system which I used to find building by arrondisement. If there are any errors it's likely due to categorization errors. I agree that the details should be in the main Landmarks article and it condensed down, but that's no excuse for continuing to behave so pettily and belligerently.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively new here & much interested in articles concerning France, I simply change what I see as not correct & refuse to go on a wild chase after culprits to put on the pillory or burn at the stake. I am neither Sherlock Holmes nor an Inquisitor. When I see something not exact, I correct it to the best of my knowledge, leave an explanatory comment, then go on to the next line. What interests me is the article. Period. It is great that such an article as Paris, France, //"Hello!" Paris, Texas :)// raises so much interest on the other side of the English Channel, the Atlantic or Down Under and, unless in a constructive manner, I will not take part in your discussions. As old buddies from previous fights, you all seem to know each other, I don't. The only time I will put in my two cents worth is to prove my correction is right or when/if someone attacks someone on a racial, religious or national basis. And if I feel that my work is a waste of time, I'll stop my participation.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you misunderstood my comment. It was less a response to you than to ThePromenader who insinuates (and this is not the first time) that the editors defending a broader presentation of Paris (city proper + suburbs) are the ones who put Val de Seine in the 15th arrondissement, La Défense in the 17th arrondissement, and Plaine Saint Denis in the 18th arrondissement. I simply pointed out that the person responsible for that was Dr. Blofeld, and that these three errors were defended by SchroCat in his two wholesale reverts. You're welcome to help us correct these and many other errors in the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made no insinuation at all. THEPROMENADER 21:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, that is a perfect example of disruptive behaviour: you just made an ad hominem attack on a strawman you tacked to a comment about content. THEPROMENADER 21:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the one *guilty* of the present size - by either length or weight - of landmarks by district, I would like to repeat what I wrote a couple of times & will not mention anymore because it does not seem to be read and/or understood: when I began editing this article last May or June, the on-going discussion was about its length, and I was careful to mention the fact that my editing would add length, but that, once accomplished, all that would have to be done would be to remove the details deemed not needed and bring these details, i.e. material already researched with references etc., to appropriate linked articles. In the case of landmarks, the material could be brought to the article on landmarks or to the respective arrondissements.

As for the Culture section, it would be good to give a definition of what is meant by the word itself, as every reader has his/her own idea of what culture is.

A question: what is meant by Literature? Is it literature about Paris (because only three French authors given)? Parisian authors? Expatriates? - and may I mention that there have been more expatriates than the Americans who *fled* the US because of prohibition or in search of a certain lifestyle :) - More of other nationalities fled their country because of political & religious persecution, and settled in Paris for a while or forever; they have been totally excluded from this article. Naturally, mentioning them would also add weight - but then, why favor so heavily the between WWI & WWII anglophone expatriates? There is a lack of balance.

Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have a large consensus for the French version of the article, both by francophone (FA, gold star.. ) than by anglophones (previous §) ; then better than starting writing a new article from scratch, better than trying to find another impossible compromise, we can start to translate it. That's a good starting point for everybody. For the photomontage, it will change soon or late, so don't worry ; it would be better to make purposes for others selections of pictures v_atekor (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go 'counting' consensus - it doesn't work that way. "The biggest number wins (no matter what)!" is driven by irrationality (and immaturity); consensus is a result of rational, constructive, non-fallacious discussion.

(to all) I moved my comment about 'translation' to the section above where it is more constructive. This section is more of a "he said/she said" fight. THEPROMENADER 16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to replace the existing article with a translation of the article in the French Wikipedia. That article has some admirable features, but some of its statistics and facts are outdated, and it has a long essay at the end, with little attribution, which doesn't add any new information and doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article.

Can we re-open the article for edits for a trial period, and see if we can move ahead with it? Editors who engage in personal attacks, re-open long settled arguments, make unconstructive comments should be blocked from this article, so the rest of us can get to work. Thanks for your consideration.SiefkinDR (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

L'article n'est pas bon à traduire car les citations sont à améliorer et les stats à actualiser. Et la marmotte... Débrouillez vous sans moi, j'ai perdu assez de temps comme ça. Ciao. v_atekor (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome in English Wikipedia where French contributors are not welcome because they have a much more urban and functional view of Paris, as the result most of the French contributors who contributed in the past have left, leaving this Paris article in such a bad state where informations are either incorrect, outdated or factual and where real important informations about the city are almost neglected because of not corresponding to the cliché.

A famous hollywood producer once said "There is a Paramount Paris and MGM Paris and RKO Paris and Universal Paris and of course the real Paris - but Paramount Paris was the most Parisian of them all". This is what is happening in this article.

Please stay, we need other contributors to move the debate. Minato ku (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like them to stay too. Yet, Minato ku, how is it that you indicate 'a needed point of view' at the same time as you insult ("defending the cliché") everyone else involved in the discussion? This indicates a "my side, their side" mentality that has no place here. THEPROMENADER 09:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minato ku; you sound like a fonctionnaire de l'État, always complaining and never doing anything. Editors of the Paris article welcome editors from French Wiki, and elsewhere, to participate in editing here and/or discussing on the Talk page, as long as the contributions are constructive. Coldcreation 12:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a constructive contribution? Der Statistiker (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coldcreation This is maybe because I think that my English is not good enough to make major edit in the article. I don't want to diminish the quality of the article with sentences full of grammar and spelling errors that's why I am more active in the talk-page but this is maybe a wrong way of thinking. I also feel that my contributions would be deleted instead of being corrected.Minato ku (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, I wrote: "The only time I will put in my two cents worth is to prove my correction is right or when/if someone attacks someone on a racial, religious or national basis." Having followed various discussions on fr.wiki - bistro & Paris talk page -, brought about after Le Monde recent publication regarding the debate on this page, whether I am an American or not, I took as a personal attack upon me, and on all American contributors, the anti-American comments, by which their author disgraced himself. I thus feel that before offering his help on en.wiki, Mr. V should give here some explanation & apologize for the comments he uttered at least twice on fr.wiki Paris talk page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Paris&diff=next&oldid=108347309. He also should be made aware of the fact that, when working on en.wiki, he will very likely come into contact & have to measure up with some Americans quite knowledgeable on subjects related to France, its history, cultural heritage, in addition to French grammar & spelling.

Reacting to both of Mr. V's 19 October 2014 disparaging comments, there was a "rappel à l'ordre": merci pour nos confrères américains by a Frenchman who, on 21 October, mentioned again l'antiaméricanisme primaire dans l'intervention de V ci dessus....

Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All : there are two points to be discussed :

• What changes should be made on the current photo-montages to avoid the flood of laughs critics from the Parisians and much Europeans ;
• Is the current design of the wheel a good base or should we reinvent it ?

For the first point, I imagine soon or late the photo will change including several (obvious) changes I have suggested (you can easily do much better I imagine) for the second, soon or late you will conclude that although very old, the circular wheel design is very effective. Now, reread the above so called "debate", and try to understand why I leave. I am working on Gaudi and Goya, you are welcome to make them FA, based on the Spanish and Catalan pages, respectively. v_atekor (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS : @BI... after the battle field of the current §, you need scapegoat. Nice to know I am. I ara prou. v_atekor (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the attention of v_atekor:

Do you know the definition of scapegoat? According to Collins: a scapegoat is "a person made to bear the blame for others".

• On 19 October, what you wrote on fr.wiki talk page were your own words signed by you, and which brought about the following reaction from a French Wikipedian: Et sinon ça va Vaketor les préjugés sur les américains ?-) C'est des attaques personelles pures et simple ton petit discours...

• On 21 October, when re-establishing portion of the page which had been removed, the same French Wikipedian added: J'ai remis cette partie effacée par Seudo: en plus de l'antiaméricanisme primaire dans l'intervention de Vaketor ci dessus

When I read your comments on fr.wiki, I was flabbergasted. Then, seeing that you have the guts to come here & offer your services I had to speak my piece. To top it all off, after reading my comment bringing your defamatory behavior to the attention of the English speaking contributors of the Paris article, you complain that you are used as a "scapegoat" - and this, after you signed the most arrogant & disgusting repeated statements one could make against the Americans.

Before adding or removing a comma anywhere on English Wikipedia, you owe the contributors of this page, and the contributors of en.wiki in general, many of whom are Americans, an apology.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 15:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been put on a section of its own. My apologies.

Enough with the ad hominems, please address the points made which are relevant to the article. Don't distract yourself from the collective efforts to bring this discussion back on track. Metropolitan (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It had to be said. And if you check the page for which I provided the link, you may understand my stepping in. Good luck. --Blue Indigo (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simple statements of fact are not ad hominem. THEPROMENADER 07:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I invite everyone to read again the WP:NPOV policy of Wikipedia:

Currently, the article is heavily biased towards a historical/heritage representation of Paris. The article is structured the same way as the article of Pompeii with most of its contents dedicated to describe past History, heritage sites, tourism, and past culture. The difference with Pompeii though is Paris hasn't been destroyed by a volcano 2,000 years ago, and here goes the WP:POV.

Facts about what is Paris today are marginalized in shrinked sections burried at the bottom. For the good of the debate, here are some facts about today's Paris we should all remember. Economically speaking, Paris is among the top 5 cities generating the most wealth in the world, it hosts more headquarters of Fortune Global 500 firms than London or New York. Demographically speaking, it is a megapolis of 12 million people inhabitated by large communities coming from all countries in the world. Regarding infrastructures, it is one of the most important transport node in Europe, with 4 airports, 6 major railway stations linked to 4 different high-speed rail lines, and hosts the second largest river port in Europe.

To know whether or not the economics, demographics and infrastructures aspects of Paris are represented fairly, proportionately in the current article, I invite everyone to compare the size of the said sections with the one of those dedicated to History, heritage and culture (which in the case of Paris ignores its modern aspects as everyone obviously agreed here [22]). I've counted words of each section (including their paragraphs in introduction), and in order to give a point of comparison, I've done the same about London, which is a similar size capital city of a similar country.

It's worth being mentionned though that London's culture section is entirely dedicated to today's culture. But even putting that aspect aside, the London article, which seems well-balanced, talk about as much of History, heritage and culture than it does of economy, demographics and transports. In the case of Paris, sections about the "past" aspects are 4.5 times bigger than those about today's aspect. In reading this article, we can decently believe that today's Paris is judged not relevant anymore, which is a total distortion of the truth.

Most people who participated to the discussion now seems to agree that the landmarks by district section must be replaced by a quick summary, the culture section needs an overhaul and the history section needs to be moved down. For the new sections to be written, V_atekor proposes us to get inspired by the French version of the article, which has reached FA status. All key facts about the city are clearly mentioned in it and I think it's indeed a good base for necessary improvements.

So despite everything, I do have the feeling we're moving forward, and I thank everyone for their efforts to push the discussion back on the right track. Metropolitan (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All that to say "this article needs less history, more modern stuff?" Well, I agree! I saw what you did in there, by the way, but let's leave that between us. Fine and dandy, though. ; ) THEPROMENADER 16:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan: not surprised about the small percentage of the demographics section compared to London. This section was viciously cut down by Dr. Blofeld as a "retaliation" against my criticism of his bloated "Landmarks" section (see his edit with this crazy summary As you campaigned for me to cut the landmarks I'm cutting this bloated section again to even things out). Regarding transports, I am currently preparing some stats that I will add to the section once the article is unlocked, if Promenader & co. haven't managed to have me banned before that is. We are faced with the most vicious people I have ever seen in my life online, ready to scapegoat and request banishments against whoever disagree with them. The fact that ThePromenader, who is not an admin, recently removed the case asking for my banishment from the archives and pasted it again in the active Administrators' noticeboard speaks for itself. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disrupting this discussion, too? THEPROMENADER 18:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only 14 minutes to respond to my comment. Congratulations! You're spending your life on Wikipedia?

Regarding "disruption", what's really disruptive is to reopen an archived case just to pursue your personal feud. That is certainly not going to contribute to calm things down here or move forward. Ask yourself some questions for a change, and drop the self-righteousness. You're as guilty as anyone here. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get alerts. What of it? The only one who brought up anything personal was you. THEPROMENADER 18:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, this is starting again, I recall that the content in this article belongs to no one. When editing it, you sacrifice your work benevolently to the common goods, no matter how good it is or how much it sucks. That's the rule. Now about the content of the demographics section, it should indeed be increased as shown on the table. I've just read again the French version of the article and it should be a good source to improve the English version. It's probably too long to be translated litteraly but we can move here the most substantial part of it. I neither know, nor care about who has written it, only the content matters. Metropolitan (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? You sound like me five years ago ; ) I also support translating the French demographics section (with a bit less detail in 'lodgement' and other local concerns) - it's an obviously knowledgable work of art. THEPROMENADER 21:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this notice on ANI a short time ago, and I'll post it here too, as a notice to all parties: The flame-wars on this page need to stop. Therefore, from this moment on, this talkpage as well as all related discussions elsewhere (including edit summaries etc.) are a strict, no-exceptions, "comment on content, not on contributor" zone. You can all continue to discuss what content should be in the Paris article, but until further notice, no contributor with a prior significant involvement on the Paris discussions is allowed, in any context, to engage in any negative remarks about any of the others. This includes, in addition to the usual forms of incivility and personal attacks: any complaints or accusations of wrongdoing, speculations about the other person's motivations or POV agendas, reminders about (real or alleged) past misbehaviour or allusions to such, talk about somebody's behaviour off-wiki, ad-hominem arguments about somebody's lack of qualifications or of editing merits, "tu-quoque"-types of responses to accusations from others. Anybody who engages in any such behaviour, on any side, will be blocked, immediately, without further warning, for substantial periods of time. This applies especially to every contributor who has been involved in the controversies over the images and the overall profile of the article during the last year (the people involved will know who they are; if in doubt: anybody with more than, say, five contributions to this the relevant threads on this talkpage will qualify). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that people have been discussing the impending lifting of the page protection, but apparently the question of the top image is still arousing controversy. Therefore my question: are people going to accept the current status quo for the time being, or are we going to see renewed reverts over this once the page is open again? Please don't re-start arguing the case here, just answer me in a matter-of-fact way: is any of you planning to make an edit that you have reasons to think might be unacceptable to others here? (Please answer in the spirit of the behavioral warning above.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No - I've only edited Paris twice, no intention to return to this article anytime soon. I favor the current consensus, but won't edit either way. Should a new consensus emerge, I accept that. Not editing the picture either way.Jeppiz (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No - And I will of course bow to consensus. THEPROMENADER 16:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it didn't look to me as if you had to "bow" to anything here, since the current status quo is the one you supported, or isn't it? I am of course most interested to hear from those who were previously not happy with this state. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I didn't, for sure. But, in the future, should I not agree with consensus, 'still No'. And 'No', I won't be submitting anything formerly contested without talking about it first. THEPROMENADER 16:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, fair enough, thanks for the clarification. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No - I disagree with the status quo but I will not revert it for the time being. It can only do good to the article to focus first on the contents improvements mentioned on the sections above; but without arguing, I feel obliged to notice that every French contributors judged that image an unfaithful representation of the actual city, which means a long term solution will have to be found, but only later. And that solution will of course not be a blunt revert. Metropolitan (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No - Although I disagree with the photo montage being used, I do respect the community consensus and accept that. Caden ^cool 22:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No, I am satisfied with the current image.SiefkinDR (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No, consensus has spoken . Coldcreation (talk) 06:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Non, I didn't ever edit this article, nor will do so, I did few edits on the whole en:WP. I have proposed my help here after an article of a major French news paper and several national radios. I would have do much better to go my way. I fully disagree with this photo and status quo, but you can use a photo of the sewers of Paris if you want - they are visiting - I won't comment this article any more. Do what you want. v_atekor (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No, no matter what the illustration is -single or montage-, most important is the content of the article. Once a satisfactory redaction of text has been achieved, the image should come - which no doubt will be decided in a unanimous vote (!) by the members of this most distinguished assembly :) - as the cherry on the cake. --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No, I don't agree with this status quo and I find the current picture horrible and unrepresentative of Paris but I will not change the image without a discussion in this talk page. For the moment the content of the article is my priority. Minato ku (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• No - Thanks for your intervention in trying to calm things down. Just one question: could you tell us what's the way to proceed in the future to reach a consensus on a new photomontage or image for the infobox, given that all French editors and several French media have criticized the current photomontage in the en:WP article of Paris? Two French editors here have offered to create a new photomontage, but I'm not sure how they, or anyone else for that matter, should proceed. Thanks again. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a need for a renewed discussion about the image, my proposal would be a highly structured and tightly supervised RfC: one phase where any interested party can submit a favourite image for consideration, with just a brief paragraph each about why they think it would be best; then the actual RfC where everybody can state their preferences; tight restrictions on the amount of threaded debate inside the RfC, to avoid the thing being drowned in the noise of debate from a few people with long-standing entrenched positions and vested interests. Basically, in such an RfC, everybody with a significant involvement in prior debates should simply state their opinion once, briefly, and just let everybody else's opinions stand in the same way, without re-hashing all the same arguments in threaded debate again. But I strongly recommend to do what several others have hinted at before, and just concentrate on something else first and let the image issue rest for a while. If people wish to experiment with new versions of montages in the meantime, I'm sure they could do that quietly and among themselves away from this page for a while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I thought we agreed, after the very long discussion above, that the issue of the image was closed for now, since the argument about it achieved no other result than having the section blocked from editing. Please, let's not bring it up again, it's a waste of time and energy. Let's try to improve the article instead.SiefkinDR (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Clarification: Not all French editors have criticized the current photomontage, and no one from French media has criticized the current photomontage. Regardless, consensus to keep it has been attained. Coldcreation (talk) 08:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The French media, Le Monde in particular, only brought the attention to the discussion taking place here, which it finds interesting. Besides, fr.Wikipedians are as much divided on choice of pictures - single vs montage - as en.Wikipedians are:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Paris#Nouvelle_illustration_pour_l.27infobox.

Personally, I see no reason to satisfy/copy the French point of view which, as de Gaulle would say, is as diverse as the number of French "fromages" - and he did not count them all! This is en.wiki: no matter what we try to do, Anglos are not going to see Paris the way Parisians do - and each Parisian has his/her own view of Paris, as every French non-Parisian does. Have a discussion on Paris with someone from Bordeaux, Lyon or Marseille & wait for his/her opinion on the French capital & its inhabitants... It might come as quite a blow!

So, let's do our best here with the contributors we have, either American-Australian-British, French, Europeans, Martians... We all have something to bring to this article. And whenever something is judged better on another wiki, let's take it into consideration.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the previous consensus for the view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense which lasted for 5 years was superseded despite great dissent, there is no reason why a new consensus for a tourist photomontage only a few weeks old should be set in stone for eternity. Two French editors, User:Vatekor and User:Clouchicloucha, have indicated on this talk page that they intended to create and submit a new photomontage, and this is why I asked the question to the admin Fut.Perf. I will now let them know of the admin's answer on their talk pages as I'm afraid they've left this talk page due to the flow of messages. As long as they follow the suggestions of the admin, I don't see what can be wrong with it. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clouchicloucha, one of the canvassed account-created-for-that-consensus contributors, no longer has an account on Wikipedia, FYI - perhaps related to the sockpuppetry case. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no block on his block log [23]. As far as I can tell, he's still an active user. He probably never bothered to fill in his user page bio, hence the red color. As for your mentions of alleged canvassing and sockpuppetry, I remind you that everybody (you included) is under a strict, no-exceptions "comment on content, not on contributor" rule from User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please try to respect it for everybody's sake. Thank you. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply stating a fact. His user page is no longer there, nor are his contributions - nothing at all, so of course no block log. Sorry, my bad. The contributions are still there. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh stop it already Der Statistiker. You are the one who mentioned French contributors in the first place, in your erroneous assumption above ("that all French editors and several French media have criticized the current photomontage in the en:WP article of Paris"). Coldcreation (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. It has been proven Clouchicloucha was not a sockpuppet. See investigations results here: [24]
2. I am the first one who mentionned the fact that no French contributor agreed on the image (see my post of the 23 october just above). I have also told that we should focus first on the contents of the article. As mentionned below, considering the relatively chaotic organization of the current article, I think it would be wise to re-arrange the contents. I will probably make a proposal in the upcoming days. Metropolitan (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said "perhaps realated to the sockpuppet case", but [25][26][27] [28] THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. As I wrote the article in Le Monde [29], and talked directly to a few of you, could I put the record straight? My article gives the arguments of both camps, as I should do as a journalist. But I think that highlighting the battle about the photo box does show that there is an issue with it. The fact that no compromise has been reached indicates that the current box is too one-sided, showing too much the "museum" side of Paris. I think restarting the discussion about it now is a bad idea, as there has been so much bad blood about it, but I feel unease to see it described as a "consensus". To my outsider point of view, it is not a consensus. Eric Albert Londres (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Eric Albert Londres. Just for the record: no compromise was reached, but consensus was attained by the vast majority of relavent experienced Wikipedia editors. Coldcreation (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from here too. Actually consensus was only against the one image being proposed (and no alternative not containing that image was ever forwarded). Those of us opposing that image never really got a chance do discuss better possibilities - I actually do find the current montage to be rather 'museum-y', and the bottom image too 'busy' (to see what it is at small size) - but this has been put to the side for now in favour of article content. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Eric, I forgot to mention that your article didn't mention that a good part of those 'proposing' that particular image weren't Wikipedia editors, but people WP:CANVASSed off-Wikipedia just for that purpose, which is quite against Wikipedia rules. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eric Albert Londres, for your constructive comments. I enjoyed your article in Le Monde and appreciate your point of view. We reached a consensus in order to stop the insults and aggressive messages that were being hurled by a few editors with an agenda, completely against the spirit of Wikipedia, and the way they kept trying to force the image they wanted onto the page. I'm not excited by the current image, but at least it shows some features that are unique to Paris. Personally, I would be happy with a good picture of the Eiffel tower that shows it clearly, rather than one that tries to squeeze La Defense into the background, to prove, as if it needs proving, that Paris has tall buildings. I objected to the montage which included a Japanese restaurant, the Tour Montparnasse, and some air condition ducts on the front of the Pompidou Center, which made Paris look dull and like any city anywhere. I don't see any reason to deny that Paris is a beautiful city, and not to show its most famous and most recognizable landmarks, as other cities do on their Wikipedia pages. I'm sure we'll get there, once the arguing and name-calling stops.SiefkinDR (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Eric Albert Londres, it was neat of you to come here after the storm your article produced! Thank you for your observations & suggestions... which, no doubt & as usual, will be given unanimous approval here:)

Best to you, and come back! --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please ensure that the bottom of every paragraph is sourced. When it passed GA everything was sourced. I've trimmed the landmarks by 10kb but it could still use further condensing and writing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, as proposed on the sections above [30] [31]. I've renamed the "Landmarks by district" subsection into a more balanced "Majors monuments and attractions". Meanwhile, I noticed some geographical aspects are missing such as a description of the functionnal areas of the city.

I've looked at other articles of equivalent cities such as Berlin, London or New York City and I noticed those are organized in about a dozen sections (as opposed to 20 sections for Paris). The major ones are generally: History, Geography, Economy, Demographics, Government, Infrastructures, Education, Culture, Sport. If no one opposes this, I believe the article will feel a lot better organized if we would target the same here for Paris.

As such, the Cityscape section would be merged with the Geography section (similarly to what is done elsewhere) which would give us the opportunity to be both more exhaustive and concise on the way we portray geographical aspects of the city. In the same way, many minor sections such as "Religion", "Libraries", "Media" or "Healthcare" should really be included in broader sections. Not to say that they could be vastly completed (I was really surprized to learn there were only Roman Catholics in Paris). Metropolitan (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in the articles of other cities there is no big section about the cityscape. The urban and architectural aspect of the city are included within the geography. Minato ku (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Copenhagen, Aarhus, Aalborg, Marrakesh, Varanasi, Bangui, Honiara to name a few. Berlin, London and NYC undercook the coverage. Landmarks should quite rightly be the biggest section.Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 20:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's physical geography (what the present geography section deals with now) and human geography that tends to bleed into urbanism (the section I'm working on) and Demography (already existing). I think limiting geography to a physical one would be the most coherent way to go.

The cityscape... hm. The title should go. Perhaps 'Major monuments and attractions' could become a section of its own, and the rest (parks & gardens, water & sanitation, cemeteries) could be simply merged with "Urbanism" - it would be perfectly coherent. But that doesn't fit well with the "Sociologie urbaine" I'm about to translate, but I could just forget about that if it's already covered in the demography section. But although urban sociology and demographics overlap (demographics is a subfield of sociology), but they are not quite the same thing. Thoughts? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geography is... geography, the study of lands and its features. I hardly see on which ground we would restrict the perception to physical geography only. It's not done this way in the articles of other major cities. The Berlin article is in my opinion a model of organization to follow. The contents summary is as clear as rock water: it's both exhaustive and easy to understand. It's pretty straightforward to assume cityscape and architecture being detailed in the geography section.

As for urbanism, the word is rarely used in English. It's not even mentionned by Wordreference (see test here: [32]). The wiktionary defines it as "the study of cities, their geographic, economic, political, social and cultural environment" [33]. To put it shortly, that's about all the fields to be covered by the article. Looking at the French version, the section deals with urban morphology (medieval Paris, Haussmann Paris), the metropolitan area, housing and urban sociology. I believe this could be covered in the geography and demographics sections. That's just my 2 cents. Metropolitan (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the definition (field) of geography this article already uses seems clear enough. And 'urbanism' is rarely used in English? [34]. But that answer doesn't really address my question. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 01:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I would use a better reference than an English-French translation site to give English lessons ; ) For that, Linguee is much better, and it gives an actual indication whether a translation is widely used or not, and what that translation most commonly refers to. [35][36]. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, urbanism is rarely used in English. The word doesn't even appear in the article of any major cities articles. If Google gives 8 million references for "urbanism", it gives 26 million for "urbanisme" as written in French. "City planning" on the other side gives me 212 million results, but we agree that doesn't fit with the proposed content on which you're working. But more essentially, the proposed contents could perfectly fit in "geography" and "demographics" sections. Creating another section in between could only bring confusion about where informations can be found in the article. It doesn't harm to be more German, let's do it the Berlin way. ;) Metropolitan (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, appeals to 'other article' popularity are not argument (unless they are references, and Wiki articles are not this), and I don't understand how you can tell an architecture student and google results (and the other links I provided) that 'urbanism' is 'hardly used'. And I don't even care about 'what we call it', my point was about the section content. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that considerations about architecture, cityscape, and "landmarks" should be moved to the Geography section, as is done in most other articles I've seen about large cities. They should also be kept as short as possible (this article should not be a dissertation about Haussmannism), and they should not fail to mention the architecture and the cityscape in the outer arrondissements and the suburbs (instead of being limited to the 11 central Haussmannian arrrondissements). Meine zwei Pfennige. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any mention of anything 'just inner arrondissments' or anything 'Haussmannian'.

I'm not so sure about geography, though, as I prefer reason to argumentum ad populum... and it's slightly troubling that the common usage of "geography" has veered from its original "geo" (earth) meaning (largely due to ignorance); man and his constructions has little to do with that. Let's see how it all fits together though. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In our common struggle against ignorance, I invite you to read both the geography and the Urban geography articles. Geography has always been about describing spatial distribution of features, no matter if there are natural or human. If it's about being wrong to describe human features in geography, then that means we are wrong since Ptolemy located Athens on his world map in 150 BC. Metropolitan (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to make of that (especially the Ptolemy part), it isn't constructive : I cited the geography article already, and made a point of underlining certain parts of it. My point was that a global 'geography' would bleed overlap/repeat the demography and urbanism info... unless we lump it all into one big "geography" section, which would be unfortunate if that is motivated only by what other people are doing or because of a 'preferred' meaning of a word. Call it "physical geography" for precision, then (although this article hasn't since its very beginnings, and has dealt only with the lie of the land). My entire question is about how to arrange the article so its sections don't overlap or repeat each other - and taking care of that would make it shorter, too. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm working on translating the "Urbanisme" section from the French article. It is quite well done, and contains things missing from this article (Street info, Paris' strict building laws, # habitations, typical lodgings, etc). It stlll needs some work though (outdated statistics/dead links), but I'll leave a link to it here when it's presentable. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it still needs some work (post-translation language refinement, references, other stuff) and there's notes in there, but hey. The opening speaks of the same things the "architecture" section does here, but in a better way (I only translated it), so it would replace it. I just grouped the other stuff from here to show the flow. The housing section could use a few more details about number of people per apartment, and the morphology part could use some new architecture-to-old architecture ratios and modern quarter renovation plans (Moulins, Bibliothèque Mitterand, etc), but I'll be only getting those tomorrow (thanks to my work with the APUR). Oh, and by the way, I made a new map today (showing the overall wealth distribution) - it's in there. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be filling out the housing section with new data tomorrow, also reorganising the structure, according to the 'Structure!' section below; there were some rather good ideas in there. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the overall structure of the article, I believe we should follow the basic format of the London article, which is also used, with a few very small variations, in the articles on Rome, Tokyo, New York, Berlin, and other cities. That is: History, Government, Geography (Urbanism could go here, or under Demography, or Cityscape -Tokyo adds Environment after this); Demography; Economy, Transport, Education, Culture, Sports. Rome adds a section on religion after Demographics, followed by Cityscape, before Economics. Tokyo puts Cityscape last.

Our article is already pretty much in this model, and I think it works, and allows people to make comparisons fairly easily between cities. Is there any reason to modify this structure? Any other suggestions? SiefkinDR (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I too think it works pretty well the way it is. The only thing I'd like like to do to the structure is to bring it some coherency... it's a 'little bit here, a little bit there, back to here again' now. I guess a merging of the architecture, city structure and demographics into one section... whatever it's to be called. Please have a look at my work in this direction (link in section above).

I do have another silly suggestion, though: Merging the 'monuments' into the 'history' section. That would both put them in the context of their history, and we wouldn't have the restraint of mentioning 'too little' or 'too much' of them - and they wouldn't need a section of their own (as monuments on their own are neither tourism-only or architecture-only or anything 'city workings'). Yes, I know other articles don't do this, but so what? Let me know if you think it's a good idea. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the economy section, there is a sentence that seems to contain several unsourced or wrongly sourced claims "[Paris] is not only the wealthiest area of France, but has one of the highest GDPs in the world, after Tokyo and New York,[107] making it an engine of the global economy." So that makes three claims
1. Paris is the wealthiest area of France. There is no source for that claim, and it's unclear. What does area mean? Are we talking about départements? And how is 'wealthiest' measured, is it GDP per person, or is is the median salary. In short, the claim may well be right (it probably is right unless we define area very narrowly) but it's not defined and not sourced.
2. Paris has the highest GDP in the world after Tokyo and New York. This is perfectly clear in terms of meaning and it's sourced. The problem is that's it's less clear whether it's right. The Wikipedia page on the GDP of cities contains three different rankings, all of them from good WP:RS sources. In one (from 2008) Paris is ranked 6th. In another (from 2010), Paris really is 3rd. In the latest (from 2012), Paris is also 6th. So three different rankings, two says 6th and one says 3rd. How does the article conclude that Paris really is third?
3. Paris in an "engine of the global economy". This is a subjective claim. Any major city with a major economy is of course important for the global economy in some way. An "engine" should drive the global economy. Some (e.g. The Economist) argue that Paris is a brake on the global economy (not just Paris, and not just France, but most of the Eurozone). My point is, whose opinion is this, what does it mean and where is the source?Jeppiz (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct. The GDP figures and wealth figures are unclear and questionable, and the "engine of global economy" needs to be more specific and sourced.SiefkinDR (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll tag the claims and hope for a source, otherwise they should be remvoved. At least some of them should be possible to source.Jeppiz (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll work on that tomorrow. This section used to be much better written and sourced, before the 'upheaval' that took place last year. 'nuff said. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking the source, the two about the 6th place are PPP (purchasing power parity) GDP figures while the source about the 3rd place is nominal GDP figures. PPP are pretty dubious when it comes to the cities as PPP are definied on a national national basis. Note that most ranking about the largest economy by countries use nominal figure rather than PPP which is more useful for "per capita" figures.

This would be an error to not write that Paris has a huge economy and one of the largest of the world. This is not a small resort town (contrary to its image). Paris is a huge economic center (larger economy than Netherlands), this should be highlighted like in the articles of other cities.Minato ku (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm in two minds about this. Either we keep only the source which lists Paris as 3rd based on nominal (exchange rate) values, or we say something like "is the 3rd or 6th largest..." and we list all sources including the ones based on PPP, which can be indeed a bit dubious. I'll wait to hear from other editors on this. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I found out that Eurostat lists the Paris metropolitan region as the largest metropolitan economy in the European Union: [37]. That we can certainly say since the source is homogeneous, and based on nominal (exchange rate) values provided by the national statistical offices to Eurostat. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the lead that in March 2014 Eurostat ranked Paris as the second largest city in the EU, after London. Here's the quotation: "Across the whole of Europe, the most populous cities were London (data are for 2011) and Istanbul (data are for 2000), they both recorded resident populations of more than 8.0 million persons. In 2012, the next largest cities across the EU included Paris (6.5 million) and Berlin (3.5 million), while Madrid, Barcelona, Milano and Napoli each reported 3.2 or 3.1 million inhabitants; this was also the case for Ankara in Turkey (data are for 2000)." I know that its hard to compare different metropolitan areas, but it seems to me that Eurostat is a respected and objective source. Any comments on this? SiefkinDR (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really really hard game to play (although many '(my) city is bigger than (yours)' fans on Wiki are trying), and the result of any attempt to do so is often WP:ESSAY or WP:OR. Every country has its own statistical measurements and definitions: English statistics a 'built up area'... exactly that (see London urban area), and its London metropolitan area a 'commuter belt', with their own methods of calculating each (so the first can affect the second)... France calls its built-up area an "urban(ized) zone" and this with a commuter belt an "urban area" or "large urban area", and its methods for calculating each includes areas a bit 'sparser' than many standards.

You're right to point out Eurostat, though: they seem to be the only inter-country organisation continuing the effort to create a unified system, as the UN threw in the towel a few years back [38][39] after an initial attempt around the year 2000 [40]. And Eurostat uses 'urban cluster' ('built-up-area'), 'urban_center' (the city on which it is centred), and 'urban area' (including the commuter belt) [41][42], so any comparative mentions should also mention the source cited. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's the quite glaring omission of Eastern Europe in the quote from Eurostat. Moscow is competing with London for second place after Istanbul in Europe, and St Petersburg (while certainly much smaller than Paris and not relevant for this article) is much larger than cities such as Berlin or Naples. So it seems quite obvious that Eurostat's figures as for some countries in Europe, not Europe as a whole.Jeppiz (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm just showing how it is between countries. Every one makes their own cocktail (even in Europe alone), so comparing is often apples to oranges from the get-go, that's all I was (perhaps over-extensively) saying. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Eurostat figures in this case are just for EU countries (and EU candidate Turkey) so don't include either Moscow or St. Pete.SiefkinDR (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have time to write something here earlier today since I wasn't home, but as I already explained in my edit, this Eurostat ranking of Larger Urban Zones is just one ranking, and there are many other rankings, in particular the ranking of Largest urban areas of the European Union. All sources I've ever seen agree that Paris has the most populated urban area in the European Union (there is a UN definition of urban areas, so it's easy to establish international comparisons, you only need some satellite pictures and census figures at a detailed local level; Demographia.com has done such a job for all the urban areas of the world for example). Regarding the Paris metropolitan area, there is no single worldwide definition of metropolitan areas. Each country have their own definitions, and in fact many countries don't even have a definition of metro areas and do not compute data at the metro area level (the UK doesn't for instance). Eurostat, with their Larger Urban Zones, tried something like a European-wide concept of metropolitan area, but in their own admission, their concept is not really harmonized and varies from country to country: "there were also exceptions and departures from this which limit the overall comparability of the larger urban zones to some extent. (...) defining a perfect functional urban area — based on a perfectly harmonised methodology across Europe for which no statistical information is available — would be completely in vain."
So based on the fact that Paris is #1 in terms of urban area in the EU, and has an unclear ranking in terms of metropolitan area given that there is not really a uniform definition of what's a metropolitan area, it's best to leave the population unranked in the article as was the consensus until now, instead of claiming that it is the 2nd largest "city" in the EU behind London (in terms of administratively-defined "city", #2 would be Berlin anyway, but that makes little sense on the ground, as anyone who has traveled to Paris and Berlin can easily tell after having crossed the urban expanses of both metropolises). Der Statistiker (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your explanation. I appreciate that there are differences of methodology and different rankings, and these need to be taken into account. but I think we can be can be more specific than "one of the largest cities" . I think we have the ingredients of a compromise text. The Eurostat ranking should be given, since they're the official statistical agency for the EU, but we can mention there are different rankings. and cite them. I propose that we say:

"According to Eurostat, the statistical agency of the European Union, Paris is the second-largest city in the European Union, after London. Demographia.com, using a different methodology, ranks Paris first." (with citations).

Are there comments on this proposed compromise text? SiefkinDR (talk) 06:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have it in a nutshell - to cover it fairly, you'd actually have to include all sources, or a summary of all of their results... way to much space dedicated to a phrase that basically amounts to a boast. The usual way around this is to use a 'between' phrase like 'one of the largest' and reference it with a few sources... voila ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see that the edit wars have begun again. The editor called Der Statistiker is again deleting any text that disagrees with his own point of view, without discussion or consultation with other editors. I wish we could find a way to move beyond this. SiefkinDR (talk) 13:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any edit wars. The last edit of Der Statisker is about the previous discussion in this talkpage about the ranking of Paris population in Europe. Minato ku (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only this is a false accusation ("is again deleting any text that disagrees with his own point of view"), but it infringes the rule set out by the administrator Fut.Perf.: "this talkpage as well as all related discussions elsewhere (including edit summaries etc.) are a strict, no-exceptions, "comment on content, not on contributor" zone." Please let's not reopen the cans of worms by making all sorts of accusations against other editors. Thank you. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the 26th and 28th Der Statistiker made two large deletions of well-sourced text; one giving the population of the Île-de-France, or Paris region, the other about how Euirostat, the statistics agency of the European Union, ranks Paris against other EU cities. I think it would be useful if he discussed those matters first with other editors, and tried to reach a consensus before deleting other editors's work. That's what this talk page is for.SiefkinDR (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OWN and WP:FIVEPILLARS (in particular: "any contribution can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed"). These two edits you mention were not "large" deletions (in each case, only one sentence was involved), and they were not a matter of contention or dispute on the talk page. If we have to ask for prior permission/consensus/vote on the talk page for any uncontroversial sentence modification or deletion in the article, frankly we're going to spend decades to make any progress in this article, and in any case this seems to be against the Wikipedia policies. As for content, which is the only thing we are now supposed to talk about in this talk page (remember?), the Île-de-France population figure belongs to the Île-de-France article, not to this one, for the same reason that the Bavaria population figure belongs to the Bavaria article and not to the Munich article (besides, your sentence was factually wrong for reasons indicated in my edit, i.e. Île-de-France includes more than just the suburbs of Paris, and not all of this region is included within the Paris metro area), and as for the EU ranking, see my long comment in the section above. Thank you. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing WP:OWN at a rather recent contributor is anything but civil, and never mind the condescending tone of the rest. But by that logic, the 'metropolitan area' figures should be in the 'Paris metropolitan area' article. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it is possible to just edit to correct instead of outright reverting - and, better still, to leave a note of explanation on the talk page so that that contributor can learn from their mistakes (if there were indeed mistakes). Reverting (whether it is 'hidden' over several steps or not) makes a contributor not only feel stupid, but is offending and condescending: not only can they not learn from their mistakes, it's telling them that they're not even worthy of the few seconds it would take to explain. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent contributor? SiefkinDR has been an editor at Wikipedia since earlier than me: [43]. Anyway, I won't comment further as this is against the rule set for this talk page. Regarding the metropolitan area figure, I notice that the New York City article mentions the New York metro area population figure, but not the New York state population figure. Same for many other cities (São Paulo mentions the São Paulo metro area population but not the São Paulo state population, Barcelona mentions the Barcelona metro area population but not the Barcelona province population , etc.). It's standard that a city article mentions the population of the metro area of which the city is the central nucleus, but not the province/state/region within which the city is located. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent to this article, of course. But for the rest, perhaps it would also be useful to mention that hardly anyone in Paris, or in France for that matter, has any clue what an 'aire urbaine' is. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "aire urbaine" and "aires urbaines" are more mentioned at lemonde.fr than "Calgary" (see [44] and [45] vs. [46]). I wonder whether anyone in Paris or in France has any clue what Calgary is... ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue-in-cheek aside, seriously, a Le Monde article such as "Le soutien au FN dans les aires urbaines des 3 plus grandes villes de France" ("Support for the Front National in the metropolitan areas of the 3 largest cities of France"), published in the heat of the municipal elections last Spring shows that the notion of "aire urbaine" is now well enough known by the French public to deserve a coverage in the most renowned French newspaper at a time of far-right surge in the elections. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing a (Canadian) town's mention in a French newspaper to... people not knowing something about the very city they live in? I really don't see the point of this comparison. I'm sure it's possible to find some mention of it if one really looks for it, but in all my twenty-three years living here have I heard anyone speak of it, and not even the Le Monde journalist who interviewed me knew what an aire urbaine was. The public here does not know what it is. There's no point of arguing further with me about this, because we both know the truth of it. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not because many people have no clue about something that this thing is not relevant. This is an encyclopedia, people come here to learn information, not to confirm their ideas or stereotypes. Aire Urbaines or metropolitan area in english are based on commute pattern, so the place where the people work. Provin while located on Ile de France is less dependant on Paris and its suburbs than many areas located outside the Ile de France Minato ku (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty good description of WP:NOTESSAY. Wikipedia is quite the opposite of that, but, because of its popularity, many try to use it as a soapbox.

The aire urbaine is a single-purpose (analysis) INSEE-created statistics tool, and can only used when talking about what it was created for (because that's the only place it can be referenced): demographics, and perhaps when describing 'area of influence' in other sections. If the public here doesn't even know what an 'aire urbaine' is, this article can't pretend that it's a 'common thing' that everyone references and cites every day. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is several definitions of the area, several ranking, changing in the time, don't put an exact ranking at all, but report the definition problem. "Paris is one of the major cities of Europe / note : ranking is between 1 & 6 (for X and Y, respectively in 20XX and 20YY) depending of definition taken by the institution. See institution criteria for more informations / note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatekor (talk • contribs) 08:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really wonder if the budget deficit of 2014 is really relevant in this section? In my opinion, it is not. Nothing else has been writted about the budget of any other years. We almost all agree that the history section is already too long. If increasing the size of the modern time history and reducing a bit some of the older time is not a bad idea, we don't need to write such irrelevant facts.
About modern time even if it is not about the 21th century, I am rather surprised that nothing is said about the creation of the Mayor of Paris in 1977 in the history section. This is a a relevant information of Paris modern history. Minato ku (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Paris deficit is of some importance, because it's the largest Paris has ever had, and it may have a large impact on the future of the city.

As to the first modern elections of the mayor of Paris in 1977, they're mentioned in the section on city government. They're also mentioned in more detail in the articles on the history of Paris and the Timeline of Paris. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion either way about this budget deficit (I'm sure there's a Wikipedia policy somewhere out there regarding "current events" for those who love WP tags), but what's certain is this very very très très long history section needs to be considerably shortened. Metropolitan with his table somewhere up this talk page neatly showed how the history section in the Paris article is way way outsized compared to the London article. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is outsized and this is why only the most important informations should remain and I think that the first election of the Mayor of Paris in 1977 is much more important than the budget deficit of 2014 and many other facts in the history of Paris section.

Today, I think that the budget deficit is not relevant enough, it may be in the future if this trend continues but not for now.. Minato ku (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

non sense to put this information that is mostly an internal politic soup than an encyclopedic info. Think you are in 2214, what should you write about the only first 14% of the 21century ? "Grand Paris project officially start in 2007, to be achieved 15 years later. Main stream architecture for monumental areas changes with the growing presence of glass, curves, and metal (Fondation Louis Vitton (2014), Philarmonie de Paris (2015), etc) -in what was then was an eclectic and international style. With this movement, monumental areas reaches the fronter of the old 1860 administrative limits". Then you can write about the remaining 86% of the century, about the Grand Paris done (2025), the underground farm (2045), Parixelles (2075) when merging Bruxelles, Paris & Luxembourg... v_atekor (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beware, you're going to be accused of being "condescending". We must have great respect for "new" contributors. ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 21:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While the Grand Paris project is relevant in the history section because of its huge scale, I don't think that the history section should be about the constructions but more about the event and major change (why the opening musée du Quai Branly but not the riot of 2005? ). The current version looks a lot like what you see in tourists guide where they love to point the presidents and "their monuments" in the 20th century when there are much more important informations or events than this. Minato ku (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how can "Grand Paris" be in the history section if it hasn't happened yet? Perhaps have a 'future projects' section (of its own): there you'll have carte blanche; not only building and political projects, but things such as social issues and events (Olympics, World Cup, etc.) can be mentioned too. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a so future project, it has started on 2007, and much work has been done, at political, institutional, and administrative levels, which are the key and the first goals of the Grand Paris. Much has been done at € level, for metros & cie, all that will take more time to be constructed and enhanced, but that is not the very goal of the project, only a consequence of changing the administrative limits of the town. It will take more time to create has much metros in the grand Paris than in the centre of the city. The official fusion of the town with its neighbours is on 01/01/2016, 14 months so.

Btw,

1. Raw budget deficit as given, is absolutely irrelevant, in all conditions, if not compared to anything else. It should be discussed and contextualised, as for any raw number.
2. the architectural citations I did are in the 1860 limits ; buildings are or released (October 2014) or about to be released (January 2015)
3. In the 1860 fronter, Paris has exactly no airport at all, but the 3rd port of France, after Le Havre & Marseille. This said, If you give a rendez-vous to any one in France in a large city, with a large port surrounded by a catholic church on a hill, and agitated neighbourhoods in the north, people will probably wait you in Marseille next to the Bonne mère, than in Paris & Sacré-Coeur, even if your description is factually true. v_atekor (talk) 08:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to avoid confusion, the Grand Paris of Sarkozy is not the Métropole du Grand Paris (the administrative projet).
Grand Paris of Sarkozy is a large urban development project (with no administrative change) and its scale and ambitions are huge, there is no other development project with a such large scale in European Union or even in the so called Western world (North America, Western Europe and Australia/NZ). Even if works have not yet started, the mere announcement of this project represents a significant change of urban policy in Paris area. It must be mentioned because for the moment this is most important thing that happened about Paris in the 21th century. Minato ku (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is also right, even if both project are linked at € level. v_atekor (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It might make sense to have a "modern Paris" subsection end the History section... but I don't know, really. Isn't that what all the other sections are all about? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the consequences of the merge of Paris with its neighbours on 01/01/2016 (14 months), I think that is really relevant to think with this date in mind, because the article will still be locked, on heavy discussion when we will have to fully rewrite it. If we need 4 months to achieve an FA, it will be irrelevant 10 months latter. At least we should think an article easy to change on this date, or wait some month to end with all this discussions (aire urbaine, in particular...). Well, do has you want v_atekor (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I think that a simple sentence or paragraph in the administrative section is enough. The project and the competencies of this new Metropole du Grand Paris are not yet well defined. Metropole du Grand Paris is the creation of a new big intercommunal administrative structure for the the City of Paris and the inner ring departements, the current municipalities will not disappear or be merged.

While the Metropole du Grand Paris needs to be mentioned in the administrative section, details could be only given in the future. Minato ku (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the same case than other communautés de communes for large cities, but that make few differences than a larger city with new arrondissements. I saw that in Toulouse Métropole, peripherical cities works as new arrondissements of the town. It records me a lot of Barcelona/Gracia/Sant Andreu by 1900... v_atekor (talk) 09:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This morning was the first time that I really had a look at the article since a long time (years, maybe), and there are issues, issues everywhere... but I have to second Siefkin's suggestion that we discuss structure first before detail - a structure change would change that anyway (context), so there's no point in doing the same job twice, right?

I think it would be a good idea to structure things for coherence, that give both content and context to each section. I hear 'other article' examples cited often, but I see this more as an obstacle than anything: Paris is not like 'other cities', and many of those other articles have the same problem this one has (coherence, flow, structure). I also made an effort to split the 'tourist-y' stuff between sections (and not make it a centre of attention on its own). So forgive me if my proposition seems 'different', but please let me know if it makes sense in itself.

• Lede
• Toponyms
• History - Origins (prehistory), Middle Ages, etc, etc

I'd like to suggest integrating the monuments that each era brought to the city. This gives them context, makes the article seem less 'tourist-y', and means them not having a section of their own.

• Land & Climate - Land (rise & rivers), Climate
• Cityscape - Urbanism: Urban Morphology, Architecture, Housing; Key Quarters: yadda yadda

function and location of each quarter. Market, Business, Touristy (good occasion to locate/integrate the 'things' they come to see), and yes, La Defense ; )

• Infrastructure (?) - Infrastructure: Streets, Parks, Water & Sanitation, Communication, Cemeteries; Transport: Metro, Bus, Air, Rail, etc.
• Demography - integration (Paris & its suburbs), urban sociology, regional statistics
• Administration - City, Regional, National administration (roles)
• Economy
• Culture - Perhaps a 'lede' describing the different 'high point' eras where Paris was famous (Belle époque, Dadaism, etc.), then have this give context to the individual 'arts' (Music, painting, etc)
• Human resources - Healthcare, Education, Libraries, Police, Firefighting, sports, (associations?)

I hope I didn't forget anything - let me know what you think. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe relevant to had here an under ground section, not for metro but because Paris is one of the most excavated cities (Métro, égout, catacombes, mines, fleuves... ). Maybe with geology or anything similar v_atekor (talk) 09:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Suis cataphile. Regardez mon profil ('gallery' ; ) - but this article is long enough, no? Perhaps a mention in the 'urban morphology' section - Paris grew over its (formerly suburban) carrières, true. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

correct, if someone interested in, he can write a dedicated article v_atekor (talk) 09:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Déjà fait - Mines of Paris [47] - j'étais assez discrete ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thought and good work on this, Promenader. I think this structure is pretty comprehensive and solid, but I do think that the history section should be close to the top, as it is in all the other major city articles. If a consensus of editors thinks the history section its too long, I can shorten it, but Paris does have a very long and eventful history; trying to condense the history of Paris during the 19th and 20th centuries into two paragraphs is quite a challenge.SiefkinDR (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks. And thanks for your edits these past days. History perhaps under toponyms? Make a proposition of your own, maybe ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SiefkinDR in regards the length/content of the history section and will add my own thoughts.

The article on fr.wiki (280 379 octets) being so often given as reference, please check content & length of its history section:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris#Histoire

Paris is a very old European city, its history cannot be compared in time length to that of:

Washington D.C. (121,175 bytes)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.#History

or even New York City (265,133 bytes), not a capital, but such an important city:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City#History

Another European city with a long history, Madrid (242 198 bytes): its history section is quite lengthy and no one seems to be complaining.

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid

If other wikipedias, it.wiki Rome (144 010 bytes), for instance,

https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roma

have shorter history sections for the capital of their respective country, maybe it is because the country does not have much history to talk about or... lacks wiki contributors :)

Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Paris article should not have more than 10 big sections. (Not including the References, Further reading and External links in these 10). This is inside these big sections that we will have subdivision like cityscape, administration, transports and etc .

I don't see the necessity to have so much sections when other cities like New York City, London, Berlin and many others regroup Land & Climate, Cityscape, key quarters and adminstration in the single Geography section? by example and I don't see what are differences about Paris which would prevent it.

Infrastructure and transport could be merged.

A slightly different note to end. This is not just the history section which should be reduced but also the culture section, it is way too long. Minato ku (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the 'human resources' section in the New York article (Health, education, libraries, police, firefighting), that's another problem solved, thanks. But where that article is bloated is in its sub sections. And again, I wouldn't remain fixated on 'Geography' - we could put anything under that title (excepting culture, history, economy and administration) if we wanted to - but I don't see the point, it's just a word.

I updated my structure proposition in light of the above (italics indicate sub-sections), but don't hesitate to make your own. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Without the Lede, that makes ten sections (although I'm not very attached to that goal). Reallygottago - have fun, guys. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toponymy can be included with history as it is the case for London, New York City or Berlin.

As for the history, it need to be reduced a lot and not just the 19th and 20th century. We don't need to have a long resume of the French revolution. Further informations should be in the history of Paris article.

I note that the history section of London is much smaller than history section of Paris yet nobody can say that London has a much shorter history than Paris. Minato ku (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

or Barcelona's one, with 5 centuries resumed in 3 paragraphs, reduced to wars. Funny pov on the city. v_atekor (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put down London, but Paris is three hundred years older and was a much bigger and more important city in the Middle Ages than London. You can't ignore the French Revolution, since many English speakers don't know much about it. London has been much calmer; Paris had Napoleon, The Revolutions of 1830 and 1848. the Paris Commune. The London article describes both the First and Second World War in single sentence! You can't do that with Paris. The section can certainly be reduced, but not to make it like a comic book. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the older times or Middle Age where Paris has a much longer text than London but the rest 18th, 19th, 20th centuries. Industrial revolution is a major time for London yet there is not a long paragraph about it unlike Paris for the revolution. If people want to know more about the French revolution, they need to read the article about the French revolution but I don't see the point to make a list of personalities murdered during this time in Paris here. Same can be said for most of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. A simple sentence is enough for describing Haussmann works, you don't have to add that he created hectares of parkland and created XXX km of new streets and etc.

I think that major events don't need more than a single sentence, there are other articles for further informations. Minato ku (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haussman works are very important for this article, because the city before and after Haussman is different. But that can be easily a separated an detailed article, see fr:plan Cerdà for an example of such major urbanism plan that fundamentally changes the city. v_atekor (talk) 15:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Haussmann's works are very important but details should be in the cityspace part of Paris article and Haussmann's renovation of Paris article. In the history section, Haussmann's works don't need more than a simple sentence. Minato ku (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Paris is 'Haussmann style'. That's going a bit far. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does "shorter" always mean "better"? Could it be that those among us who find the history section too long simply do not like history & are more interested in the not yet reached future of Paris accaparating the suburbs of Brussels and Oslo? - a Paris which may never exist in 2100. As I pointed out above, there are other cities on wikipedia with extensive history sections - NYC for instance, born in 1624 (the year Richelieu began the construction of Palais-Cardinal, at a time in the history of Paris when a lot of water had flowed under the bridges over the Seine! Quote from en.wiki NYC article: "New York traces its roots to its 1624 founding as a trading post by colonists of the Dutch Republic and was named New Amsterdam in 1626..." I do not see any critic of the length of the history of Paris here rush across the pond to shorten that of NYC.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently it is not does "shorter" always mean "better" but does "longer" always mean "better"? In my opinion, no. Because it is too long history section of Paris is not really understandable. It looks more like a list of some detailled events than a real resume of Paris history. (for further information, there is the History of Paris article) Minato ku (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So? Would not it be nice if someone wanting to have a quick everything about Paris be able to read this article & when thru reading it feel that he/she has learned something, without having, if no time available, to go read the whole of the French Revolution, which could be read later at leisure? As to not seeing "the point to make a list of personalities murdered during this time in Paris here", so far I see the list has only 4 personalities, the king, the queen, the mayor & Robespierre. A short list when one considers that there were 16,594 executions by guillotine, not counting those killed in massacres.

It sounds as if you are looking for a skeleton of an article, in which case what needs to be done is keep only the titles of the sections with links to respective articles.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is about a summary of the history of Paris and not the history of the French revolution or other major time.
Just look this paragraph, there is not much about Paris, it is more about the French revolution history.
On 6 October 1789, Louis XVI and his family were brought to Paris and made virtual prisoners within the Tuileries Palace. On 21 June 1791, the royal family fled Paris, was arrested in Varennes and brought back to Paris on the 25th. On 10 August 1792, mobs of the most militant revolutionaries, the sans-culottes attacked the Tuileries Palace. On 13 August, Louis XVI and his family were imprisoned in the Temple fortress. Between 2 and 7 September, massacres took place in the prisons, which was the beginning of the Reign of Terror (la Terreur) imposed upon France by the new government. On 21 January 1793, Louis XVI was guillotined on the Place de la Révolution, the former Place Louis XV. Marie Antoinette was executed on the same square on 16 October 1793. Bailly, the first Mayor of Paris, was sent to the guillotine. During the reign of terror, 16,594 persons were tried by the revolutionary tribunal and executed.
Everything here could be described in one sentence that I put in bold, obviously the sentence could be better arranged and the name of some people and details could be added (especially, the king Louis XVI, the dates and the guillotine) but the rest is superficial and not necessary in this section. Minato ku (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When important historical facts are made to disappear from a history section... why bother having a history section?

Same argument can be used with all sections; then why bother writing an article?

How about a list of titles of... centuries?

Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. May I remind you that the French Revolution, with repercussions throughout France & Europe, was not limited to the reign of terror (Sept. 1792 to end July 1794), but went on from 1789 until end of 1799. How about Napoléon? Drop him too? After all, what trace did he leave in Paris?

--Blue Indigo (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that the history section is way oversized compared to most other sections in Paris article as Metropolitan showed in Talk:Paris#Restoring_WP:NPOV_to_the_Paris_article. Paris is a not a museum whose history and function are stuck in the past, Paris is not just history it is also a real and modern functioning city.

The size of the history section whould be reduced while the size of other section about the functioning of the city should be increased.

What is the point to know the date of the Robespierre's death in Paris article if you don't have any information (or very few) about how the city works ? Minato ku (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that how the city functions should be described, but why at the expense of its history - or any other section? There is another point: shrinking to only a few words events that occurred in Paris within a decade, then linking for further reading to the article on the French Revolution, leads to the belief, for those who do not know French history, that the French Revolution was a "Paris-only event".

Disagreeing with you on your comment: "Just look this paragraph, there is not much about Paris, it is more about the French revolution history", which you followed with paragraph describing events that happened in Paris during the revolution: that paragraph does have to do both with Paris & the French Revolution, describing events that happened in Paris with name of places listed: Tuileries Palace, the Temple, Paris prisons (no names), place de la Révolution. Are we supposed to put a muzzle on or send the history of Paris to the guillotine?

An encyplopedia that does away with historical events on the subject it is treating is not an encyclopedia, but a magician performing vanishing acts.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of not very realistic 'limits' being set here, and a lot of references to 'other articles'... but I really think the only worry here should be looking at it from a reader point of view, and keeping in mind overall article length.
When it comes down to it, we should prioritise the concrete and referencable, and no 'sacrificing one section for another'. I know that it's kind of boring, but there is no room for hypotheses or opinion pieces, and wikipedia is not about that anyways. There is a move towards the future, but all we can do for now is give an overal synopsis of the general direction it's taking. Anything further than that would be overly long (presenting all 'sides' of the argument) and borderline (if not outright) WP:ESSAY.
Just write it out and see how it looks, then decide what can be cut without losing context or coherence later. I really think we should be paying attention to structure first, though, before getting into details like that. But that's just my own way of going about things. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I don't think anyone will complain if the history section is longish. Au contraire, actually - just glossing over things will bring complaints (in the form of later additions from people filling the 'missing' parts, and this will make it longer anyway in the end). If it balances out with the rest of the article, people will be less inclined to 'fix' it. But who's stopping them from doing that, anyway? No version here is ever 'final'. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Promenader - if I understand what I think I understand in what you wrote above, I should tell you merci beaucoup. I am of the opinion that this article should not give the history of Paris in all its details, since the article History of Paris exists; however, if we have a section here on the history of Paris, we must give enough details for those who will not be able to go read the whole history or the long article on the 1789 revolution & others. And, as you say, what will keep readers in the future to add details they have read about in the history or the revolution articles? We certainly cannot "forbid" future readers/contributors to do anything.

You also wrote: "There is a move towards the future..." - this is good, and it should not mean at the expense of the past. Both have their place here.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, simplistic talk-page clarity is not my forte even at the best of times, and I'm dead-tired from work. But about the history: Paris' history is long. It could be written in a 'how history affected the city' perspective... and leave all the minor 'it was decided in Paris' (just because it was the capital) to the History of Paris article. I'm also getting tired of the 'Amélie' side of Paris, but I'm not about to make this article deny that history is a major reason for its existence and popularity. And I spoke at great length of the "Grand Paris" (that has been 'almost here' since... after WWII) and its goals (integrated with Paris), but none seem to have noticed. More modern Greater Paris info would fit in fine there, it's directly linked and integrated with Paris and its urban structure.

(after re-reading) Hey, I hope that didn't sound dissuasive; that wasn't at all my intention. Au contraire ! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must repeat that I really don't see the point of comparing to other Wikipedia articles (especially down to 'chart-comparison') - other cities are not like Paris (in history nor in structure nor in function), so it's rather apples to oranges. And the authors of those other articles are Wikipedians just like us (but that's not saying they don't have good ideas). Why can't we do... what's best for Paris? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed

I agree Promenader. the lack of major event will create critics. the first point is not to determine the size of the canva but the size of the pencil to draw. You cannot have in one hand a very anecdotal citation for the budget and on the other lack the Terror period was really well named. So, I think the important point is to know the size of the event. If we opt for Terror : 2 sentences & Haussman => 1 sentences that mean XXI century disappears XX century is reduced to WWII and belle époque. That may be correct, but it should be coherent on the whole article. v_atekor (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak to delete major events but to reduce the description of those major events.

It is because some events are too detailed, some others are not even mentioned. We don't need a whole paragraph about the terror or haussmann's works when a single sentence would be enough to describe those events.

The history of Paris section should be more general rather than a long summary of few historic cases. Minato ku (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In reading through the entire day's messages, I see that they all could easily be merged into a repeated "Greater Paris, shorten the history section. Why?" ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on the structure proposition above? Another proposition? Make one of your own if you like - it's a better way to concretise opinion into something easily understandable. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Minato & promenader : I was not clear enough. Well, I try again : what should be the historical event(s) less significant to be mentioned in 1 sentence ? That will be our standard measure for the rest of the event. Mai 68 ? Surrealism ? Traité de Paris ? v_atekor (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's possible to make a single solution for all cases. Different events had different importance, I don't think we can set artificial 'one sentence' limits ahead of time just for the principle of doing so. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't anyone working on the history part already? Perhaps ask them. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is not a strict rule but more like an objective that should be understood as "being as short as possible". If the section is too long it becomes unreadable. It is difficult to have a clear overview of Paris history by reading this section because there are too much informations about little details.

"L'information est noyée" as we say in French. Having full details in the main article is important but it is counterproductive in a summary. Minato ku (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Minato ku: Because there are too many details in en.wiki section on history, *"L'information est noyée" as we say in French.*

Has Minato ku looked at the article on fr.wiki & measured the size of the history section? Too many details? Too many words?

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris#Histoire

The summarized 1789 revolution:

La Révolution française débute à Versailles par la convocation des États généraux puis le Serment du Jeu de paume. Mais les Parisiens, atteints par la crise économique (prix du pain), sensibilisés aux problèmes politiques par la philosophie des Lumières et mus par une rancœur à l'égard du pouvoir royal ayant abandonné la ville depuis plus d'un siècle, lui donnent une nouvelle orientationf 12. La prise de la Bastille le 14 juillet 1789, liée au soulèvement des ébénistes du faubourg Saint-Antoine, en est une première étape. Le 15 juillet, l'astronome Jean Sylvain Bailly reçoit à l'hôtel de Ville la charge de premier maire de Paris. Le 5 octobre, l’émeute, déclenchée par les femmes sur les marchés parisiens, atteint Versailles le soir. Le 6 au matin, le château est envahi et le roi doit accepter de venir résider à Paris au palais des Tuileries et d’y convoquer l’Assemblée constituante qui s’installe le 19 octobre dans le Manège des Tuileriesc 19.

Le département de Paris comprend alors 3 districts : Paris, le Franciade et Bourg-de-l'Égalité.

Le 14 juillet 1790 se déroule la fête de la Fédération sur le Champ-de-Mars, lieu qui sera le 17 juillet 1791 le théâtre d'une dramatique fusillade. Occupés à partir de mai 1790 après la mise en vente des biens nationaux, le couvent des Cordeliers et le couvent des Jacobins, hauts lieux du Paris révolutionnaire, marquent la toute-puissance des clubs parisiens sur le cours de la Révolutionc 20.

Dans la nuit du 9 août 1792, une commune révolutionnaire prend possession de l'Hôtel de Ville. La journée du 10 août voit la foule assiéger le Palais des Tuileries avec le soutien du nouveau gouvernement municipal. Le roi Louis XVI et la famille royale sont incarcérés à la tour du Temple. La monarchie française est de fait abolie. Après les élections de 1792, les représentants de la Commune de Paris, très radicaux, s'opposent à la Convention nationale au groupe des Girondins (représentant l'opinion plus modérée de la bourgeoisie des provinces) qui sera écarté en 1793c 21.

Les Parisiens vivent alors deux années de rationnement. La Terreur règne sous la coupe du Comité de salut public. Le Tribunal révolutionnaire, avec l'aide de la mairie, s'emploie à incarcérer tout ce que la ville compte encore de nobles suspects, de prêtres réfractaires et d'opposants jugés contre-révolutionnaires. La création de la charge de Préfet de police par Napoléon, otera à la municipalité tout pouvoir de police judiciaire, de sorte que le maire de Paris est, aujourd'hui encore, le seul de France à en être privé57,58. Le 21 janvier 1793, Louis XVI est guillotiné sur la place Louis XV, rebaptisée « place de la Révolution ». Il est suivi sur l'échafaud par 1 119 personnes, dont Marie-Antoinette, Danton, Lavoisier et finalement Robespierre et ses partisans après le 9 Thermidor an II (27 juillet 1794)c 22.

La Révolution n'est pas une période favorable au développement de la ville (peu de monuments sont édifiés) qui n'a plus que 548 000 habitants en 1800. De nombreux couvents et églises sont rasés et font place à des lotissements édifiés sans plan d'ensemble, ce qui aboutit à une réduction des espaces verts de la ville et à une densification du centre. Sous le Directoire, des immeubles de rapport, de style néo-classique, sont élevés.

And did not that long article (280 379 octets) with a long-detailed-throughout-the-centuries history section win an Wiki Oscar? I see a little golden star by it.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 00:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is long for a 'city' article, and goes way into detail. I would say that an event in a top-level article should and the event, its authors (often the ruler) and the effect it had; once one starts mentioning individual details (chronicling), it's hard not to mention them all - the above is a good example of that.

(after re-reading) Hey, I hope that didn't sound dissuasive; that wasn't at all my intention. Au contraire ! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But just repeating 'it should be shorter' and 'only a single sentence' sounds both vague, impossible and can even seem dissuasive and intimidating. If one has a criticism of how something is 'wrong', that means that they already have an idea of what's "right" - so provide an example! Otherwise it just troubles the editing atmosphere. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't noticed already, I've made the Education, Libraries, Healthcare, Religion and Sports sections subsections to a new 'Human Resources' section. I also added a new 'housing' subsection to the 'Cityscape' section.THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what this map is doing in the demographic section ? This is rather unclear, nothing is said about social housing and the descripiton is wrong. "Social housing in Paris as of 2012: the lighter colours are also indicative of greater wealth."
The percentage of social housing in an arrondissement is not necessarily proportional to the wealth of its inhabitants. This kind of preconceived ideas should not be in an encyclopedia.
The 14th arrondissement has a higher ratio of social housing than the 10th or 11th yet its population is wealthier. Same for the 15th a rather bourgeois arrondissement with a wealthier population than the 2nd arrondissement.
The use of an imcome map by arrondissement would be better and this map should be located in the income part of the economy section. Minato ku (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Social housing is relevant in the demographics section, it's true however that a general hierarchy rule is to start with general considerations than getting to more specific data. I've changed the order of the images. It's true however that a text should escort that map as we don't talk about social housing for the moment. Metropolitan (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it is relevant in the demographics section. It has more to do with housing in the cityscape section. Minato ku (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually nothing about housing in this article at all - I'm working on that (pointing up) - but for now it gives a fairly good idea of wealth distribution in the city. But no, it's not exactly demographics. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone now; it made even less sense placed the way it was. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Better hierarchy rule: starting with general data than going to more specific": better according to who? This is an article about the city of Paris, so by logic it should be the other way around. But never mind. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General Note: If you think your comment to your edit to a just-contributed addition needs a word like 'better' (and the 'because' is not something evident like alignment, grammar and syntax, etc), than it's a topic for the talk page - the user just spent time working on that contribution, and they're still around to listen. This too preserves the editing atmosphere. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If several people are actively working on an article, it's normal that it's going to be longer for a while, so there's no point is setting up artificial 'contribution limits' ahead of time - let's all contribute and examine the result together when it's done. If you're working on the same section as another contributor (in a sandbox of your own), it would be polite to inform them (and everyone else) here.

The Lede is way too long - but for this I propose setting up a sandbox sub-article page and working on this together there. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, for an article of this length it's proportionally fine. I already cut down the lede as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but... It was longer 0.o ? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who added sources to the lede?? It does NOT need sourcing, read the MOS guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest merging Toponyms and history - The toponym description would be the introduction to the section. Anything bracketed and questioned are (missing?) possible additions to the article.

Lede

• Toponyms & History - origin of the name; origins (prehistory); Middle Ages, etc, etc

I'd like to suggest integrating the monuments that each era brought to the city. This gives them context, makes the article seem less 'tourist-y', and means them not having a section of their own.

• Geography & Climate - Land (composition, elevation & hydrography), Climate
• Urbanism - Architecture; Housing; Paris & its suburbs; Urban sociology; Key Quarters (function)

Like the French article. 'Urbanism' is the best (save better suggestions) catch-all phrase for grouping descriptions of the city, city trends, and its function. Sure, the other Wiki 'big city' articles don't use it, but it's common English [48].

• Infrastructure - Streets (& bridges?); Parks; Water & Sanitation; (Communication?); Cemeteries; Transportation - Local Transport - Metro, Bus, etc.; International Transport - Air, Rail, routes and autoroutes
• Human resources - Health Care, Education, Libraries, Police, Firefighting, sports, (associations?)
• Economy - sub-sections concerning each economy sector (services, manufacturing, tourism, etc.?) would be helpful here (none existing)
• Administration - City, Regional, National administration (roles)
• Demographics - regional statistics
• Culture - Perhaps an introduction describing the different 'high point' eras (Belle époque, Dadaism, etc.), then have this give context to the individual 'arts' (Music, painting, etc)

...that actually reduces the sections to nine. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, since 'demographics' is in the logic of 'urbanism', if it were merged into it, there would only be eight main sections. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Promenader, for your ideas and good work on this. I think "urbanism" is a perfectly acceptable title grouping these topics together. I'm not too excited about "urban morphology" instead of "architecture?" I would prefer the term "Health care" instead of "healthcare," or even just health." It wouldn't be a bad idea to mention the most prominent monuments from each historical period, either in the history or in the architecture sections. And I think a lot can be done to add images that illustrate the sections; far more people will look at the pictures than will read the text. Please keep up your good work! SiefkinDR (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir! But yes, sorry: save 'urbanism', the sub-section titles were just off the top of my head - it's the logic of categorisation I'm thinking about here.

Do you think it is a good idea to integrate the monuments into each historical section (like you (all) did for the Luxembourg Palace, for example)? But perhaps each historical section could end with 'that era' monuments if they don't apply to any date of creation or events (the place de la Concorde has a creation date, but the obelisk that is its centre is from a later period, for example). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except if the place has a really big prominence in Paris history, I am againt this idea to include some monuments in the history section. I would prefer to see the history focused on the events and the major changes that have occurred.

Not only this idea would make the article even more touristy but this would send a wrong idea of Paris, Paris as "disneyland" (a succession of attractions rather than a real city).

I will even say the same for the section about the architecture, urbanism, cityscape or anything else names, while there is nothing wrong about the mention of some monuments, this section should not be focused on monuments as this is often too much the case in the descriptions of Paris urbanity. Think about the function before the landmark.

The latter idea to merge demographic with urbaninism is ridiculous, this article need to be consistent with the other articles about cities in Wikipedia. Minato ku (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear (this is common ; )? The monuments would be integrated with the history text (meaning just highlighted). What you're proposing would mean that they would have to have a section of their own, making them more prominent in the article. I don't want to mention them in anything 'urbinity', either - they're more of an obstacle to city growth, if anything.

How is it 'ridiculous' (I wouldn't have used that word)? Again, 'other wiki articles' are not a reference, and there is no 'standard' here. Doing what works best for the article is what's 'best'. And wouldn't it be ironic if they copied us ; ) ? I made a 'streetbox' template that was considered 'radical' when I made it, but now it's all over Wikipedia and even other Wikis. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, the idea isn't even mine - it's from the French Paris article. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec, you mean merge demography with 'urbanism' - yeah, that's arguable, and that's why I didn't integrate it into my example. But is the idea so 'ridiculous'? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Paris/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I promoted this article to GA last year, but since then it has been significantly degraded. The text is now a mishmash of English and American spellings (though – cf WP:ENGVAR – it is specifically stated to be in BrEng), the lead is excessive in length, the overlinking is grotesque, and there are "citation" and "dubious-discuss" tags at various points. This article now fails GA criteria 1b, 2b, 5, as well as falling foul of the Immediate failure criterion 1. Tim riley talk 14:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

0.o - I'll be helping to improve things for sure - I'll start by fixing the one 'citation needed' link I know of (I've just begun contributing after a break of almost five years) and having a look at the British-American English problem. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support delisting And I say this as a major contributor and the person who promoted it originally. I'm glad to distance myself from this one. Not to mention the sentences which have been added haphazardly in parts, how many paragraphs now which don't end with sources. The core of the content is still pretty solid but it's had too much traffic and editing since which has affected it. I'm not prepared to fight to save it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why so quick to throw in the towel? I've already fixed the English-American spelling issues, and removed dubious claims (as I could find no reference for them). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, Can you give us some examples of the 'overlinking'? The definition in the explanation is... vague at best. I'm having a hard time deciding the 'level' to adjust to. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WP rule is no more than two links from any article to another page: one link from the lead and one from the main text. There is a handy device for checking duplicate links here, which I find very helpful indeed. Tim riley talk 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's already a great place to start! Thanks a million for the tip. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Way too much maintenance, way too much time needed discussing "issues", just not worth it. I've felt this way for a long time on this. It wasn't even my decision to select it for improving in the first place, I was simply helping out Gilderien who had nommed it and I thought it worth trying to help promote it as I didn't want him to fail. What I've encountered over it since is quite extraordinary, it's a lot of bullshit I don't need on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll do what I can to improve the English and layout, but it really would be helpful to know what the most glaring errors are. And I'm not going to go through a year of page history (or longer) to find out who did what, so sorry in advance if I step on any toes. Still, if you can leave any clear directions on what to improve, I would be much obliged. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sad to see that only one editor has expressed an interest in remedying the deficiencies identified above, and he has been blocked for his efforts. In my judgment the article has been so degraded as to require a root and branch overhaul to get it back up to GA standard. This is improbable while we have the current manifestations of WP:OWN and persistent edit warring. Together with the widespread absence of citations for substantive statements I think they disqualify the page for GA status, failing criteria 1b, 2b, 4, 5 as well as the immediate fail criterion 1. Now delisted accordingly. Tim riley talk 15:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]