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]

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:

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

Can we agree to accept the lead image as it is? It's not perfect, but it presents the most recognizable landmarks in Paris, so someone looking knows that they've found the right article. I hope we can stop the personal attacks and work together with respect and civility. Thanks! SiefkinDR (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The current composite image represents Paris more so than any other image (or composite image) proposed as an alternative to date. Coldcreation (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Absolutely, the image is representative and in line with images for many other comparable cities. Jeppiz (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mais bien sûr. THEPROMENADER 11:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This topic has already been the topic of multiple arbitrations in the past, none of which reached consensus on a multiple-picture montage:

• 2013 arbitration: [4]
• 2013 request for contributions: [5]
• 2010 arbitration: [6]
• 2006 arbitration: [7]
• 2009 arbitration for the French article: [8]

The 2006, 2009 and 2010 arbitrations reached consensus on the Eiffel Tower single image. The 2013 arbitration reached no consensus for a change, thus confirming that the single image of the Eiffel Tower should be maintained. A decision which was overstepped by User:Dr. Blofeld on July 2nd, 2013. Here is a link to the diff [9] - Metropolitan (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would you know about consensus? Prior to this you haven't edited all year and you only stopped by in July 2013 to be a complete twat and tell me how awful the article was..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The current composite picture is showing a completly biaised image of Paris, and does absolutly not represent the variety of the city. And now Blofeld is insulting peoples ("complete twat", just before) without hiding it...This shows his behavior when a people are not going in his direction. Sesto Elemento (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

• Comment at the silliness of this becoming a vote. Already it's been clearly established that two potential 'voters' are direct parachuters from skyscrapercity.com who have done nothing on Wikipedia but push one image and their 'skyscraper' agenda on this article. And a third, with hardly any editing activity since years, was obviously canvassed too. I suppose now we can expect more new 'voters'. THEPROMENADER 13:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(pointing below) See? This is a parody of... I don't even know what. THEPROMENADER 14:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my editing list, you can see that I've done many edits before this photo problem on others pages, without any link with Paris page (what we are talking about...). So I'm surely not a """parachuter""" from skyscrapercity, as ThePromenader says everytime without any proof. I don't know Statistiker, I'm just agree with him. I can also say that Jeppiz and Coldcreation are parachuters from you, so not real "voters". Now stop lieing please. Sesto Elemento (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking, right? Right? THEPROMENADER 14:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sesto Elemento, could we be honest here? In August 2013 you were recruited to come here from Skyscrapercity, and ThePromenader has provided proof of that. I don't want to be uncivil, but please refrain from such obvious lies. It's exactly that kind of irresponsible behavior that pollutes the atmosphere here. Why can't you just be honest instead?Jeppiz (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As I of course like and would like main monuments to appear representing Paris (Eiffel Tower, Arc de Triomphe etc), i think we should add a complementary modern monument (Bibliothèque François Mitterand & passerelle Simone de Beauvoir may be perfect for me) and, even if indeed La Défense is not in inner Paris, could be visible at the back on a picture like a discrete appearence behind Eiffel Tower or something. It could IMHO be a nice balance Clouchicloucha (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Like Minauo Ku, a moderator from the skyscraper forum. A single purpose and rather suspicious account. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support this welcomed consensual proposal from Clouchicloucha. Metropolitan (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan: Yeah, his years of experience and hard work and educated opinion are really valuable here. Pathetic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC) @SiefkinDR: How about making it a condition that only established editors who have edited in the last few weeks prior to this to be permitted to vote here? Otherwise these meat puppets from skyscraper city will create lots of new accounts and oppose as if there's a consensus against. Consensus is determined by general agreement conducted civilly between established editors over time. There was never a problem with this image until the sock puppets from Skyscrapers.com arrived to push their agenda.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr Blofeld Hmm sorry how old are you? I think I may have a lot more years of education than you have my little friend especially when I see your agressive coments. Do you have any suggestion to advance discussions or do you prefer to continue insult everybody and not being constructive ?Clouchicloucha (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my 30s. And if you met me you'd realize how amusing the "little" friend comment is. All you've done is joined wikipedia to try to force an agenda. Come back after several months editing elsewhere and then your intentions might be taken more seriously.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a problem with something called "democracy". Democracy as a principle of equality in the value of votes (no votes more valuable than the others), and everyone should have the right to vote. Sesto Elemento (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with democracy. What I have a problem with is editors being canvassed off wiki on some shoddy architectural website to push an agenda and cause people like you Sesto and Clouch to create new accounts to stack votes and try to force something against the established consensus from experienced regulars who have quite happily accepted the montage over the past year. Mark my words, you won't be able to push it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DRblofeld OK that means we can have a discussion between adults. FYI i joined Wikipedia to give my feeling and my opinion, am i on my good rights? And again, i know Paris very well and live there for decades, this is why i think there is 2 parts of Paris, the historical one, as a lot of people imagine in the world, and the second one, touristic and business district as well, that should be mentioned. I don't think it is transgressive to show a little part of this modern and new Paris in Wikipedia, an open media supposed to be the more precise as possible (this is not a touristic booklet)Clouchicloucha (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not going to be possible is it given the circumstances in which you've entered here. If you were an experienced editor who genuinely happened to stray into this without being canvassed off wiki I'd be happy to discuss it with you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy and Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, and WP:MEATPUPPET for good measure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm talking about "democracy", I'm not talking about Wikipedia in general, I'm talking about the vote. Sesto Elemento (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And again, this is not a vote. It is a discussion. As explained in the links I gave you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Images such as File:Paris-tours.jpg as well as reports on the controversy of new developments since 2010 (like this one) indicate that city proper (particularly the central area) is nowhere near a hub of skyscrapers. I may be able to get behind something with a depiction of the 13th arondissement, which is part of the city and not a suburb; La Defense does most assuredly not meet that criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. BlofeldFirst, there was never a consensus. I don't know where this information come from. He just had a picture imposed by a few people to everyone. Secondly, we did not create double account as you say, this is wrong. Where are my double account ?? Sesto Elemento (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be experienced in i have to start with something right? This debate is interesting, and i don't know why the fact i don't have years of experience make my coments not valuable. Do you want me to propose a new picture you to see what i suggest?Clouchicloucha (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you just have to not violate some of our core guidelines, read WP:MEATPUPPET for starters.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - per Metropolitan, Sesto Elemento and Clouchicloucha. Caden ^cool 19:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, me thinks you've got personal vendetta issues Caden. A strange coincidence. Very childish.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blofeld, your accusations, lies and personal attacks are getting real old. Knock it off. Caden ^cool 01:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Caden, we certainly didn't see that oppose coming! You are as about as transparent as a pane of glass! Cassianto^talk 08:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – per Doctor Blofeld. Cassianto^talk 21:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There were various discussion on the talk page and arbitrations which User:Metropolitan has summarized above, and they all concluded that there was no consensus for a photomontage replacing the single view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense. User:Dr. Blofeld started editing the Paris article on 23 June 2013 because it had been nominated for GA (Good Article) status, and on 2 July 2013 this editor put a photomontage in the infobox without paying attention to the previous talk page discussion and arbitrations or opening a discussion on the talk page: [10]. 5 days later, I reverted Dr. Blofeld's montage and politely pointed out that there was no consensus for a montage, and that it had already been discussed on the talk page (in case Dr Blofeld didn't know): [11]. Only 3 and half hours later, I was reverted by User:SchroCat without any explanation: [12]. Please note that after going back in the edit history of the article until 2011, I cannot find a single edit by SchroCat in the Paris article until that 7 July 2013 edit which consisted in reverting me and replacing Dr Blofeld's montage in the infobox. SchroCat came to the article apparently with the sole intention of "protecting" the montage of Dr. Blofeld. And all that has happened since then is the consequence of this original problem: forcing a montage in the infobox with disregard for all previous talk page discussions and arbitrations, and then reverting anyone who attempts to remove Dr Blofeld's montage from the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that it's now September 2014 and the montage has been perfectly stable and satisfactory for over a year?? You've edited a fair bit in that time, and have also discussed the history expansion of this article in great detail since and you didn't seem to have a problem with the montage or mention it then...♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More bad faith as to the legitimate reason I came here. If you have suspicions over bad faith on my part, provide a diff. If not strike out the lies and innuendo. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The current image is fine. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Dr. Blofeld. The montage is absolutely fine; I can't see what's wrong with it and why people are threatening each other and inadvertently causing unnecessary arguments! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The current image is not fine as it is just picturing Paris with the usual cliché of old munuments, ignoring its functionning reality (as if Paris was just its monument and its history). The concensus would be a montage with mix between the monuments and the modernity, not just one option or one other option and then nobody would have win or lost. Minato ku (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would lose: La Defense is not in Paris, and pretending it is would make Wikipedia an unreferencable laughingstock. THEPROMENADER 22:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia would loose what ? Nothing, quite the oposite, people would undersand that Paris is not just the usual cliché but a REAL CITY. The fact that you don't like la Défense and that you do your best to diminish its role in Paris has nothing to do with Wikipedia. La Défense is not a distant suburb as you try to claim, this area is located at 3.5km (2.1 miles) of Arc de Triomphe, infact the distance between the Eiffel tower and La Défense is almost the same than between the Eiffel tower and Notre Dame. It is by presenting Paris with only the usual cliché and trying your best to dinimish its size (all the discussion about the metropolitan area in the past) that Wikipedia would loose. This is an encyclopedia, not a tourist guide. Minato ku (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, La Defense is several kilometres outside Paris? Thank you for confirming that. THEPROMENADER 23:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually La Défense is not several km outside Paris, it is at several km of the Arc de Triomphe. If you take the official boundary of the City og Paris, La Défense is at less than one km of the border. You can't pretend that La Défense has nothing to do with Paris. Minato ku (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can try to wheedle that down (into what?) by measuring from the closest corner of the Bois de Boulogne, but La Defense is still not in Paris. THEPROMENADER 07:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The composite image is just fine, quite representative of Paris.Mariordo (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Representative of what Paris ? The cliché tourist Paris or the real Paris ? There is a big difference between both and this is worry to see that even in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, Paris can't escape to usual hollywood stereotypes which exclude a large part of the population. Why Paris should be always reduced to its clichés? Why this is so difficult to see that Paris is much more than that? Minato ku (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support current version, as per the above, and per Jmabel's comment at ANI "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a special-interest site, and in the case of an article about a millennia-old city, it is not surprising that the most iconic structures in the city would be ones that have been around for a while", a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Silly canvassing again

Oppose @ Promenader as i know ok La Défense in oustide PAris if you want, but who told about putting a picture of La Défense?? The picture was Eiffel Tower with La Défense at the back (or any other inner monument at the very front), so where is the problem i do not see. 2A01:E34:EEAC:BD40:1D6:BD24:1E84:59A5 (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]