This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 17

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)

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)

@ 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)

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

@ Drmies: See the "consensus on the image section" below for a brief indicator for support among most established editors. Sesto Elemento, Cloudicloucha, Minato ku and obvious 2A01 are not only editors but moderators from skyscraper.com [10] [11] who created accounts on wikipedia purely to stack votes and try to force this through here. See the article history. The other opposers are mainly Metropolian, who strangely turned up last July August 2013 after long being inactive to support Der Statistiker after a previous article disagreement and Cadem who of course has recently had a run in with Cassianto which I heavily criticized. I see very little evidence from established respected editors that the current montage isn't acceptable. Above all I'm concerned that no admin has stated that they've found the behaviour on this talk page suspicious nor have protected this page from being edited by newbies trying to sway a "vote". Consensus in favour of the image should be clear, especially if you discredit the editors from skyscrapers.com who are trying to push an image of Paris with skyscrapers. What I ask for now @ De728631: or Drmies is an admin to semi protect this talk page permanently from brand new accounts and to leave a permanent notice at the top warning of our policy on Meatpuppetry trying to sway consensus. This page has a history of disruption from people creating accounts to try to push something, I think that's a perfectly legitimate request.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

• 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)

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)

The topic has been brought to the Administrators Noticeboard

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

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

Enough is enough. Several admins have established consensus and encouraged us all to walk away. One user is already blocked. Consensus is established, all is said. Now is the time for us all to do something else. Jeppiz ( talk) 15:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"in detriment of its accuracy of its information"? What exactly was in detriment of the article's accuracy? Are you suggesting there are no skyscrapers/high-rise buildings in Paris? Minato ku ( talk) 12:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Detrimental to the accuracy of the article would have been to prominently display La Défense as if it were part of Paris: analogous to a dubious group of "green" fanatics obsessed with posting an image prominently exhibiting the Parc de Saint-Cloud at the top of the page, to give the false impression that Paris is "green". Coldcreation ( talk) 13:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Then how come fr:Paris uses that same image in their infobox? Perhaps fr:User:Coldcreation2 could go tell people there how "inaccurate" and deceitful they are? And by the way, Paris IS green: more than 25% of its land area is made up of parks and woodlands, something that is also missing in the current photomontage. Der Statistiker ( talk) 14:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC) That is precisely the goal of the (cough) exercise these past few days: Using wikipedia renown to spread "Paris is filled with towers, just like New York!" disinformation to the rest of the world. Isn't that obvious? THEPROMENADER 13:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Drop the vile accusations, will you? Be constructive for a change. Even you, deep down, know that most of Paris is made-up of post-WW2 buildings, many of them towers of more than 10 floors, and that this is not reflected in the current photomontage. Der Statistiker ( talk) 14:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC) The most annoying thing about your comment is its disingenuousity. Do you really think that your words can somehow change the obvious? And if you really had the article interest at heart (and not the disinformation drive), why would you even try to defend the nonsense over the past days? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you are the instigator of all this; even without my long experience with your antics, others seem to be of the same persuasion. THEPROMENADER 14:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC) Your intention to introduce into the English Paris article buildings located in the Hauts-de-Seine department of France (part of the Île-de-France region) in promotion of your agenda, Der Statistiker (along with your meatpuppets and socks), has been undermined by an experienced crew of Wikipedia editors. Coldcreation ( talk) 14:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some additional suggestions for a more 'Modern' article:

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

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

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

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

Hello v_atekor,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To know whether or not the economics, demographics and infrastructures aspects of Paris are represented fairly, proportionately in the current article, I invite everyone to compare the size of the said sections with the one of those dedicated to History, heritage and culture (which in the case of Paris ignores its modern aspects as everyone obviously agreed here [12]). I've counted words of each section (including their paragraphs in introduction), and in order to give a point of comparison, I've done the same about London, which is a similar size capital city of a similar country.

Field of interest	Paris		London
	Number of words	% of total	Number of words	% of total
History	3,573 words	22%	2,048 words	17%
Heritage	4,277 words	26%	204 words	2%
Culture	2,545 words	15%	1,661 words	14%
Subtotal	10,395 words	63%	3,913 words	32%
Economy	673 words	4%	727 words	6%
Demographics	852 words	5%	1,605 words	13%
Transport	819 words	5%	1,693 words	14%
Subtotal	2,344 words	13%	4,025 words	33%
Overall total	16,388 words	100%	12,131 words	100%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article should be unprotected on 25 October [13]. After the article published on Le Monde newspaper [14], it's been recalled on the French talk page that hiding specific dimensions of a topic is considered WP:POV [15]. The current montage doesn't even show the actual city, only a collection of lifeless landmarks close-ups. For the matter, this has raised enough concerns in France for the story to be also mentioned on a major radio, Europe 1 [16]. This is why, I believe the better way to calm things out is to go for the conservative option which is to use the same image in the English version than the one used in the French version. An image which is a good consensus as it does show the Eiffel Tower, the undisputed symbol of the city, but also its urban surrounding landscape and its full dimension as a metropolis. That's the only way in my humble opinion to reach WP:NPOV in this case. Metropolitan ( talk) 01:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The closing admin had no idea of the entire history of this, and you, more than anyone else, are not entitled to give any advice about this, given that you are the one who triggered all of this by reverting the article in July 2013 to reinstall the photomontage of your friend Dr. Blofeld without any explanation or prior discussion on the talk page: [17]. All of this stems from you coming into this article, which you had never edited before, solely to revert it to restore Dr. Blofed's tourist photomontage. This you cannot deny. I've provided the diff. Der Statistiker ( talk) 11:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just recall that De728631 has been considered involved after he blocked me during 3 days, a decision proven unfounded and cancelled after the appeal from Caden [18]. It is cristal clear that there's nothing solved here, and I agree with SiefkinDR, Minato ku and Blue Indigo that the article has many other flaws that we could address first.

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

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

Leave the personal conflicts out of it. I agree that the Landmarks in the City of Paris is more reader-friendly, but it indicates (without reference) that the Val-de-Seine ( [19]?) is in the 15th arrondissement (!) and that La Defense is in the 17th arrondissement (!!), and the Plaine-Saint-Denis is in the 18th arrondissement (!!!)? There's nothing wrong with mentioning these, but not like that. THEPROMENADER 08:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All : there are two points to be discussed :

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

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

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

To the attention of v_atekor:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alright, as proposed on the sections above [20] [21]. I've renamed the "Landmarks by district" subsection into a more balanced "Majors monuments and attractions". Meanwhile, I noticed some geographical aspects are missing such as a description of the functionnal areas of the city.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for urbanism, the word is rarely used in English. It's not even mentionned by Wordreference (see test here: [22]). The wiktionary defines it as "the study of cities, their geographic, economic, political, social and cultural environment" [23]. To put it shortly, that's about all the fields to be covered by the article. Looking at the French version, the section deals with urban morphology (medieval Paris, Haussmann Paris), the metropolitan area, housing and urban sociology. I believe this could be covered in the geography and demographics sections. That's just my 2 cents. Metropolitan ( talk) 00:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the definition (field) of geography this article already uses seems clear enough. And 'urbanism' is rarely used in English? [24]. But that answer doesn't really address my question. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 01:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

And I would use a better reference than an English-French translation site to give English lessons ; ) For that, Linguee is much better, and it gives an actual indication whether a translation is widely used or not, and what that translation most commonly refers to. [25] [26]. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 08:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By the way, I found out that Eurostat lists the Paris metropolitan region as the largest metropolitan economy in the European Union: [27]. That we can certainly say since the source is homogeneous, and based on nominal (exchange rate) values provided by the national statistical offices to Eurostat. Der Statistiker ( talk) 00:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent contributor? SiefkinDR has been an editor at Wikipedia since earlier than me: [28]. Anyway, I won't comment further as this is against the rule set for this talk page. Regarding the metropolitan area figure, I notice that the New York City article mentions the New York metro area population figure, but not the New York state population figure. Same for many other cities ( São Paulo mentions the São Paulo metro area population but not the São Paulo state population, Barcelona mentions the Barcelona metro area population but not the Barcelona province population , etc.). It's standard that a city article mentions the population of the metro area of which the city is the central nucleus, but not the province/state/region within which the city is located. Der Statistiker ( talk) 21:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Well, "aire urbaine" and "aires urbaines" are more mentioned at lemonde.fr than "Calgary" (see [29] and [30] vs. [31]). I wonder whether anyone in Paris or in France has any clue what Calgary is... ;) Der Statistiker ( talk) 21:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can see no block on his block log [32]. As far as I can tell, he's still an active user. He probably never bothered to fill in his user page bio, hence the red color. As for your mentions of alleged canvassing and sockpuppetry, I remind you that everybody (you included) is under a strict, no-exceptions "comment on content, not on contributor" rule from User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Please try to respect it for everybody's sake. Thank you. Der Statistiker ( talk) 12:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

1. It has been proven Clouchicloucha was not a sockpuppet. See investigations results here: [33]
2. I am the first one who mentionned the fact that no French contributor agreed on the image (see my post of the 23 october just above). I have also told that we should focus first on the contents of the article. As mentionned below, considering the relatively chaotic organization of the current article, I think it would be wise to re-arrange the contents. I will probably make a proposal in the upcoming days. Metropolitan ( talk) 14:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I said "perhaps realated to the sockpuppet case", but [34] [35] [36] [37] THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 19:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone. As I wrote the article in Le Monde [38], and talked directly to a few of you, could I put the record straight? My article gives the arguments of both camps, as I should do as a journalist. But I think that highlighting the battle about the photo box does show that there is an issue with it. The fact that no compromise has been reached indicates that the current box is too one-sided, showing too much the "museum" side of Paris. I think restarting the discussion about it now is a bad idea, as there has been so much bad blood about it, but I feel unease to see it described as a "consensus". To my outsider point of view, it is not a consensus. Eric Albert Londres ( talk) 15:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Btw,

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're right to point out Eurostat, though: they seem to be the only inter-country organisation continuing the effort to create a unified system, as the UN threw in the towel a few years back [39] [40] after an initial attempt around the year 2000 [41]. And Eurostat uses 'urban cluster' ('built-up-area'), 'urban_center' (the city on which it is centred), and 'urban area' (including the commuter belt) [42] [43], so any comparative mentions should also mention the source cited. THEPROMENADER  ✎  ✓ 09:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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