Talk:Paris/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Why Image of Palace of Versailles in the montage?

I noticed that an image of the Palace of Versailles has appeared in the montage at the top of the article. The declared topic of the article is the Department and Commune of Paris; there is of course a separate article on the Palace of Versailles. The image is also so small that it's difficult to recognize what it is. I don't have any problem with mentioning in the article that Versailles is one of the important sights to be seen in the Paris Region, but I don't see any need to include it in the montage; its simply misleading. I suggest that the montage be limited to monuments actually in the City of Paris. Comments? SiefkinDR (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That image has been in the montage since 2011. I think (if it is indeed Versailles) that is should be replaced with an image taken in Paris. Plus, it has a watermark signature by the photographer (bottom left), which is unacceptable. Coldcreation (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, perhaps it's about time to change that. Plus the overly-busy practically-'unreadable' picture in the bottom, too, perhaps. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Time Zone

Is there any particular reason that the daylight savings time zone isn't shown in the Infobox? Many other city entries I've read show the daylight savings time zone. Christopher Rath (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It's using a wrapper of Infobox Settlement, however "|timezone_DST =" hasn't been added to the wrapper. I will request it added to the template since it is protected. Rob984 (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Rob984 (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Christopher Rath (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox images

I suggest we replace the collage with three landscape images like at London. The collages really don't do the images justice. I also don't think the images really give a very good idea of what Paris actually looks like. We are trying to inform so should use clear, accurate images.

A quick look on Commons and I found this:

It might not be the most visually pleasing to some but you can see a lot of the characteristics of the city and its architecture and has the bonus of featuring multiple major land marks. I think this conveys more than all of those images together.

Something like that, complimented with couple of images of major land marks would be much better in my opinion. We could maybe keep File:Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg and find a new picture of the Arc de Triomphe or another land mark.

Thoughts?

Rob984 (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I reckon that is a pretty good idea. Actually, I rather like the photo you found, though perhaps I am a little biased – that is an area I know well, having lived in the 16th (Auteuil, not the posher part) and worked in the 2nd, and so that is very much Paris to me. LynwoodF (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This is funny, I took almost the same image ; ) [1]

But I'm sure we can find much better images than this one (and mine!). Pity, because the Saint-Jacques-de-la-Boucherie tower is a great spot to 'get a feel' of what Paris really is; it's the highest structure in central Paris besides (the largely glassed-in) Centre Georges Pompidou. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? I am thinking of something like:

I think the top image needs to really show what Paris actually looks like. So taken from somewhere you can actually view, and not a night time or dusk shot. And of course one of the images needs to show the Eiffel tower considering how iconic it is.

Rob984 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I like the selection. My only comment is that I feel the Arc de Triomphe looks like a left-hand picture, while the Notre-Dame would look OK as a right-hand picture. Anyone else feel the same? LynwoodF (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a very nice selection of images, better than the old montage, but I also agree with LynwoodF about reversing the two images. Can we see what that looks like? SiefkinDR (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I modified it above. Rob984 (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The angles and views are nice, but it sure would be better to find something a little less grey ; P THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Centre Georges Pompidou

I think the montage above by Rob984 captures the city really well, and I would suggest we use it. . Another possibility, since the law of freedom of panorama has been changed, would be to add to the montage a more recent structure, such as the Centre Pompidou, like this one below, currently in the Commons.

SiefkinDR (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What's this about the panorama law changing? Is there anywhere I can read up on this? Thanks !

By the way... how do? (waving ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Dear Promenader, Yes, early this year the National Assembly voted to change the law, at the request of Wikipedia France, and instituted freedom of Panorama in France, but the Senate modified the law to exclude the use of images for lucrative purposes. This definition is apparently is not satisfactory for Wki Commons, so it's not clear if images can be used or not. It may be possible to upload images with a specific license that the can be used only for non-lucrative purposes. There is a Long discussion on that topic in the Village Pump of Wikimedia Commons on May 19 that explains possible options.

Why don't we put up the new montage without the Palace of Versailes? The new version looks good. And keep up your good work! SiefkinDR (talk) 13:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The new montage is okay for the content (without that $&%^$& image of Versailles, and good to see you back, Rob984 ; ), but the images are pretty... grey, lackluster. Both images seem to have been taken from the top of the Saint-Jacques de Boucherie... I'll see what I can do to take better ones on a 'brighter' day. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello ;) I think the one at the top is alright. The sky is a bit grey, but the buildings look okay. Also that is what the sky often looks like. If anything, the images should try to represent the climate, rather than just showing bright sunny days. Though variation would be ideal. I agree the cathedral photo is too grey and foggy. This image is a lot more vibrant, although the sky is also cloudy. Personally, I think one of the dusk photos should be replaced with a day-time one. Two dusk photos is a little too much given these only show how the places look for a hour a day.

By the way, I decided just to go ahead and add the version I proposed above as everyone seems to agree it is an improvement, and we could discuss forever what are the most ideal set of photos. Also, the montage is just four individual files in a template, so photos can be easily changed (although files will still need to be cropped to fit). This seems more logical than having to agree on a whole new set of photos every few years.

Rob984 (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep, you're making perfect sense. Now that things have calmed a bit, we can discuss how best to represent Paris (in a way that's -not- misleading). Ironic side-note: I was always kind of for a skyline of La Défense filling the bottom panel of the montage; if it's a view from within Paris (showing that it's far, and not -in- Paris), that's okay. But suggesting that during the 'misleading photo or nothing' debacle was pretty well impossible. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and day-or-night matters little... but it would be nice if the 'vibrance' of the photos match up (deep blue skies/saturation match pretty well with night images). 06:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Night again, but this is kind of amazing. Perhaps have 'night' photos as a 'cap' and 'footer' wide images ('nightcaps'? ; ), and daytime photos inbetween... THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Paris population figures in the lead

Dear fellow Paris editors: Can I ask why we have four different population figures for Paris in the lead, none of which are clearly identified as the population of the city of Paris?

What is the justification for giving the population of the metropolitan area and the urban areas in the lead, without mentioning the population of the city by name? In the lead it's now described as the Commune of Paris, though it's the official population of the city. The urban area and metro area are interesting, but they are purely statistical areas, with constantly changing boundaries and no legal existence.

There is no reason to be ashamed that Paris is only the fifth largest city in the European Union. Why do we want to claim that it's the biggest in Europe?

I think the lead should give the population of the city and the population of the region. which also has a government, fixed boundaries, and a large body of statistics. economic statistics, etc. The urban area and metro area can be described in the demographics section. They are not the City of Paris.

If it develops further, we might also want to mention the Metropole of Grand Paris, once it starts doing things, but maybe not quite yet, and maybe not in the lead; there's a separate article on the Metropole. But the population of the city should be stated clearly and given priority, since that's the topic of this article, I very much welcome your comments. SiefkinDR (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

In France we do not have city status. There are communes of all sizes, from villages to cities. Paris is a commune, and calling it the "city of Paris" is a misnomer. That said, the qualification is not needed so I removed it.

Being the centre of the largest urban area in the EU is a notable fact. Being the 5th largest municipality in the EU is less so.

Also I disagree. The Commune of Paris, along with its suburbs, have a combined identity. Living in Paris, this is very evident. Half the population of the urban area live outside the commune and many consider themselves Parisians. The connection between the suburbs and Paris should not be ignored.

Brussels and London are examples of where the "city" and the place are certainly not the same. Paris is similar to a lesser degree.

Rob984 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree the current lead paragraph goes into too much detail on the various definitions. They should probably be moved out of the lead paragraph, maybe into a new paragraph towards the end of the introduction, including economic indicators as well. Although the introduction is quite large already.

Rob984 (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your useful comments and for your edit about the Commune. As you say, Paris is certainly a city as well as a Commune; on the official website of the city it is the Ville de Paris and on the English site the "City of Paris". You can't really compare the the situations of London and Brussels with Paris; The City of London (the business district) is only a square mile, and has a tiny population (at least at night). It has its own Wikipedia article, as does the City of Brussels, to make them distinct from the main articles on London and Brussels. The metropolitan area and urban area of Paris, also have their own articles, as does the Paris Region and the new Metropole of Grand Paris. This article is primarily about the City of Paris, so I think the focus in the lead should be the City. As you suggested, I would like to move the population figures for metropolitan area, urban area, and region closer to the end of the lead. Further suggestions, ideas and comments are very welcome. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:08, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I would think the official website using the term "Ville of Paris" is attempting to distinguish from Paris in some wider sense. I think you can compare to Brussels and London, to a lesser degree. For example, Brussels' suburbs have unique identities, while still being Brussels, but the core it the city, with its own identity. Paris and it's suburbs are similar to this.

I quite dislike the changes you have made without consensus. I support moving these details out of the lead paragraph, but what you have done is give sole and increased prominence to the region and city. Also why remove mention of where the city is located? The lead paragraph should be a short overview of the key aspects. Rankings in the EU, and alternative definitions should be covered in one paragraph separate, overviewing demographics. Mentioning Paris' population is fine, but anything more is not that important. I would revert your change but you then have gone on to update figures, so it is a little difficult. I have manually reverted some changes I don't see any reason for.

Rob984 (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

For example, the urban area does not necessarily expand as the population grows, it expands as it sprawls outwards. But this is the definition of urban area, being continuous. Rob984 (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please look at the articles on Berlin, Madrid.and Rome and you'll see the model I followed. Changes are certainly possible, and it can be shortened. I'm for moving the descriptions of the urban area and agglomeration out of lead to the demographics section. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Berlin's lead paragraph covers the key aspects, not just some demographics of your choosing. I think the short description "a statistical area representing the whole agglomeration, including both the commune and its suburbs" is helpful. I don't understand why you think the urban area does not deserve weight? It is the only way to compare cities internationally, and is often considered as the primary measure of functional cities, as oppose to municipalities which are just administrative areas (and in this case, hardly a complete definition of the place named "Paris"). I think the region should be moved out of the lead paragraph and we should add more key aspects such as the location. Rob984 (talk) 10:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Note Berlin's article compares its population within Germany using municipality population, while within the EU it uses urban area. The way countries deal with municipalities is incomparable. The UK in particular has the City of London, the City of Westminster (cities within London, also considered a city), the City of Brighton and Hove (two towns in one city), Northampton (a municipality and town with a population of 200,000 that is not considered a city), etc.. Rob984 (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be very useful if there were a separate article on the Urban Area of Paris, as there is on the city, the region, and the metropolitan area, which would explain exactly what the urban area is, what it covers, and what its relation is with the metropolitan area. Are there any economic statistics for the urban area? A map would be very helpful. Also, I found that the links to the INSEE site with the population of the urban area point to INSEE data that's no longer there. It would be helpful if those links could be fixed. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Separate article is no problem, but I don't think that means it should be given any less weight than here. There is a map illustrating the city, urban area, metropolitan area, and region: File:Paris uu ua jms.png. I don't know if there are economic statistics, but I would think so. Rob984 (talk) 13:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I really have to update that map. There is no economics data on the areas it shows: France's economics statistics are still organised in communes, departments and regions; the unité urbaine and aire urbaine are still but statistical entities here. It is entirely possible to 'concoct' UU/AU statistics adding up a given statistical area's individual commune economical statistics, but that would be WP:OR. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, an article on the urban area would be great, so we would know what it is. My main problem with the urban area is that, unlike the City of Paris, it doesn't have a history, an economy, a government, a culture, or a society. It's just a statistical abstract, which I believe was just invented a few years ago. All the economic and social data about Paris that I've seen is for the Department and for the region. It's not much fun to write about a statistical abstract. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I think a bit of context in the text (all you're discussing here ; ) would help a lot to clear up some possible confusion. Many contributors try to make 'city articles' conform to some nonexistent 'ideal' universal description/mold (and every contributor seems to have their own 'definition' of this), but we all know that this isn't possible, so it's best to say things how they are and tell the whole story (instead of highlighting only the 'bits of reality that fit (other cities)' and ignoring the rest).

There's no denying the 'etat d'esprit' that is indeed 'Paris' in many people's minds (it and its urban tissue is indeed a single, interconnected entity), but this 'emotional state' is 'cut' by the administrative realities of France's (arguably archaic) 'commune' system, and the political realities attached to this dissect it even further; this is a great cause for problems in the Paris area, and this should be noted exactly how it is, not glossed over or brushed under the carpet like it doesn't exist.

There's also the problem of the local terminology; we can't just apply a term to an article 'because' of the presumed (how?) knowledge/ignorance of readers: doing so misleads the reader into thinking that these terms are common terms of reference locally when they're most often not. For example: the French use of 'city' is much more vague (non-administrative) than our North American definition/usage of the term, and when that 'oral, thought' term is applied to the very real administrative machine here, it becomes the juristictions and other adminstrative divisions that don't at all bear that name (commune, department, etc.); the 'city' title applied to reality becomes the 'commune' jurisdiction it is. Nor have most people here ever even heard of the urban area and metropolitan area (here, only statistical) concepts until only recently (I saw 'public' reference to it for the first time in newspapers reporting 2012 elections (when metropolitan areas ('aires urbaines') were used for the first time to tally votes, or at least used as a demographical barometer to report said voting), yet it is still not common usage, and the 'Grand Paris' project pretty well eliminates the possiblility of that ever happening, at least in this area. "Paris", "petit couronne" (of Paris), "grand couronne" (of Paris) and "Paris region" are the terms most often used here (until "Grand Paris" kicks in and becomes a real 'thing' in people's minds/adminstration/communications).

What's more, while the urban area is developing a worldwide 'standard' criteria/definition, the 'metropolitan area' has not, and not even the INSEE itself calls its aire urbaine a 'metropolitan area' (they opted instead for the 'big/greater urban area' as a translation [2]), so reason even less to impose that language (and doing so is WP:OR).

BUT there's nothing wrong with describing how things are locally while making comparisons to standards in the rest of the world; the French aire urbaine is like the North American metropolitan area, there's no denying that, and there's nothing wrong with noting that there are similarities (but, again, there is something wrong with just stating 'metropolitan area'); the French use of 'ville' is not at all the same as 'city' for much of the English-speaking world, and that should be noted, too... but in that context. One thing is not necessarily another because they use the same word, and to pretend so (use 'other' terminology without an added explanation or context) can be misleading.

Demographics rant over, hope you all are well, take care, cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: A few overly-gung-ho 'conformity enthusiasts' have flounted the 'use English' rule (and their votes were pointedly garnered whereas this article is concerned), but I don't see how this is possible until the aire urbaine (and unité urbaine, for that matter) has an officially and widely-accepted translation; most English-only publications (mostly destined to an other-country-unaware audience) use 'metropolitan area' (after supplying the correct context (limits)) to indicate the Ile-de-France region, others use it to describe Paris and its petite couronne, and still others use it as a vague, limits-free reference to Paris and its 'influence'. Most educational, scientific and governmental entities publishing papers on the subject in both English and French translate aire urbaine into urban area [3], and again, so does the INSEE (who invented the concept and term!). Practically the only place 'translating' aire urbaine into metropolitan area is Wikipedia, and this is because wikipedia was chosen specifically as a platform to 'trumpet' a 'world-conformist' opinion as widely-accepted fact, and this is quite against pretty well everything Wikipedia stands for... and makes it look bad as a reliable source/reference.

So for this, I think areas of this article that concern the aire urbaine (and other INSEE statistical areas) should either be translated to the INSEE (official) translation, or not be translated at all.

Apologies for the lengthy exposé, but this point about this article (and other French-related ones) has existed since over a decade now; it presents a 'faux' presentation of Paris (and its function) that 'caters' to reader ignorance to paint a picture that doesn't at all correspond to reality. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I largely agree and I have made some amendments to the lead to address this. The unité urbaine is a measure of continuous urban area according to the INSEE (which makes it a measure of agglomeration as well, since this is also continuous urban area). As you point out, this concept of continuous urban area is widely used across the world and has a fairly consistent definition. It's generally known as "urban area" (US) or "built-up area" (UK). But I think it is best to just describe what it is "continuous urban area", not least because our readers may not understand the difference between urban area and metropolitan area. In regards to the aire urbaine, I think the INSEE is poorly translating this by using the literal translation – "urban area". Metropolitan area is a very broad term, referring to any measure that goes beyond continuous urban area, into the wider commuter zone. Paris' larger urban zone (a Eurostat measure of metropolitan area) has a similar population to Paris' aire urbaine, for example. So I don't think it is original research to describe the aire urbaine as "a measure of metropolitan area", since the INSEE describes it in English as the "urban unit" (described as the "continuously built up zone") along with the "rural districts or an urban units (urban periphery) among which at least 40 % of employed resident population works in the centre or in the municipalities attracted by this centre", which is making reference to a commuter zone. Rob984 (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course I see the similarity between the aire urbaine and (much of the world's) 'metropolitan area' concepts (and that's a fact; who cares what I think), but my point is that it can't be presented as an 'official' translation as though it is a commonly-referred to 'thing' (where, in reality, it is but an obscure (to the public) statistics-institute tool and concept)... this is the 'between the lines OR' I was alluding to: yes, one can stay completely within wikipedia rules, yet paint a false picture ; ). There is nothing wrong with making a comparative reference (for the reader), but filling the article with "The Paris Metropolitan Area is...".... again, wikipedia is one of the only places on the web presenting the aire urbaine like that, and that's just not acceptable. (There is even a "Paris Metropolitan Area" (yes, capitalised) thankfully low-linked article here, and that needs to be dealt with eventually...).

What's more, the "Metropole du Grand Paris" is in direct conflict with that terminology, and it only covers the petite courounne and some communes... the result will be even more confusing to readers (two metropolitan areas? Which is what?). The aire urbaine (metropolitan area) is a useful tool, but it's just not a reality (in media/everyone's minds) here, and there is some irony in the Metropole du Grand Paris only just trying to be (it still isn't really 'sticking' in media (etc.) references).

I hope you see the problem; but all I think is required to fix it is a bit of context.THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Public Urination

I'm sure something can be said about it, but the contribution below is way too extensive for an already-long article (this takes up more space than any 'infrastructure' section!). Perhaps pare it down to a few lines? This is longer than some sub-articles, and it reads like a 'moral police' piece! Cheers THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

In full view during the day, urinating is frequently performed by men in Paris. "Pipi sauvage" is the French name for the frequent practice of street urination due to the lack of toilets. Local male Parisians are the culprits of public urination. The problem of urinating led to the "incivility brigade". It has reached the extent that the urination is labelled as "public health problem". Urination, spitting, garbage throwing and sexual harassment against women are major problems in Paris. Public urination is not acceptable for women while men are freely allowed to publicly urinate in Paris. The name "urine sauvage" has been given by the French. The smell of urine in alleys and metros is a common smell for tourists and it was done for a long time in Paris. A feature showing instructions on urinating in public was shown on Le Grand Journal French TV. The smells of urine plague the metro of Paris and the urination frequently occur near signs and lampposts, giving the name "land of the pissoir" to France. Public urination is a habit of French men in Paris. Streets, metros, and alleys are all plagued with the odor of urine in Paris. "Why does Paris smell like pee?" was the top question performed by googlers who came across the travel site Flashpacker Family. The public urination issue is unrelated to tourists. Public urination has not been deterred by measures such as fines and building of new toilettes. Metros are plagued with urine smells in Paris. The issue of urination extended in the past to the times of the monarchy and the people were undeterred by anti public urination measures set by the king. Unlawful public urination continues to be practiced by Frenchmen even though Paris has public restrooms. 1,800 tickets were issued in 2008 because of urinating and 1,200 tickets were issued in 2007. Sidewalk cleaning by laborers has not gotten ride of the smell which plagues Paris. The parks, metro, and streets are all subject to urination. Tickets are issued by the "Brigade des Incivilités," which has eighty eight people participating in it. Paris streets are plagued with the torrent of urine and people have been unable to wash them away with hot water, deodorant and disinfectant. Public urination continues unabated despite the presence of new urinals open for use. 1,100 tickets were issued in the first half of 2009. Fines for public urination are in place and no cost urinal are available in an attempt to stop the public urination in Paris. Public urination has been committed by a majority of local men of Parisian background and is a local norm in Paris. Social bonding between friends may be created by group public urination in Paris.

I agree with Promenader: this text was more of an essay on French customs than an encyclopedia entry. SiefkinDR (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Sexual harassment on Paris public transport

Hi @Coldcreation: so what do you think about these two sources I used and a third one I found?

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11545643/100-per-cent-of-Frenchwomen-victims-of-sexual-harassment-on-public-transport.html
• http://www.20minutes.fr/societe/1587751-20150416-harcelement-transports-100-femmes-deja-victimes
• http://www.bfmtv.com/societe/un-plan-pour-lutter-contre-le-harcelement-dans-les-transports-878073.html

AadaamS (talk) 05:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

AadaamS, if any at all, HCEfh, Avis sur le harcèlement sexiste et les violences sexuelles dans les transports en commun, 16 avril 2015 would be the citation of choice, for obvious reasons. However, I doubt this should even be mentioned in the article. There's nothing about sexual harassment (SH) in other articles on big cities, such as Tokyo, and yet this is probably the capital of SH worldwide. But aside from that, the study remarkably excludes 100% of the women that have never been sexually harassed in the public transport. Read 100% des femmes harcelées? Alors je n’existe pas, Draguer n’est pas harceler for example. Problem is, in the HCEfh study, even looking at a woman was considered harassment, or whistling. And oh, it mentions nothing about the 50% of women who actually enjoy it. :-) Coldcreation (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Note too, FRANCE 24 found the figure 100% was presented out of context: Are 100% of women harassed on French public transport?

The group [HCEfh] admitted that it did not hire a research institute, but instead calculated the statistics from a sample of 300 women who had all participated in a public consultation about women’s roles in the public space and… harassment in public transport. This means that all of the women polled were already concerned by the subject in question.
Another weakness is the lack of information about the women polled. While the women were interviewed in Essonne and in Seine-Saint-Denis [two departments in the Île-de-France region where the public consultations were held], they were not asked if they live there. This makes it unclear whether the 100 percent refers to just these two departments or all of France. Once again, the HCEfh did not specify.

Coldcreation (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Let's create a real encyclopedia article about Paris

It's been a while I haven't been there (I'm busy and this article becomes less and less how Paris functions and more and more a list of cliché and factual facts. Tourist guide rather than an encyclopedia. Especially in the introduction. Economic facts have been removed, the the fact that Paris being big major transportation hubs has been put completely backwards beyond information about "attractions" and some sport events (It's like the Louvre Museum or Muséee d'Orsay were more important to Paris than its hub position. Close the Louvre and it would make very few difference to the city. Close the subway, railways, the roads... and the city would shut down and die). Now that the Grand Paris Metropolis has been created, there's no reason to hide La Défense anymore in the introduction picture.
Paris is a big working city, not an theme park and the city should be presented as a city, not as a list of attractions to visit.
We need also the review the history section. In exemple the part about 2015 terror attact is well too big, plenty of facts not necessary to the article. Minato ku (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits pending comments by other editors on the topic, even though we've been through this before. You know consensus was attained not to show that image of La Defense (which is outside of Paris in the 92). Thanks for your comprehension. Coldcreation (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, the fact that La Defense is not "inside the city limits" of Paris is not what bother other editor (note that it is a very limited number of people) is that the fact it shows a more modern face of Paris. Something that I don't know why some people want to hid. If instead of skyscrapers in this picture, there were just an old castle, it would not bother them even if this castle was not officially inside the city limits. It's modernity that they don't want to show.

Just like they want to hid the fact that Paris is a big city, just like they want to hid the fact that Paris is comspolitan city, just like they want to hid the fact that Paris is a big economic center. Why putting so much emphasis on monuments and so few emphasis on everyday infastructures and the everyday working city. Just ahead, there is a talk about removing reference of Paris urban and metropolitan area, this just proves my points. Minato ku (talk) 09:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Your strange claims are unjustified. See Talk:Paris/Archive 12, Talk:Paris/Archive 13, Talk:Paris/Archive 15. Coldcreation (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

My "strange claims" are pretty much justified by the evolution of this article. Anyway if the problem was just the picture, why did you revert everything? Not just the picture but everything including the updates, the modification of reference... Everything. Minato ku (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Dear Minato Ku: There's a great deal of information about the Paris economy and modern society in the article; in that sense Paris is just like every other big city. What makes the city appealing to people around the world are the monuments and its history. La Defense is not in this article because it's not in Paris proper; the same reason that Versailles and Fontainebleau are not in the article. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That's the difference between an encyclopedia and a tourist book. The tourist book highlights what makes the city appealing to people around the world like the monuments while the encyclopedia should highlights the functioning of the city and its role. The monuments or attractions are secondary facts in an encyclopedia article about a city. Minato ku (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Minato ku, as SiefkinDR rightly points out, the article tends to be balanced, just as other article on large cities. While you may not like one aspect of the city (its tourism industry), it is nonetheless an important feature of Paris, as in the article on the city. Coldcreation (talk) 08:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Many of us, Parisians, feel uneasy with this article because our living city is portrayed like a theme park for tourists. It's not an accurate or balanced view of Paris.

Same for the idea to make a big separation between the city proper and its suburbs and to exclude the suburbs. Do that and you give a very limited and partial view of Paris because it's impossible to describe Paris correctly or to understand how the city works without an inclusion of the suburbs.

Everything is very interconnected. Millions of people cross the Peripherique everyday. Plenty of things are done outside the city limits because of the lack of space inside the city limits. The City of Paris and its suburbs are not two separated and independant entities. In demography, economy, transportation, shopping, healthcare, emergencies services, education, leisure... almost everything that make the daily life, they are part of the same entity. This separation is just arbitrary administrative limits. Minato ku (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I really doubt your claim that many Parisians feel uneasy about this article. Your supposed "theme park" complaint got nowhere fast during past discussions (archives linked above). Consensus in fact disagreed with your conspiracy theory. Only a small group of individuals from that skyscraper website (some canvased, some socks, others not) complained about the tourism aspects of the article, while pushing La Défense into the article as if it were Midtown and Lower Manhattan. As far as other banlieue, you'll notice the New York City article does not dwell on northeastern New Jersey, Hoboken, or Jersey City, even though they are very interconnected, with hundreds of thousands of people crossing over each day. That's because the article is about New York City. Coldcreation (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

To begin, the number of people who come to work in New York City from the suburbs is lower than in the City of Paris, both in total number and in ratio. In exemple, the majority of people who work inside the City of Paris lives in suburbs (you can't pretend that they don't exist). If the City of Paris municipality was covering a much larger territory like in New York City or in London, heavy mentions of the suburbs would be less necessary but because the City of Paris is in the case of a city where the city proper is only the "downtown". If you don't mention the suburbs then you give a very misleading view of Paris (because of lot of major infrastructures are in suburbs), almost misinformation in some ways. Would you say that Paris does not have airport because Paris' big airports are in suburbs?

You said that parisians don't feel uneasy with this article. How come very few (almost none) participate here? The reason is simple, they did participate a lot in the past when the article was much less biased with tourists clichés but they have been kicked off and badly threated by some who want to impose their historic, clichés and restricted view of Paris. Parisians have left the English article because they felt it became an hopeless case. They can't fight against stereotypes from the English speaking media.

There is not conspiracy here but just a view of Paris that is restricted to tourist mind and not representative of the Paris of everyday. The Paris of everyday is not famous museums, sights, French cancant and Edith Piaf. Some have hard times to understand this reality because in their minds, Paris is mostly made of those cliché. Minato ku (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Minato Ku: You can hardly have an article about Paris, especially for an English-speaking audience, without mentioning the history landmarks. What specific information do you think should be in the article that isn't there now? SiefkinDR (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I see that Minato ku's first edits since almost a year were to (again!) try to change the lede image to the three-years-in-a-row-highly-contested 'La Defense' one (because it represents suburban La Defense, not Paris), and to reinstall text written by another contributor years before... sorry, but my 'good-faith-metre' is exhausted as far as this contributor is concerned, and we know what they want: to use Wiki as a platform to shout to the 'ignorant anglophones' of this world that 'Paris' is a skyscraper-filled, everyone-is-super-rich metropolis as big as the Île-de-France and little else; their contribution list is a clear demonstration of this. I'll be around if you need me. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for this late answer. Nobody is trying to make believe that Paris is full of skyscrapers but it does have high-rises and modern buildings and you can't denie this fact. PS: the picture shows the 7th arrondissement, Ecole Militaire Champs de Mars, Eiffel tower, Trocadero, the 16th arrondissement, Bois de Boulogne and then La Défense, La Défense is just a small part of the picture in the background. I don't understand all the fuss. The problem is not that la Défence is in suburb (0.6 mile outside the city limit), the problem is that it shows a modern aspect of Paris that some refuse..

Paris is a rich and big metropolis. It's not a small rural town whose tourism would be its raison d'etre. It's a large business city. I don't know why you want to refute this fact. https://www.brookings.edu/research/redefining-global-cities/

I know that it can be difficult for an English-speaking audience to understand that Paris is much more than clichés but I don't think that the role of an encyclopedia is to enforce stereotypes instead of offering them a much broader (and accurate) view of what is Paris. I'm not against mentioning landmarks but do not give them an exaggerated importance that they don't have.

According to ThePromenader, Coldcreation or SiefkinDR because I live 0.7 mile outside the Périphérique, I don't have any relation with Paris. Even if I take the subway everyday, I work and I do my shopping in Central Paris. To exacerbate things, I work in an office, I never go in café, I mostly eat in asian restaurants and I'm non-white. Those kind of facts that may hurt the sensibility of an English-speaking audience about Paris (so let's pretend that people like me don't exist) Minato ku (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

No need really for the diatribe. We are all French speakers, we all live and work in Paris, or have lived and worked in Paris. The article is written for an English speaking audience (or anyone else) in a neutral way, about a vast and complex set of topics, ranging from history, to politics, education, economy, tourism, culture and so on. That is the role of an encyclopedia. Coldcreation (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What's more, 'cliché'd' Paris' (that does largely depend on tourism, thus its preservation/promotion of monuments, etc.) pointed separation from its suburbs is a problem that has yet to be resolved, and pretending here that that problem is already 'fixed' (and doesn't exist) is not only misusing Wikipedia to misinform the world, but is contributing to the problem. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge

Still bickering after all this time haha. France badly needs contributors for this, so help fly the flag for France and improve/create articles on France to go towards it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Look at the timeline of this article... almost dead silence, rather. But it's all the bickering that keeps contributors away... ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

More seriously, France-knowledgeable English-wikipedia contributors are lacking (a situation that was exploited before), so perhaps it might be a good idea to get some translation from French wikipedia going. I'll see what I can drum up. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Louvre = most visited, or second-most visited attraction in the world?

An anon changed the 'second-most' in the lede phrase to 'the most' without providing a reference, but does this claim have one? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Promenader. This is a tricky question. The article List of most visited art museums puts the the Palace Museum in Beijing, which is both an art and history museum, as the most visited art museum in the world, way above the Louvre. But if it's limited to museums that are exclusively art museums, then the Louvre would be ahead. We can leave the Louvre in number one, but note that the Beijng Museum has a higher attendance. What do you think? SiefkinDR (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

No need to mention the Beijng Museum since it is not exclusively an art museum. Not sure I trust their statistics either. Coldcreation (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I would find a few more sources, too... that list is from a single source (which is normally verboten on Wiki)? I'll have a look at what the Paris Tourism board says (but their numbers... whatever), too. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Got a few: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]... I would consider a preponderance of several sources (most sources cite the Louvre as...). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: Happy New Year, guys, hope you are well ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources, and happy new year to you to, from The City of Light... Coldcreation (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Then we'll let the Louvre keep its well-deserved title. Bonne Annee, Paris team!SiefkinDR (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paris/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Geojournal (talk · contribs) 21:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I intend to review this article as soon as possible. Geo ^talk 21:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead and Tools (First Impression)

·Already having thoroughly reviewed the lead, I have found a (relatively) small amount of mistakes. The second sentence reads "...and a population in 2013 of 2,229,621 within its administrative limits." Clearly, this should be reworded to "...and a population of 2,229,621 in 2013 within its administrative limits." to improve the prose. Other than this, the lead is decent for good article qualification. It's worth mentioning though, that using Checklinks, I discovered the article to have 13 dead links, an OK number for an article this size. I have tagged them for deletion (and hopefully replacement). Geo ^talk 22:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Overall (Final Thoughts)

After having read the article, I've reached a few conclusions. First, I would say that while this article may seem large at first glance, the topic is a comprehensive one that requires this level of detail. Considering that, the article does not go into any unnecessary detail and the prose is excellent for a GA. It is verifiable, containing no original research or copyright issues. Citations are sufficient but it is crucial to note that there are 4 tags and 13 dead links (tagged as mentioned). Likely due to the large amounts of varied editing this article receives, it remains neutral at all times even in areas one wouldn't expect (Media and International Relations, for example). It is stable (especially with the pending changes protection, though semi-protection for such an article might be more fitting in the future) and the images offer a cohesive comparison with the textual information.

However, before promoting this article to GA status, I would strongly recommend the citation needed tags and 13 dead links, especially, be replaced. I will try to do so myself but any help would be much appreciated. Looking hopeful so far... --Geo ^talk 20:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment I would suggest checking the article against the issues raised at talk:Paris/GA2 which led to its delisting from GA previously. Nthep (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment I've taken care of the dead links and missing citations. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of those issues, Nthep! I have checked it out and determined that even considering the lengthy subject, this lead is way overdone. The rest of the issues, as far as I can see, have been resolved. I will continue to shorten the lead after which point I'd deem the article a GA. Geo ^talk 22:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've resolved issues with the lead, eliminating and partially replacing redundant information, annexing it elsewhere in the article as needed. I am ready to promote the article and will do so if no further objections are received in a timely manner. Thank you for your help! Geo ^talk 22:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article is well written after verification due to large numbers of varied edits from editors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Required cleanup and improvements to the lead but after that was otherwise fully compliant.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes, this page meets the layout standards.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Contained 13 dead links and 4 {citation needed} tags but were resolved in a timely fashion and so passes the criteria.
	2c. it contains no original research.	As far as is discernible, the page doesn't have any original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	After checking duplication tools and giving a good read out with manual checks, it's safe to say there are no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This article does address main aspects of its topic (Like history, geography, economy and so on), occasionally going into excessive detail but that is very minimal.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article covers quite a broad topic, but it does not go into unnecessary detail considering the variety and depth on the topic provided.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This article, due to its publicity, rarely had and currently does not have POV or neutrality issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	This article had seen a number of conflicts in the past, but they were resolved and action for page protection has been taken which seems to be efficient in preventing instability.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are cohesive and there are no problems therewith.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All the pictures are relevant and have captions that add to their value.
	7. Overall assessment.	This article did suffer from some issues in the past, such as those in categories 1b, 2b, and 5, (mentioned in previous failed nominations) especially but they have all been resolved in a timely manner resulting in my promotion of this article to GA.

I would be interested in hearing your (objective) view about the parts of the article that go into 'excessive detail', if you don't mind... thanks for all! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

FA status - Improvements?

Something tells me that, at this point, this is not a great hurdle to breach: I'm game, if anyone else is. It would help to have an objective assessment of what could be improved, though. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I've asked for the objective input of a few copyeditors, for starters - thanks to any who can help. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I was pinged by User:ThePromenader. Please note that I not a FA/GA copy editor, I do not pretend that I am familiar with all of their criteria. Having said that, I do possess a dollop of common sense, so here are a few suggestions should you be interested. I've only looked at the lede and the history section so far, I might look at the rest of the article later (no promises). One general comment, it seems very

Lede. The second paragraph is quite hard to follow. First of all we encounter the term 'Paris unité urbaine', then 'aire urbaine de Paris', both of which are described as a measure of urban area (which would imply that they are standard and transferable), but are then used to refer to a specific area itself in Paris. I'm assuming that 'urban area' is the standard measure used for statistical purposes, and then the whole term defines the relevant area in Paris, but in any event, I had to re-read it several times. This is quite a lot of technical detail for the lede, I'd suggest simplifying it somewhat.

I'm not sure adding the dates of the monuments in the lede is required, it's already quite large.

Origins. Maybe mention who beheaded St Denis or at least what group did. This fact is a little isolated at the moment.

Middle Ages "The merchants became a powerful force" in what? Politically, economically, socially?.

"Two and half years later, on 1 December 1420, Henry V of England made his solemn entrance into the French capital". What is the context of this? Why was it solemn? Maybe try "Two and half years later, on 1 December 1420, Henry V of England entered Paris and it remained occupied by the English and their Burgundian allies until 1436." If there was a conflict when they arrived, entered would not be appropriate.

"The city had been neglected for decades; by the time of his assassination in 1610, Henry IV had rebuilt the Pont Neuf, the first Paris bridge with sidewalks and not lined with buildings, linked the Louvre to the Tuileries Palace, and created the first Paris residential square, the Place Royale, now Place des Vosges." What are we trying to say? Is the point that it was neglected, even though Henry had done this work? Was the Pont Neuf the first bridge with sidewalks before or after the rebuilding? Or are we saying that what he did was tantamount to neglect? In any case, the sentence is very fragmented and I can't suggest an alternative because I don't know what it's trying to say.

General comment about the history sections. While Paris is obviously renowned for it's architecture, there are an awful lot of references to various administrations building bridges, boulevards etc. Could some of this be pruned, to maintain a focus on the significant historic events. There is an section devoted to architecture further down, and a link to an article devoted to it and the article is quite long in general. Scribolt (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, Paris has quite a complicated administrative situation, and a few numbers in that lede section refers to statistical areas used by few others than the statistical institutions themselves (and it is wriitten in that context)... that would best be covered in the demographics section, and I'm sure it already is. I'll see if I can clean that up a bit. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Done, I hope that's better. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I dealt with the 'middle ages' section, too, and removed some (unexplained, context-less) extreme detail. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Now that the context is clearer, perhaps the language could still use some work (so please do!); it's hard fitting all those history-bits together in an understandable way in such a small space. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Good, yes, it's better now. I'm taking a stab at further tweaks. I want to highlight the following, because I'm going to re-write it.

• "Paris' cultural centre had begun to move to the right bank, after the draining of its former swampland made the land habitable and fit for crops. The move was concretised with, where Les Halles is today, a 'Les Champeaux' city marketplace that, from 1137,(John Frederick Hinnebusch 1972, p. 262) replaced two smaller ones on the Île de la Cité and Place de la Grève (Hotel de Ville). The latter location housed the headquarters of Paris' river trade corporation, an organisation that became, unofficially (officially, in later years), Paris' first municipal government."

2nd para middle ages. I'm going to try to simplify it, but I suck at references and the John Frederick Hinnebusch bit looks strangely formatted in the current version. Please reinsert it if required. Scribolt (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, there's a lot of info in that short passage. I'm not sure what's up with that reference, but I'll look into it after you're done if need be. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure of how to present it simply in all that, but the 'new marketplace' became, from the Left Bank, the central island, and riverbanks, the 'new centre' of growth for the Right Bank - everything grew around it (butchers below, city central cemetery just beside it, etc), and it became almost the centre of a town in itself... its location is pretty important. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Films and other media set n Paris

We could include a section about Paris as a setting in film. MohammedMohammed^محمد 08:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting idea for an article (really!), because it could be an article in itself (where would it start and end, and 'which' movies?), and this article is way too long as it is. If you do decide to start one, I can help, especially with the 'Paris' points of interest therein (Example: I just watched a Bertolucci film, 'The Conformist', that showed the Gare d'Orsay when it was a hotel, before it became a museum). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

IPA

@Joobo: So enlighten me. You're supposed to provide a valid reason for reverting. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

See edit history. --Joobo (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Joobo: You reverted the revert, alright, thanks, but why did you revert me in the first place? That's what I don't understand. Was it because speakers who still contrast /ɑ/ with /a/ typically choose the latter for this word? Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060411124843/http://www.stif-idf.fr/ to http://www.stif-idf.fr/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161221051116/http://www.ratp.fr/en/ratp/r_108501/metro2030-our-new-paris-metro/ to http://www.ratp.fr/en/ratp/r_108501/metro2030-our-new-paris-metro/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://archive.francesoir.fr/actualite/societe/dalil-boubakeur-%E2%80%9Cil-faut-doubler-nombre-mosquees-en-france%E2%80%9D-54083.html%22il-faut-doubler-nombre-mosquees-en-france%22-54083.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607052638/http://www.ens.fr/spip.php?article171&lang=en to http://www.ens.fr/spip.php?article171&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101095822/http://www.ratp.fr/en/ratp/c_5043/metro/ to http://www.ratp.fr/en/ratp/c_5043/metro/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208071832/http://www.ratp.fr/en/ratp/r_80565/ratps-tram-network-in-ile-de-france/ to http://www.ratp.fr/en/ratp/r_80565/ratps-tram-network-in-ile-de-france/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of demonym

@Calgarien, ThePromenader, and Kleuske: A minor edit war has erupted over the spelling of the French version of the demonym Parisian. According to Larousse, Parisien(ne) is upper-cased as a noun (i.e. demonym) and lower-cased as an adjective. Favonian (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, welcomed the new editor and did not revert again. Kleuske (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I just responded to a 'pending edits' alert and saw the capitalisation... if the context is indeed a 'proper noun' one, then Calgarien was right. Sorry about that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposition: reducing the 'religious buildings' section to a 'religion' sub-heading in the 'culture' section.

The 'Relgious buildings' section is pretty predominant, yet it doesn't come near representing the myriad of faiths present in the city. Also, it doesn't fit in with the rest: it is neither 'architecture' nor 'culture', and, more complicated, 'religion' is already outlined in the demographics section.

I'd say it would be a good idea to merge the demographics' 'religion' sub-heading (side note: by law, religion is not part of French demographics anyway) with the 'religious buildings' section as a 'culture' sub-heading. That would also do a lot to shorten the article. Best. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Done: I've added links to the article in the demographics and architecture sections. Perhaps it might be useful to create a 'Religion' subheading in the 'Culture' section, where religion might be more topical and more easily globally outlined. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

La Louvre

This article says that Paris is known for its museums, and goes on to name Louvre, but as this museum is frequently called "La Louvre" I am wondering whether it could benefit from the definite article (in French) going into its name. Vorbee (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello. First off, it is 'Le Louvre' in French, but English-Wikipedia policy is to use English whenever possible. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower

I am wondering whether, given that the Eiffel Tower is one of the most famous landmarks in Paris, the Eiffel Tower should receive its first reference sooner in the article than it currently does.Vorbee (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Much effort has been made here to make this article less of a tourist guide and more about 'the city as a city' (its origins, purpose, function): the Eiffel Tower is indeeed pretty, but doesn't play much of a role therein... n'est-ce pas? ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:04, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with user Vorbee!.--AlfaRocket (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank You so much for making this article! Can i use some of the information on here for a geography fair? Ilovemathtothe6power (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Tourists

How many tourist does paris get annually? Ilovemathtothe6power (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Muslim population 1/4 that of Paris?

I came across the claim that Paris' Muslim population is 500,000 earlier today: that would be a little less than 1/4 the city population. There has to be a more objective source about city religiosity... I'll look into it later, but if anyone knows better now, please do improve the demographics' 'religion' section (that arguably should not be there if there if there is no census data on this? A move to the 'Culture' section?). Cheers.TP ✎ ✓ 08:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Inserted good source (France3) to support the claim. Fram (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Both are just claims (and one probably cites the other), not studies or even educated or institutional estimations. Either way, there is no way that 1/4th of Paris' population is Muslim. TP ✎ ✓ 15:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is probably closer to reality, but even these sources are vague. TP ✎ ✓ 16:31, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140410225515/http://www.paris.fr/viewmultimediadocument?multimediadocument-id=21647 to http://www.paris.fr/viewmultimediadocument?multimediadocument-id=21647

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120829013036/http://www.recensement.insee.fr/chiffresCles.action?codeMessage=5&plusieursReponses=true&zoneSearchField=PARIS&codeZone=75056-COM&idTheme=3&rechercher=Rechercher to http://www.recensement.insee.fr/chiffresCles.action?codeMessage=5&plusieursReponses=true&zoneSearchField=PARIS&codeZone=75056-COM&idTheme=3&rechercher=Rechercher

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Religion

For such a major European city, there is very minimal information religion wise. Is there really no way of getting better demographics and facts? Aam1992 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

The Religion section of the article seems more than minimal to me. Coldcreation (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

In addition, the French census doesn't take data about religious persuasions (or ethnicity, for that matter; only place of birth), so it is hard to be factual about it... this is already noted in the demographics section. TP ✎ ✓ 15:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Montage

Wouldn't the image on the right (which is used on this article in French) be better in the montage? ImprovedWikiImprovment (disputationem) 12:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The present image seems fine. It not only shows the tower but the river, other landmarks and buildings, and the general layout of the city. The Eiffel tower is a recognizable landmark and symbol, but does not represent all-things-Paris, and the present image portrays that. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The present image is fine, as it presents an overall aspect of Paris how it really is. TP ✎ ✓ 15:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

The suggested image shows more of La Defense (a Paris suburb) than Paris, which isn't representative of Paris at all. See talk page archives: consensus has always been against it (with reason), and many attempts to force it (that exact same image... again?) on this article have always been overturned. TP ✎ ✓ 15:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

What's more: that image is almost ten years old, so it isn't even representative of La Defense anymore. TP ✎ ✓ 17:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I still think there should be an image that at least shows the financial district, it is not even shown in the montage. ImprovedWikiImprovment (disputationem) 23:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Technically, that would be Opéra, as La Defense, although it is dependant upon Paris, is not in Paris (and the time where the not-yet-popularily-referenced Métropole du Grand Paris (the term 'Paris region' still reigns here for referring to the Paris area, but the use of 'la metropole' is rising) will be called simply 'Paris' (even colloquially) is still decades away). Although I would not be against a La Defense skyscraper-skyline having a minor place in the montage, perhaps as a bottom montage-width panel, in the past there were more than a few against this sort of 'stretch', so let's see what others have to say. TP ✎ ✓ 03:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t written on technicalities; the current montage portrays Paris as an entirely −old city not even showing its modern areas. ImprovedWikiImprovment (disputationem) 17:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't even make any sense. Wikipedia articles are written on reliable-referenced, demonstrable fact. TP ✎ ✓ 18:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Technically, going by the official city walls (City of London), London has fewer than 10,000 inhabitants; is this correct? No, even if it’s technically true, it’s wrong. That’s what I meant. ImprovedWikiImprovment (disputationem) 20:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not 'technically', that's non sequitur (an ESSAY we've heard (parroted) a thousand times before in the same manner: see talk:archives): Greater London is known colloquially as London today (and has been since a while); the Métropole du Grand Paris, the Paris aire urbaine and/or the Paris Region are not known as Paris. TP ✎ ✓ 21:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The montage includes the Louvre Pyramid, built in 1989, so that's part of the new notable things in Paris. Paris is many things, and one of them is old and historic, as well as new and vibrant. La Défense is not in Paris, and has its own article, although it is near enough and contains enough notable components to count in a mental and tourism map of the city - and look at the huge image of La Défense in the Economy section, so it's well represented on the page. If it were just me I'd add an image of the Montmartre Museum to the montage. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You really don't think La Défense is considered Paris? I mean, I'm not saying you're wrong I just find that surprising. It's important to remember it is Europe's largest business district. ImprovedWikiImprovment (disputationem) 22:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a referenced encyclopaedia, not an ESSAY only the most ignorant won't laugh at. TP ✎ ✓ 00:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Laugh at what exactly? I said “I’m not saying you’re wrong” because you’re probably not; I just asked a question. ImprovedWikiImprovment (disputationem) 07:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

La Defense is not in Paris, as the article on La Defense makes clear. Paris has enough picturesque sites without having to reach outside the city limits. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:55, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus: La Défense is not Paris. Coldcreation (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

postGIS update - new maps coming

Dear all,

I'm in the midst of setting up a dedicated postGIS server (that will host my extensive collection of Paris geographical (etc.) data)... which will make it a cinch to create actual, up-to-date (and on-the-fly) statistical and city-evoloution maps. If France's statistics publication becomes more standardised (and accessible!), this will make the job even easier, but the 'opendata' initiative (and the resulting geographical data) is already a great leap ahead. I'll be experimenting through the summer, and will post any updates/questions thereof here. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 09:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC) PS: and of course: any suggestions or requests would be helpful.TP ✎ ✓ 06:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate errors

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—185.31.6.22 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2018 (UTC) `

You haven't explained what is wrong with the coordinates, and those in the article appear to be correct. If you think that something is erroneous, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey about population figures in the lead

Dear Paris watchers: The first two paragraphs of the lead currently give four different population figures for Paris; the population of the city, the population of the unité urban, the population of the aire urbaine, and the population in the 17th century. The metropolitan area is also mentioned, but without explaining what it is. The Paris region is mentioned several times, but its population isn't mentioned at all. Grand Paris is also not mentioned.

I think that too much space in the lead is devoted to explaining statistics abstractions which are interesting in the demographic context, but don't have any meaning for other readers. I would propose that the lead cite only the most current population of the city of Paris and that of the Paris Region. The other numbers can be moved to the section on demographics, where they can be fully explained and put into context.

What do others think? Please vote for the option you prefer. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

For sure, the city and its region are the most cited, thus most relevant, demographic entities, and are enough to give a good impression of the region's population density/concentration. TP ✎ ✓ 08:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Louvre Museum Wikimedia Commons.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Noted, done, thank you. TP ✎ ✓ 17:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Paris - International City

The new section, Paris, International City has several problems. It basically repeats text that is already found or belongs in other sections, such as cuisine and history, and is written in a promotional style, like a tourism brochure. I think it needs to be reworked in Wikipedia style or separated and put into the appropriate existing sections, and reworked to provide neutral, new, and sourced information. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

or removed altogether, if it repeats information already presented elsewhere - this article is way too long, already! TP ✎ ✓ 09:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

"Paris Metropolitan Area GDP", once again: WP:POINTy nonsense.

This is nonsense.

• 2019-05-12T20:28:41‎ - 37.0.229.161 -   Fixed
• 2019-05-12T21:13:40‎ - ThePromenader - Reverted 1 pending edit by 37.0.229.161 to revision 896709900 by Radom1967: 'region' is more precice (the Paris region is where its GDP is calculated) and matches source.
• 2019-05-13T02:27:03‎ - Metropolitan - Undid revision 896766836 by ThePromenader (talk) Using region in that context is misleading as California or North Rhine- Westphalia could be considered "regions" as well.
• 2019-05-13T05:37:51 - ThePromenader - Undid revision 896803889 by Metropolitan (talk) - again, the source is for regional GDP, so claim no longer matches the source. Reason given for revert not only ignores this, but makes no sense - contentious revert.
• 2019-05-13T12:44:00‎ - Metropolitan   It is not the 5th largest region by GDP in the world. The claim is made wrong with this wording. A new solution is to go for the metropolitan area as that's the scale at which the ranking makes sense anyway.

1. The 'Paris GDP' is not calculated in 'metropolitan areas', it is calculated over the Ile de France region...
2. ...exactly as the very source the claim cites states.
3. So the first and last claims are not supported by the source (nor can they be).

Rather than engage in an edit war (that the above sort of contentious editing seems to be trying to provoke), let's leave the contentuous editor some time to find sources for a "Paris Metropolitan Area GDP" before fixing it (again). Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 11:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi ThePromenader, I'm not engaging in any edit war, I only removed a statement which was made wrong. After your edit, the sentence claimed "The Paris Region [...] was the 5th largest region by GDP in the world", pointing out to the List of cities by GDP page on which we can read: "This is a list of cities and/or their metropolitan areas in the world by GDP." What a "region in the world" is supposed to be here? Among the various sources used in this global list, European figures are based on a Eurostat source which uses the word "metropolitan regions", comparing them to the US statistics of "metropolitan areas" among many other denominations for other countries. Eurostat itself calls them either "larger urban zone" or "functionnal urban region" in other contexts, but anyway the wording "Metropolitan area" is certainly the most generic as that's the one used by Wikipedia itself to refer to them all. Hence why I assume we can reach a consensus with that wording which at least would still makes sense. I hope this helps. Metropolitan (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Non sequitur: it doesn't matter what 'other wikipedia articles ('I like') do', or what terminology other other-context articles ('I like') use; whether their claims match their sources or not is their problem. This article's claim matched its source (since -years-) before anon 'fixed' it.., and now it is even worse thanks to the WP:POINTed reverts and edits that followed.

Either find a source indicating a "Paris Metropolitan area GDP", or the the claim must be made to match its source once again. TP ✎ ✓ 12:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this morning's edit was so intent on 'metropolitan area' WP:POINTiness that it neglected to notice (or ignored) the fact that the '# whatever mostest' statements (that are, in themselves, relatively uninformative) were completely unsourced. So, not only must we find a source for a 'Paris Metropolitan area GDP', but one that ranks it according to the claim. TP ✎ ✓ 14:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Promenader is correct. The article is about the City of Paris, not the Paris Metropolitan Area or the Paris Region. Statistics on the metropolitan area and region belong in those articles, not in the article on Paris. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and... well, Paris' economy does well beyond its administrative limits, but the claims about that have to match the sources (which here are the Paris région numbers)... we can't just make up stuff. There is no "Paris metropolitan area GDP", period. TP ✎ ✓ 15:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Pending change review fails to recognize edit conflicts

This edit of mine, made as part of pending change review, has an edit summary that does not accurately reflect the state of the article when it was made, due to technical issues with the review process. For details, see this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposition: trim the 'Culture' section.

This article has been overly-long since a while now, a state which merits some thought about how to cut it down a bit.

When one reads the 'Culture' section, listed therein are many creators who profited from Paris' status as capital to make their work known and/or available, but... does this directly concern (the function of) the city itself?

I think it would be more interesting (and informative) to outline cultural trends: 'What do Parisians do for cultural outings (cinema, theatre, museums, theme parks (paris area), and statistics (over time) thereof)?' might be a more relevant question for things 'City culture'.

The existing section could be transferred as-is to an article of its own... there's more than enough content, for sure.

Just putting this out there for thoughts and consensus. TP ✎ ✓ 09:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Mayoral election

This section in the "city government" subsection needs to be cleaned up for clarity:

"The elected council members select the mayor. Sometimes the candidate who receives the most votes citywide is not selected if the other candidate has won the support of the majority of council members."

Having been told earlier that the voters do not directly elect the mayor, this seems to imply that they do. Does this mean that the party/coalition list leader for a party who receives the most votes isn't always selected mayor by the council? If that's the case, that needs to be made more clear, and could be with a simple reworking of that sentence. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

By all means, please do make that improvement! Don't forget to provide a source, though, please. TP ✎ ✓ 21:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I was really asking a question, because the sentence I quoted isn't clear. Does it mean that the list leader who receives the most votes citywide in the first round is not always elected mayor? Because it would appear that whomever ultimately wins the most votes in the second round always wins enough seats to secure the mayor's office because of the majority bonus. Furthermore, the next sentence mentions previous mayor Bertrand Delanoe as an example, but from what I can find, he won the most votes in both the first and second rounds in 2001 and 2008, respectively. Has it actually ever happened that the list leader who received the most votes citywide did not have enough votes on council to become mayor? I'm trying to decide whether we need to remove that sentence and then the following one using Bertrand Delanoe as an example. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Fashion vs arts

In the first paragraph I see this sentence:

 Since the 17th century, Paris has been one of Europe's major centres of finance, diplomacy, commerce, fashion, science and arts. 

I don't dispute anything in this sentence. However, I'm curious why 'fashion' is listed separately from 'arts.' Isn't fashion a kind of art? 2600:1003:B86E:5C6F:82D3:B462:D2C5:50EB (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

...as finance could be considered a part of commerce, come to think of it... ; )

Cities such as Rome and Florence are known more for their arts than fashion, for example; this is why this distinction is made, as Paris has the privilege of being known for both. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 18:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential good article reassessment

The article may need a good article reassessment.

• This article contains multiple sentences that are unsourced, and also some completely unsourced paragraphs
• Some sources fail verification and some are poorly formatted or do not contain enough info
• There are multiple template tags
• The "International relations" section needs to be rewritten in prose instead of list form

It would be a shame to delist an article with hundreds of thousands of views per month. I may try to fix some issues when I have time but if someone is knowledgeable about the subject it would be appreciated if these issues were addressed. Wretchskull (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Adding in brief mention to Yellow vests movement in History section

The Yellow vest protests in Paris which were the epicenter of the whole France wide movement similar to the May 68 Protests ought to have at least a brief mention in the history section. The protests brought about major political changes to the French government of the time with Macron eventually raising the minimum wage, getting rid of the fuel tax hike, 'improved government accountability' etc. But only after weeks of massive demonstrations in Paris In which 287,000 protestors took part in at their peak in November and December of 2018. https://www.france24.com/en/20191116-a-year-of-insurgency-how-yellow-vests-left-indelible-mark-on-french-politics https://www.francetvinfo.fr/live/message/5bf/059/0a5/ff4/e90/12a/7ac/c79.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9a0c:5a11:35ac:3870:2fd7:f3d7 (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Opéra Bastille.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Area

The area numbers make no sense. 105 sq km with metro at 19,000 sq km and urban at 3,000 sq km. Maybe there is some political subdivision or definitional explanation but it is not obvious. Cross Reference (talk) 19:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to French demographics ; )

Paris' built-up-area bleeds well past its administrative boundries into (and over) three departements, and these latter divisions are the only entities commonly and administratively used for describing economical and demographic status. There exists an INSEE (French National Statistics Board) designation for an 'aire metropolitain' (metro area), and this is where the cited number is taken from, but even its rare use has been supplanted (and confused by) by the emerging 'Grand Paris' administrative entity. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 11:06, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Old reference

This edit by a banned sockpuppet added an outdated 2017 reference where we already have a 2018 reference and data. There is no good reason for this addition. 2600:8800:1880:68:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Too many images in montage

The new image of the Pantheon is nice, but as you can see it's not the right size and disrupts the montage. It should be resized or replaced with another image that fits better. I think the montage would be improved if it had fewer images; there are so many that it's almost impossible to see what they are without enlarging them. More than six makes them too small to recognise. It also needs a balance between vertical and horizontal images. London and Rome are good examples of balance and size. Can anyone help with this? Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree, and there are much 'prettier' images available.

But 'pretty' isn't everything: I would suggest, out of a total of 4-5 images, a couple 'iconic' (cliché, some might say) images (eiffel tower, of course) and something a little more generalistic representing the overall character of the city (its (network of) boulevards first come to mind). Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 06:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I concur with SiefkinDR and ThePromenader. I would even venture as far as reverting to the consensus version pre-recent changes, or at the very least, modifying the current version per suggestions above.Coldcreation (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Ideally it should be just about square, and about the same size as the map at the bottom, with a balance of vertical and horizontal images. I could also go with either eliminating the second and third tier, and keeping the others, or going back to the earlier consensus version. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I also like Promendader's idea of a boulevard. Another possibility would be to add an image of Sacre Coeur, or something more modern. But keep it simple, without too many small images. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It certainly looks much better than before, but perhaps something a little less 'monumental' (isn't there an aerial view of Paris available, or something?). TP ✎ ✓ 08:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Voila! See the new version with an aerial view. cordially, SiefkinDR (talk)

Thank you, sir, but (scratching head) it looks the same as this morning? Cheers! TP ✎ ✓ 13:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Paris July 2011-27a.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

"Terrorist attacks" section

The "History" section has 4 subsections:

1. Origins
2. High and Late Middle Ages to Louis XIV
3. 18th and 19th centuries
4. 20th and 21st centuries

The last one (20th and 21st centuries) ends with a separate "Terrorist attacks" sub-subsection.

I question the relevance of that "Terrorist attacks" section:

• It doesn't follow the overall chronological order of the "History" section as the 1995 bombings are mentioned there after Sarkozy's 2007 Grand Paris launch.
• It is extremely long compared to what I think is it's importance. There are only two paragraphs about the French Revolution, one about WWI, and one about WWII but a whole subsection with 3 long paragraphs about these terror attacks.
• It's too much detailed. Do we need to know that the attack was done by "a two-backpack-carrying, machete-wielding attacker shouting "Allahu Akbar""? Is it that important in the 2000+-year history of Paris? I don't think so.

I propose to:

• Delete this subsection
• Delete the paragraph about the 1995 bombings
• Move the second paragraph at the end of the "20th and 21st centuries" and replace it with: "In January 2015, terrorist attacks claimed by Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula occurred across the Paris region. 1.5 million people marched in Paris in a show of solidarity against terrorism and in support of freedom of speech. On 13 November of the same year, terrorist attacks, claimed by ISIL, killed 130 people and injured more than 350."
• Delete the last paragraph as these attacks seem to be anecdotal facts (in the wider context of Paris' 2000+-year history)

What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

What was the hurry?

That was a lot of sourced content removed - is there an article on the topic? If not, best (and most polite) practice is to create a new one with the removed content; if so, port any content not present in the existing article there. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 09:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

No hurry, just being BOLD.

Yes there were articles for the different attacks mentioned, containing the removed content (and much more, and better sourced):

• 1995 France bombings
• Charlie Hebdo shooting (part of January 2015 Île-de-France attacks, still linked in the paragraph)
• November 2015 Paris attacks (still linked in the paragraph)
• Louvre machete attack
• March 2017 Île-de-France attacks
• April 2017 Champs-Élysées attack

That's why I thought the edit made sense. What do you think? A455bcd9 (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

If there are supporting articles, and the mention here links to them, then there shouldn't be any problem. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 06:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Use the Updated INSEE population estimate

I see that the new INSEE population estimate as of Jan. 1 2022 in the lead paragraph and infobox has been deleted and replaced with the 2019 INSEE figure. I respectfully think it makes more sense to use the new official estimate, particularly because it shows the recent drop in population. Or perhaps to. give both figures. Cordially,SiefkinDR (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

"Caput Mundi"

The title "Caput Mundi", or "World Capital" has no legal or formal meaning, and is just a way of saying that it's an important city. I think all readers already know that. It adds nothing new about Paris, and as the lead is already extremely long, I think it can be left out. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the few additional words don't make much of a difference with regard to the length of the lead section. I would possibly remove some other content from the lead that doesn't warrant mentioning there and makes it unnecessarily long in my opinion, but that's another topic.

I do think that leaving the statement in the article is justified, since Paris is one of the three frequently mentioned "capitals of the world" in contemporary times, along with London and New York (both articles about these cities also contain this statement), see linked article.

That Paris is commonly seen as an important city is clear, but the mention as a world capital with the associated link underlines well in my opinion that Paris is just one step above other well-known global cities in terms of long-term influence and importance.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Photo collage

Hello, I recently tried to put a new collage of photos with the main landmarks in the city. However, I was reversed by the editor Subtropical-man for not reaching consensus before making such changes. That said, I come here to formally make this proposal. Thanks in advance. Cordial greetings. Chronus (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It's nice, but I don't think it's really needed. I prefer a montage with fewer pictures that are larger and clearer. The pictures of all the sites in the proposed montage are found in the article. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Lets not spam the lead with more images pls.--Moxy- 01:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I actually find the top image with the Eiffel Tower used in Chronus's version better because it also shows the skyscrapers of the La Défense in the background (and the image itself just looks nicer imo).

I know, the same image is already used in the economy section, but this can be changed quite easily, the same for the other images which are already used in other sections.

I don't see these images as spam, since the purpose of the infobox is to present some of the most important and defining landmarks of the city, and Paris has a lot of them. For example, in my opinion, there should definitely be an image of Notre-Dame de Paris in the infobox since it's one of the most well-known landmarks of the city and arguably a thing most people associate with Paris.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Grammar France/French

The name of the France national football team in its documents of established is not French but France. You do not change the title of an organization just to fall within the grammar rules of one language on another nation. We do not say United Statesian because that is what would usually occure in grammar. France is the nation not the ethnicity or language and the national football team is of the nation not ethnicity or language. There aresome nations that the only requirement to be included is that you are a great player having absolutely no blood line to it.2603:8000:D300:D0F:14A6:9E31:B996:2B97 (talk) 03:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Beinsports france channels at Hotbird 13e satellite

Dear respected sir i m from pakistan my name is Farhat, we need beinsports france channels on hotbird satellite 13e. Because 19e footprint not availible in our country. But we receive hotbird 13e. So please we are big fan of france beinsports channels . Please start the transmission from hotbird 13e. Thankxx 119.160.68.132 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Paris "The Capital of the World"?

The text recently added to the lead claiming that Paris is sometimes referred to as the "Capital of the World" is based on a very misleading article, Caput Mundi, created by the same editor. Three sources are given to back up this claim in the article Caput Mundi; one source is headlined "Today Paris is the Capital of the World", from 2015, but it refers to the day in that year that funerals were held for 17 victims of a tourist attack on Paris. The second source cited, "Paris - the Capital of the World", refers to a book about the history of Paris from the French Revolution to the beginning of the Second World War. The third source is an article on tourism, which ranks top tourist destinations, but does not claim that Paris is "Capital of the World." The misleading claim that Paris is considered the "Capital of the World" should be dropped.SiefkinDR (talk) 10:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

There are now five citations in the first sentence to support the claim that Paris is referred to as "The capital of the world." Three of the five citations are to the same book, by Patrice Higonnet, titled "Paris, Capital of the World". The problem is that this book specifically refers to Paris between the French Revolution and the Second World War. None of the sources supports the claim that Paris today is considered the "Capital of the World." This line is misleading and should be left out. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

please unclutter the montage

the lead montage is becoming cluttered. There is no need to say it is a capital. Most everyone knows that, and it is mentioned in the first sentence. There is no need to put captions on each image inside the montage itself. They are all identified in the article, and are all pretty well-known. No need to overdo it.SiefkinDR (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Agence France Presse.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Etymology-Literature

In the Spanish Wikipedia, article under Franciada (by Pierre de Ronsard)appears the following:

‘y el tema de la historia es la vida de un personaje llamado Franciano o Francus, que podría ser Astianacte, el hijo de Héctor, y que sería el germen de la nación francesa. De esta forma, igual que Eneas huye de Troya para fundar Roma, el hijo de Héctor, llega a Galia, funda París en honor al hermano de su padre, Paris, y forma los cimientos de la Francia moderna.’ José Pamplona Muñoz (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Concerning Etymology it’s alright but not so in the History of French Literature even if it’s only Ronsard’s own Fancy:

I suggest translating it from Spanish and adding it to the main page.

So this statement is wrong:

“IN ANY CASE, the city's name is not related to the Paris of Greek mythology.”

In English (from the Franciad Wikipedia page):

“English translation The Franciad has been available in English since 2010. The English version by Phillip John Usher begins:

‘Muse atop the summits of Parnassus, Steer my speech and sing for me that race Of French kings descended from Francion, Hector’s son and of Trojan stock, Who in his tender childhood was called Astyanax or by the name Scamandrius. Tell me of this Trojan’s misfortunes, Of the wars he fought, of his mission, And tell me how many times on the seas (Despite Neptune and Juno) he overcame Fortune And how many times on solid ground he escaped From danger, before going on to build the walls of Paris.‘“José Pamplona Muñoz (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@José Pamplona Muñoz:, thanks for the suggestion, but we're not going to follow it, because your premise is wrong The statement

"the city's name is not related to the Paris of Greek mythology"

is accurate. There is no way we are going to translate this content from the Spanish Wikipedia, for two reasons: it's unsourced (and false), and because Wikipedia is not a reliable source (in any language).

Regarding the specific statement in the Spanish article:

• "De esta forma, igual que Eneas huye de Troya para fundar Roma, el hijo de Héctor, llega a Galia, funda París en honor al hermano de su padre, Paris, y forma los cimientos de la Francia moderna." 

This is both unsourced (as is the entire article) and also just a literary fiction. This false notion derives from the inventions of Renaissance poets, who took the mythological stories of Hector and embellished them, adding additional details of their own invention. For example, in the 16th century, poet Jean Lemaire de Belges added some fantasy details about Hector, including inventing a son for him by the name of "Francus", calling him the ancestor of the Franks and founder of the city of Paris. It's all just a fable, and the invention of a Renaissance poet. Other poets then picked up on previous poets' stories, and used them, or embellished them further. It is known that Lemaire was one of Ronsard's favorite authors when he was young, and he very likely knew of Lemaire's account of Hector, and as many others did before him, took it on as well. Mathglot (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Land area for metro area

The info box indicates 18,940.7 km2 as the metro land area. There is not an inline citation for this value. In the text in the Geography section, the land area for the metro area, is given as 2,300 km2, sourced to the Encyclopedia Britannica. An associated small population is given for that smaller area is given at the source. Encyclopedia Britannica gives no source for its numbers or the definition of metropolitan area.

Having such conflicting data in this article seems unnecessary. Can the sentence in the Geography section be deleted, or replaced with the data in the info box, with a source for that very large land area? Is the Paris metro area really 2.6 times the London metro area? That is how I came to notice this difference, as I was comparing London and Paris as to population in city and metro area. The metro area populations are nearly the same, at 13 or 14 million, but the land area difference is huge. - - Prairieplant (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)