Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
So despite everything, I do have the feeling we're moving forward, and I thank everyone for their efforts to push the discussion back on the right track. ] (]) 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
So despite everything, I do have the feeling we're moving forward, and I thank everyone for their efforts to push the discussion back on the right track. ] (]) 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
: All that to say "this article needs less history, more modern stuff?" Well, I agree! I saw what you did in there, by the way, but let's leave that between us. Fine and dandy, though. ; ) ] 16:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
: All that to say "this article needs less history, more modern stuff?" Well, I agree! I saw what you did in there, by the way, but let's leave that between us. Fine and dandy, though. ; ) ] 16:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Metropolitan: not surprised about the small percentage of the demographics section. This section was viciously cut down by Dr. Blofeld as a "retaliation" against my criticism of his bloated "Landmarks" section (see his edit with this crazy summary ). Regarding transports, I am currently preparing some stats that I will add to the section once this article is unlocked, if Promenader & co. haven't managed to have me banned before that is. We are faced with the most vicious people I have ever seen on my life online, ready to scapegoat and request banishments against whoever disagree with them. The fact that ThePromenader, who is not an admin, recently removed the case asking for my banishment from the archives and pasted it again in the active Administrators' noticeboard speaks for itself. ] (]) 17:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:56, 22 October 2014
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paris article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Template:Vital article
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Demographics of Paris was copied or moved into Paris with this edit on 18:52, 3 April 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
Yikes, Siefkin why have you been expanding it? It's now back up to 190 kb and looks pretty long again. I thought you were going to work on periods of Parisian history articles? ♦ Dr. Blofeld13:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm moving all of SiefkinDR's edits since August 13 here for discussion. All his edits concern the history section, which I have reverted to its August 12 state. Here below is the history section after SiefkinDR's edits from August 13 to August 15. They should be moved to the History of Paris article. The history section, even as of August 12, was already too bloated and should be trimmed (I'll let the trimmers work on this ;) ). Der Statistiker (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@SiefkinDR: I hate to see time and effort wasted but really this article was already long enough when it was 160 odd kb. It definitely shouldn't go above 180. I wish you'd put your efforts into writing detailed articles by period of Parisian history like Medieval Paris instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
A travel pamphlet (Lawrence, Rachel; Gondrand, Fabienne (2010). Paris (City Guide) (12th ed.). London: Insight Guides. ISBN 9789812820792. — with an average customer review rating of one-out-of-five stars on Barnes & Noble) is being used as a citation for the history section. Surely a more scholarly work exists to replace that? Depaderico (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What subjects should be included in an article about a city? The weather and the hour at which cafés open? How can we write an article on Paris and ignore entire chunks of its history? Paris and its history are one block difficult to break because every monument, building, bridge, even its cobblestoned streets spell history.
There are articles difficult to fill because not enough knowledge about them or simply not much to write about. Here we have the opposite, an article about a city that has so much history that the difficulty comes not in digging for events worth writing about, but in eliminating meaningful events.
Out of curiosity, I compared the history section of several cities (decreasing order below):
78 336 bytes Paris (fr.wiki)
61 440 bytes Paris (en.wiki)
59 904 bytes NYC (en.wiki)
58 368 bytes Rome (en.wiki)
53 248 St Petersburg (en.wiki)
41 984 Paris, Texas (!) (en.wiki) - not bad for a town of 25,898 inhabitants that saw the light of day in 1840.
As for the size of articles (any rules & regulations?):
285 043 bytes St Petersburg (ru.wiki)
276 835 bytes Paris (fr.wiki)
259 794 bytes NYC (en.wiki)
241 545 bytes Madrid (sp.wiki)
193 526 bytes Paris (en.wiki)
What I think should be done at this time is:
first go on with the editing/writing as being done, which is correcting mistakes and (yes!) adding details
then when all is done, have our designated contributor-chief editor, i.e. Siefkin, go thru the article & remove all the details then judged not necessary & bring them to the various articles he has created. This way, he will pick material already edited & referenced and, the Paris article will be done.
then, only then and not before, everyone should come in & give their opinion, as it is difficult to try to create something right while others are constantly on your back with a measuring tape.
Going thru such an article demands a lot of time, thinking, checking etc. and what comes out at this time may not be perfect, but perfection will not be reached in one session. It is comparable to making a statue, at one time it has hardly any shape & there is too much plaster. We are now removing some of the plaster & giving it some shape. However, it still will be a large statue as the article is on Paris (France) not Paris (Texas).--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Need for changes in history section
I made some small changes in the text, and some big changes in the images, something which which I think really needs improvement.
I corrected the date of the founding of the University of Paris. (middle of the 12th century, not 1200). The incorrect date is still in the article.
In the Middle Ages section, I added a mention of the building of the Louvre, Notre Dame, and Sainte-Chapelle. How can they not be mentioned in a section on the history of Paris?
I put the sentence on the Enlightenment in with the the French Revolution, which is much more logical than including it with the Middle Ages.
The existing article completely ignores Louis-Philippe. No mention of the Place de la Concorde, Arc de Triomphe, Napoleon's tomb.
The existing article says Paris was "practically unscathed" by World War II, praises Choltitz at length, and mentions a 1966 movie. I added a sentence about the infamous 1942 roundup of Paris Jews, which shouldn't be ignored. Paris was not "practically unscathed."
The existing article completely ignores events in Paris history since since the 1960s, with the exception of a vague paragraph about social change and unrest and some sentences, outdated, about Sarkozy's urban reforms in 2007. No mention of May 1968, of the Pompidou Center, Mitterrand, the Grand Louvre, La Defense, the Opera Bastille, the National Library, the Musee du Quai Branly, Mayor Delanoe, or the Velib' program. This section badly needs updating.
As to images, the article really, really needs improving. It has a total of five images and three small and almost unreadable maps.
It has one dark and gloomy image of the baths at Cluny, when there are beautiful images of the the ancient art of the city from the Carnavalet Museum.
For the period from ancient times to the 18th century, It has a 19th century painting of what Clovis might have looked like, and an image of the chateau �of VIncennes, which was far outside Paris when it was built. There are beautiful medieval images avaiable of the Louvre, the Palais de la Cité, Notre Dame and Saint Chapelle. Why not use them?
The 19th century section has no images at all except a small map. No images of the Paris Opera, Eiffel Tower, Paris boulevards, Paris Expositions.
The 20th and 21st century articles have only one image from the Liberation. No images of anythiing since 1944, other than a small map of a proposed future transit system. No images of the new monuments, museums, parks, and changes in Paris.
I agree that the article could be shorter; there's more than there needs to be about early French Kings and about the Second Empire and Paris Commune. But I don't think the way to fix it is for one editor to immediately delete all the changes by another editor. I think this should be a collaborative effort, with all editors working together to make it better.
SiefkinDR (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
This has already been discussed before. Read the previous discussions above. Everybody agree that the history section is too long and not proportionate to the rest of the article. If you feel like things are missing in the history section, you should only add them if you remove other sentences in the section, so as not to lengthen it. Things should be summarized in the most abridged form. Images should also be limited to the minimum. Free free to expand the economy or transport sections. They are very small compared to the history section or to the equally bloated 'Landmarks by district' section. Let's recall that this article is about today's Paris, not about the history of Paris or its tourist circuit. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. I will edit and reduce the size of the history section, and when possible will include links to more complete articles on those topics, and to the history of Paris article. Some of the text on transport in the history section can move to the transport section. I do think the history section needs better pictures than it has now. .SiefkinDR (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Progress on the size of the history section
With the edits to the history section, the article is now down to 189,000 bytes, compared with 194,000 on August 14, when this discussion began. I hope we can hold it at this level, and that future additions on history can go into the history of Paris article, or into existing and future history sub-articles. Comments and suggestions welcome. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Composite image or the Eiffel Tower-La Défense
There is no consensus for using a single image of any kind in the infobox. The type of composite image to be used is now being discussed below. De728631 (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Der Statistiker has reverted for the third time the lede image. Formerly a composite image showing a variety of monuments and panoramic views, Statistiker has repeatedly inserted an image showing only the Eiffel Tower with a lager view of La Défense (part of the Paris Metropolitan Area but not Paris) filling the background. I will revert this edit once again, as I believe the general public would benefit more by seeing other monuments in addition to the well-know Eiffel Tower right from the start of the article. Most other articles about major cities use composite images in the lede. This one should be no exception. Opinions welcome. Coldcreation (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipédia says that "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." But there is no consensus on this montage, there never was any consensus. So we have to discuss. This picture is part of the infobox and the infobox "consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles." But it isn't the case here. The Arc de Triomphe, the Louvres, and the Eiffel Towers represent surely not the real Paris. This amateur montage represent the TOURISTIC Paris. Asks a Parisian where he is most often during his days. Ask him where he works. And then you will see how Paris is. There is an article from the INSEE for more informations: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=ip1129Sesto Elemento (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that the photo montage that was forced in this article by an editor last year presents a cliché touristy view of Paris as seen by (some) foreign visitors. It would be like having a montage on top of the China article showing the Great Wall, a boy eating rice, an old man with Chinese beard doing t'ai chi ch'uan, and a bicycle in one of the few streets left of old Beijing. Not that these views wouldn't show China, but they would show only a certain aspect of China, completely disregarding the forests of skyscrapers that typify the modern Chinese cities, or the busy seaports, the big car traffic everywhere. Well it's exactly the same with the montage: not that it doesn't show Paris, but it shows only a certain aspect of Paris, and one that is more curios than encyclopedic. I don't think Misplaced Pages was created to propagate quaint old clichés. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sigh We went through this for months last year. Those are the best known landmarks internationally. La Défence does NOT give a a fair balance of the feel of the city. Paris is not New York City. Find something of real concern to worry about. Please move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld15:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This photo montage does not give a fair balance of the feel of the city. Paris is not a tourist resort solely made of monuments and old buildings. Minato ku (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
And it's also not a metropolis city of skyscrapers like New York. The montage image identifies landmarks most associated worldwide with the city and it looks perfectly appropriate. If you don't like it as a citizen, read French wikipedia instead. Has canvassing for support on that shoddy architecture website taken place again as it seems very suspicious you've all turned up at once again.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
We have had stability over the montage image recently, so it's a bit depressing to see a revert war breaking out again. Perhaps (esp Der Statistiker) the discussion could run it's course, rather than have you try and crowbar your personal preference in? - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah but no but yeah but no La Defense is not in Paris, and it is not representative of Paris. Perhaps one day (soon) it will be a part of Paris, but presenting things like it already is is a lie. I've had at least to witness a few (often the same) hankering for participancy in the "World's Tallest Erections" competition since more than ten years already, so... enough? The OR POV of a few cannot trump reality. The lede image is fine how it is. THEPROMENADER19:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps Misplaced Pages was not created to "propagate quaint old clichés" - but it certainly was not created to dispel them either. The picture is fine as it is. Timbouctou (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Minato ku, which bit of "stop edit warring and use the talk page" are you having difficulty in understanding here? The last stable image on the peg was the montage. It was there during the GA process, which gives it a measure of consensus. You are edit warring to your preferred version based on nothing at present. The etiquette here is to use the talk page to discuss in order to change the consensus, not just mindlessly bloody revert to your preferred version while the rest of us re discussing. - SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sadly I see Der Stastiker is also too stupid to understand the concept of discussion, and is content to mindlessly edit war despite a discussion being in progress. Rather pathetic way to ensure people are too pissed off to discuss things properly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
No, this montage is not right because it is only propagating old clichés, old clichés which are very far of the reality of Parisian life, even if La Défense was located inside the city limits of Paris, you would do your best to exclude it. The problem is not the location but the fact La Défense shows a more modern view than the usual tourist stereotypes. Curiously, here many people here hate the modernity when it is about Paris.
Note that the picture shows the Eiffel tower, Trocadero, Haussmannian and other buildings buildings and La Défense, it is not just one type of architecture, this is more a balanced view than a montage of only old monuments. Minato ku (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I see no logic in your argument. For how many Parisians is La Defense "the reality of life" exactly? I stayed there 3 or 4 times when I was in Paris and La Defense is completely deserted after 6 pm. Timbouctou (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I was at La Défense at 8pm no later than last week, and it was full of people. Lots of people sitting at the terraces of cafés that they have installed all across the esplanade and enjoying one of the last warm summer evenings. The stores were also very busy. That was between 8pm and 9pm, on Tuesday last week. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
As many people works long after 6 pm in Paris (especially white collars), la Defense is not deserted at 6 pm, the main area is busy until the closure of the shop in the shopping mall at 8 pm even after because of the restaurants in the mall.
Anyway even if La Defense is not busy at night, at least there is many local people going there during the day unlike around the Eiffel tower, Notre Dame and Louvre whose are almost only frequented by tourists. Minato ku (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the montage has been in the article for some time. Any change, if challenged, needs to be agreed upon before it is implemented. --NeilN20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
May I say that the cityscape picture focusing on the Eiffel Tower has illustrated this English version of the Paris article for years, and that it still illustrates the French version of this article. The anger generated by such a consensual image is highly suspicious. Some people apparently believe this article is their private property. Metropolitan (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not what is 'suspect' ; ) The English article montage is better and more informative than the French article one (and the quality of that image ~sucks~); why are a few insisting on one image that says something about Paris that's not true? A few of you have a die-hard obsession for La Defense, not Paris, that is an evidence that has since long become quite tiring. THEPROMENADER21:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
La Défense is Paris just as Mount Rainier is Seattle. Or perhaps you're also going to change the picture at the top of the Seattle article and tell them Mount Rainier is not in Seattle and should not appear there? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You guys can do all the word-twisting, apples to oranges comparisons, cherrypicking and wikilawyering you want, but that will never change the fact that La Defense is not in, nor representative of, Paris. THEPROMENADER21:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In which way monuments would be more "representative" of Paris ? No local goes here ! The cityscape with the Eiffel tower, Trocadéro and La Défense is maybe not the best picture but at least it gives a much better representation of Paris with a mix of monuments, ancien and modern architecture; a mix of landmark, residencial and office buildings. Minato ku (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been living in Paris since twenty three years and I see those monuments all the time. What I don't see is La Defense (and I, or anyone I know, hardly sets foot there), and how can anyone honest really even try to insinuate that, when media of any sort wants to show Paris to the world, La Defense is the image they use?
Really, a few of you guys are taking a very local 'suburb' complex (that our North American friends probably won't understand), mixed with your own desires to be in the 'big-city big-erection race', and trying to use Misplaced Pages as a pedestal to make yourWP:OR "reality" seem "true".
Enough already. THEPROMENADER22:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Promenader, the very own official magazine published every quarter by the Paris City Hall uses the view with La Défense on its cover. See here: . So why, oh why, are you trying to be more royalist than the king? Next thing you're going to tell us that the Paris City Hall is lying by showing La Défense on the cover of their information magazine? Der Statistiker (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
...And what's especially annoying about all this is the sneakiness of it all: you can't say, in text, that "La Defense is in Paris and that's really what Paris looks like", because you'd have no sources for such affirmations, and be laughed out of the house because of them... but you can say it through that image that you seemingly hold so dear. THEPROMENADER22:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I see more the Montparnasse than the Eiffel tower and I am pretty sure than more parisians sees the Montparnasse building on daily basis than the Eiffel tower or Louvre or Notre Dame. So why the Montparnasse tower is not visible in the montage ? About saying than that nobody goes in La Défense, there are hundred of thousand people working there, several hundred of thousand people shopping and using the transportation hubs, it is much more than the Eiffel tower. 6.7 million vistors at the Eiffel tower, 45.6 million visitors at the Quatre Temps shopping mall in La Défense. Minato ku (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Minato ku, you are edit warring and at the limit of 3RR, despite there being an active discussion. Please have the manners to continue the discussion, and not mindlessly revert again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I reverted that quite belligerent revert. Tell everyone else to discuss 'your' preferred version after imposing it, but if the discussion isn't going your way... sigh. Herein, any change will be discussed here, gentlemen... THEPROMENADER22:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm not too fond of the skyline picture in the composite image. It's too small (on my screen anyways) to make much of an impact. --NeilN22:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Look, all of you involved, instead of just being led by the 'arguments' here, go and look at the facts for yourselves elsewhere. Maps, articles, whatever you want, and you'll see that La Defense is not in Paris, nor is it used to represent Paris. It seems that a few here are trying to pull the wool over other people's eyes because they think that those contributing to this article are ignorant. Cheers. THEPROMENADER23:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You're lying. The very own official magazine published every quarter by the Paris City Hall uses the view with La Défense on its cover page to represent Paris. See here: . Der Statistiker (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You're cherrypicking, partaking in ad hominem ('Lying'? Why? But I'm not the one with no argument), and promoting a 'reality' that you know very well is not true. And there is some sort of 'conspiracy' going on to 'suppress' an opinion that anyone looking any further than this page would find is not true? Really. You're the one promoting your agenda, and you have no argument. THEPROMENADER23:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Neil, what you're saying about the skyline picture being too small was pointed out by me and several other editors to the owners of the article last year (to Dr Blofeld who created the montage and put it on top of the article without asking for consensus on the talk page beforehand, to SchroCat who stubbornly enforced Dr Blofeld's change without consideration for the opinion of other editors), but it was discarded out of hand (I remember that Dr Blofeld at the time vaguely promised that he would modify his montage to make the skyline with La Défense more visible, but he never did it). As for us, we cannot change his montage, as is too obvious considering what has happened these past few days. This is one of the ugliest case of WP:OWN I have seen on Misplaced Pages so far. Dr Blofeld single-handedly rewrote 80% of the article last year (June, July, August), and there's not much we can do about it, because either he or SchroCat revert us almost immediately (I had several good faith edits last years reverted by SchroCat without any regard for the time spent by me to research the information and write it down in the article; I can bring in diffs if my statement here is challenged by SchroCat). As for Promenader, for as long as I've seen him around, he's always had this weird obsession that anything one inch beyond the administrative borders of the City of Paris set in 1860 does not belong in this article, even if it's the largest business district of Paris and is visible from pretty much everywhere in Paris. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm.... Lies, damned lies and things that Der Statistiker writes. You still seem to be very bitter that your OWNership of the article was questioned by people who have the temerity to disagree with you. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously the picture of La Defense in the montage is not visible, with such a bad quality even with a bigger screen you will see nothing. This is done on purpose to make it invisible. We had already a long discussion about the bad quality of this montage. The fact that La Défense is in suburbs (a very close suburbs at 3.5 km or 2 miles of Arc de Triomphe) is not the real problem, the real issue is its modernity. The current montage is clear, no trace of modernity should be used to represent Paris (Pyramide du Louvre is the sole exception but it is because it became a cliché landmark) even if there is plenty of modern buildings inside the City limits.
Paris is not a museum frozen in the 19th century, there are many modern districts inside the city limits of Paris. The 13th, 15th or 19th arrondissements are not less representative of the city than the 5th or 7th arrondissements. Minato ku (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
It's forbidden to show the modern side of Paris, don't you understand?
Photomontage of Tallinn, displaying the city as if it was some sort of US skyscraper city:
Photomontage of Vilnius, again displaying the skyscraper district prominently (is Vilnius more associated with skyscrapers than Paris? I don't think so!):
Photomontage of Paris, only old monuments, no skyscrapers please, it's France with bérets and baguettes:
This is beyond ridiculous! One of the major world cities, one of the biggest and most modern economic hubs in the world being forced by a few editors to hide its vibrant modernity on Misplaced Pages because some people have watched too much Moulin Rouge and Ratatouille. Guys, Paris is not a Woody Allen movie, and it's certainly more modern than Tallinn, Vilnius, or Warsaw. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The few 'examples' I have looked at so far have their towers in the cities talked about in the article. Paris is not in this case. Apples to oranges, yet again! If you were honest, you would say: "Look guys, I know La Defense is not in Paris, and not many people in the world would recognise it, but it would be cool to somehow show a more modern side of the city." But rather than risk having that rejected (because you know it represents an untruth), you try to convince (the hopefully ignorant) others that La Defense is Paris. So bravo for both being condesceding and dishonest in your arguments, and motivating those who know better than that to work doubly hard to dismantle them. THEPROMENADER00:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah, let's just drown any points we don't like in authoritative-sounding hyperbole about how we're 'right' about how things 'should be'. Well, they aren't that way, so you cannot pretend they are so here, that is the very definition of WP:OR. La Defense is not in Paris, nor does it represent Paris. Period. THEPROMENADER23:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Mount Rainier is not in Seattle either. It's located much further away from the municipal borders of Seattle than La Défense is from the municipal borders of Paris. So by all means, if you mean what you say, go and change the picture in the Seattle infobox and tell people there that they can't use this picture because it contains elements which are not in Seattle. You can't have double standards and apply something to the Paris article and not to the Seattle article. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Dude, apples to oranges yet again, it is obvious in that photo that that mountain is well outside the city. You want to pretend that La Defense is in the city. THEPROMENADER00:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
What ad hominem? Stating that what you're trying to show is untrue, and inviting everyone to see that for themselves? That is not ad hominem. Outright calling someone a liar, as you did, on the other hand... but if evidenceless affirmations and empty accusations is all you have as arguments, I suggest you give it a rest. THEPROMENADER00:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
(sigh) I would be okay with moving the rather spectactular panorama that is there down to the bottom, meaning that we'd see more of it. But telling us that that (expletive) shoddy 'marsden' image alone is a 'better' representation of Paris, no way. THEPROMENADER00:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that the aerial view in the montage doesn't add much - on my screen it's so small that nothing is visible, and it could be almost any city, I have no problem with showing Paris monuments; I can't imagine an article on Paris that doesn't have a lead image showing the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower, as London shows the palace and the houses of Parliament. I would keep the image as it is. Now please, let's stop the personal attacks and bickering and get on with improving the article. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
La Defense is clearly not visible in the current montage, the image pointing to la Defense is ugly and in a very low quality. I have no problem with showing monuments in the leading picture but I have a problem with a picture showing only cliché monuments, Paris is far more than that. Everything here is done to diminish the modern functionnal form of Paris. Without the fight of some editors, there would be no modernity, no diversity, no economy and etc in the article. If you could write that Paris was only a small resort town with only 2 million and nothing else than tourism and old things, you would. Just higher in this talk, Dr. Blofeld wrote that Paris is not metropolis, say that to the 5 million passengers in the crowded subway, the millions of workers. The promenadeur says that Paris and its suburbs are two completly different things, say that the millions of commuters from the suburbs who come everyday inside the city and hundred thousands people living in the City doing the oposite. In other city articles this doesn't seems to be a problem to include some important leading suburbs, especially if this suburb has for postal name Paris La Défense, if this suburbs is served by the same public transports networks (Paris MétroRERRATP busTram), if this suburb shares the same police and emergency services (Prefecture of Police of Paris) but here in Paris according to some people the limit should be strictly considered. Is the Périphérique worse than the Berlin wall in the mind of some people ?Minato ku (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
La Défense is clearly part of the Paris Metropolitan Area. That is the article in which to include images of it, not in the Paris article which strictly is about the city of Paris, i.e., that which is located within its 20 arrondissements. Anything outside of the 20 arrondissements is outside of Paris. As for the image for the infobox of this article, it is better to show a composite of several sites, including the Eiffel Tower, rather than just show one image of the Tour Eiffel with a panorama of La Défense filling the background. The latter gives the wrong impression of Paris. Coldcreation (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Wrong on all counts. This article is not and has never been strictly about the administrative City of Paris within its 1860 borders, otherwise half of the article should be deleted. And the view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense gives a wrong impression of Paris only to those who imagine Paris is like a Woody Allen movie. The skyscrapers of La Défense are visible from pretty much everywhere in the city and have become a visual reference for Parisians just like the old monuments. As for a composite image being better than a single image, there was never a consensus about that, and many city articles still use a single image (for example the Seattle article which I have already talked about). Der Statistiker (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hardouin, I've had to put up with your repetetive evidenceless affirmations (that 'this article is not really about Paris, but the Paris Metropolitan Area (<- itself WP:OR terminology of your design))' since ten years already, and now I have to watch you do it all again... because you were hoping for a sneaky 'no contest' or a new batch of people 'too ignorant' (in your mind) to know that you're spreading untruths? THEPROMENADER13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
If you think the montage-composite could be improved why not do so, make a new one, present it here, and we can discuss the new version (within which you could consider including the image of La Tour Eiffel and La Défense). As it stands now, the image of La Tour Eiffel and La Défense, alone, is not representative of the city of Paris.Coldcreation (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I did try to improve the montage. In fact I created one which shows both the old and the modern Paris (see to the right), but surprise, surprise, it was rejected without any discussion by the little clique who control this article. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh good, I see another editor has decided to edit war over the image while the discussion is in progress. And it's another newbie. Not suspicious, oh no, not at all. Anyone for meatsock? And once again, they are aided by Der Stastiker warring again – who has managed to revert for the FOURTH time in 36 hours. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
If any of you or your 'parachute friends' try to force 'your' preferred image or revert again, I am calling for admin intervention. Change will come only after discussion is finished here. THEPROMENADER12:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Firstly User:Der Statistiker, no one controls this article. Secondly, your composite image is clearly not representative of Paris. The Chinese districts are but small sections of Paris confined predominantly to the 13e arrondissement. The image of the Pompidou Center is so cropped one wonders what it is supposed to mean, aside from being a collection of tubes and pipes (better to show the entire edifice). The street scene with the Tour Montparnasse n'a aucun intérêt architecturally, or culturally, as neither the building nor the street scene are well depicted. You could probably do better than that.Coldcreation (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Not entirely true. Wikimedia Foundation controls this article, when you think about it. Secondly, the image of Chinese districts is representative of Chinese districts. The collection of tubes and pipes is actually the first thing that comes to mind when people think "Paris" outside the tourist context. And who are you to disparage Tour Montparnasse? Because when I think of Paris, I usually think of phallic symbols. Timbouctou (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually this is not a picture of a chinese district, I can easily reconize Rue Saint Anne (1st/2nd arrondissement). This street is pretty famous and popular among parisians as the Japanese district. This big error of location gives some clues about the knowedge of Paris that claim some people.
The street with no interest is Rue de Rennes, one of the main shopping street in the left bank in Central Paris.
In my opinion what matters in an encyclopedia is not what people think or believe but the accuracy of the information, this is not a tourist guide Minato ku (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
ThePromenaderUser:Coldcreation: I don't know the Statistiker, where did you get that out ??? So i'm surely not a "parachute friend", but you're apparently pathetic...I LIVE in this city, and I can tell you that this multi-picture does NOT represent well Paris. The real Paris (the Paris that you surely don't even know). No, there are not just 18 and 19th centuries buildings in Paris. That's what you try to pretend with a very bad photomontage. Still, another photomontage has been proposed and only one personn is talking about it. Only One. So stop frozing conversation and rejecting all proposition. Sesto Elemento (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
So, after months of inactivity, a few contributors trying to impose the same image all swoop down on the same article at the same time. What are the odds? (counting fingers, then toes) Damn, if I count any higher this is going to get indecent... but I love the feigned indignation! (applauding) ; ) THEPROMENADER13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Funnily enough I lived there for five years, and it's very common to me... Secondly, do not call other editors names: you know nothing about them, their background or their thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
And I've lived here since twenty-three years, so I know full well the what and the why of what's trying to be imposed here. Paris is a bit backwards (especially for your Skyscraper forum), mais, c'est la vie ! THEPROMENADER13:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Funny how that hazy, badly-coloured picture always gets in there... it must have taken at least an 800mm lens to make those distant suburb towers look so close to Paris. Are the other photos just accessory to this, why those in particular? That's not the best picture of Notre-Dame at all, in fact, if I didn't live here, I wouldn't have recognised it (all true, but I'm just poking now ; ). THEPROMENADER14:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
And that is the point of your comment ? I've integrated the Arc de triomphe and Notre Dame (le Louvre was already here), and you're still crying ?!? Are you fucking serious ? Sesto Elemento (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Wiping tears (of laughter ; ) I'm simply pointing out that 'your' preferred image is always the centre of everything. Don't you have a better one? For sure, not very many people (not even me) have the sort of equipment it takes to make towers ~4km outside Paris look that close, but I suppose you're willing to sacrifice quality for your... cause... ; ) THEPROMENADER14:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
And the picture of the Seine in the old montage, it's quality ? And the ugly thing in the center-right (it looks like a photo of a TV screen), it's quality maybe ? What a bad faith ! Laughing out loud ! And yes I prefere by far away this new montage than the old one. I took a step towards you with this new montage. But who is doing any effort ? Sesto Elemento (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Certainly better quality and colour that your blued-out image, and the Montparnasse image is not pretty either. If you have a better proposition, of course you have to work for it, just like the person who proposed the existing montage, but for now I don't see 'better' being promoted, I see La Defense being pushed. Cheers. THEPROMENADER15:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
You can say whatever about if La Défense is in or out Paris, but you cannot say it do not reprensent the city: La Défense is clearly the financial center of Paris, and just ask people of which city La Grande Arche immediatly make think of.
I don't understand, when we speak about La Défense you say it is outside Paris, and when we propose pictures whith inner Paris tower and/or modern architecture you say it is not representative: does the representation of Paris only goes through your eyes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clouchicloucha (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
(waving pom-poms) Another parachuter from www.skyscrapercity.com! I said the Montparnasse tower picture wasn't pretty, not an improvement, mkay? And 'yabut' any way you want, La Defense is not in Paris, and does not represent Paris! Your orchestrated agenda is quite clear now. (finishes pom-pom dance) THEPROMENADER16:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
So you affirm, as though it's final. I say no of course, because, not only is all that work on that La Defense image in particular you're pushing (henceforth named), the rest looks like it was thrown together as an afterthought, no effort even on the spacing. But no, adding spacing does not make it any better: you guys have an obvious 'tower mission', and must execute it at... any cost. To the suburban-tower-imporation machine! (bugles sounding) THEPROMENADER16:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, now I see that you're not only bad faith, you're just a little troll. You asked before a better picture, I improved it, I put better photo of Notre Dame (why did you precised that it wasn't easily recognizable if it is to finally say that it will never be good ?! Couldn't you just you shut up ?) You said that I had to change the pictures myself, I had. And another thing: why did you asked me to come here to speak, if it isn't to find a compromise ? Whatever, enough time wasted with you. Sesto Elemento (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the joy of "discussing" with ThePromenader, Sesto Elemento. Personally I've long stopped trying. As for your montage, it's still a bit too touristy for my taste, but of course much better than the current one by Dr Blofeld. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
For fuck's sake Sesto Elemento, do you really have to keep edit warring to force your preferred version onto,the page instead of letting a consensus develop? How arrogant are you that you are prepared to ignore all other opinions except your own? - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Instead of letting a consensus develop ??? Are you blind, illiterate or something else ??? I just proposed 2 montage 2 hours ago ! Open your eyes, and you will see. The promenader is not trying to develop a consensus. He's just opposing to everything. EVERYTHING ! I try to make a concensus with serverals montage. Sesto Elemento (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, fuck off with your insults. Secondly, it must be said, what an awful image! I am flexible about what is contained within the montage, but the Eiffel Tower blurs into the background too much, the Notre Dame is almost unrecognisable from that angle, and the, quite frankly, fucking boring image of who knows what in the bottom right? It's piss poor and n utter embarrassment. Yes, the Pompidou could be in there instead (but not the close up, which is unrecognisable unless you've seen the building), and yes to Notre Dame, but not that angle (or the previous side view either). As to you forcing your preferred version after only two hours on the talk page, you do realise that this in an international website for people to comment from around the globe? You may have been around in that two hours, many were not: they were asleep, or at work, and have no time to say just how terrible your suggestions have been. Your attempts to try and impose your version, regardless of the opinions of others is, frankly, despicable.
Most of all, take it down until the discussion has reached consensus: you are acting utterly dishonourably here, but I suspect you don't fully understand what that word actually means. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
These two latest montage versions (Eiffel tower with La Défense, Arc de Triomphe, Louvre, Notre Dame, Montparnasse tower with Rue de Rennes) seems good to me. I am not against some clichés monuments as long the montage is not only made of those. So this mix seems to be a good compromise Minato ku (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I reverted that particular hissy fit of belligerence, since its authour is apparently too arrogant to.
All you 'tower guys' aren't here to edit wikipedia, anyways, you are just trying to use it as a soapbox for your tower-fanboi faux-message shout to the world that "Paris is a city filled with big towers, too". And, just by coincidence, all of you are pushing one rare image that, coincidently, at least to the unsuspecting, makes it look as though Paris is a city with tons of towers in it. It isn't.
What makes this most annyoying is that you all know very well the reality of the situation, and are intentionally attempting to spread disinformation. My sense of humour is gone, boys. THEPROMENADER18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Rare in the way that that photo was taken with a lens so long that the distant towers seem right behind the Eiffel tower. The fact that you have only that image to push is proof of its rarity... or do you have another, better one? ; ) THEPROMENADER18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, You are insulting me with your "arrogant", "acting dishonourably", "despictable" and other stuffs. Sure that's less woth than me....Secondly, you are not flexible. Not even more than promenader. ""I'm flexible, but I found not the Tour Eiffel picture good, the Notre Dame picture too, and the Montparnasse Tower picture is boring."" We don't have the same definition of "flexible"....The montage is not my prefered version, it's something called "a step toward you", thing that you never, ever did in the entire discussion. Apparently, talking to you is as usefull as talking to a wall. I'm not forcing everything, you're just trying to keep an, franckly(as you say all the time), awful montage. There is even a picture in center-right, where we can see absolutly nothing. How terrible my suggestions have been ?? And where are yours ?! Oups, there is none...And you can keep you your "despictable" for you. Can you try to be more open ? But the problem is that I suspect you don't fully understand what that word actually means... Sesto Elemento (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
'He said I said' and opine all you want, but that won't change the fact that La Defense is not in Paris, nor is it representative of Paris. You are attempting to use Misplaced Pages to broadcast a lie. If this weren't the case, you would propose another image to better the quality of the article, but since propaganda is your aim, you haven't, and you won't. Cheers. THEPROMENADER18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I cannot believe how the image has suddenly become problematic after all this time. Prompted by nothing but a bunch of amateurs on a piss poor architectural site who like skyscrapers. Good news, you can create as many montages of them as you like in the wiki commons. Just leave the image which the majority of regulars are fine with alone.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I have understood that what matter is neither the quality (the picture is ugly) or the accuracy (just tourist clichés) but having a stereotyped cliché image of Paris. Paris is not just made of monument and showing cliché monuments is not representative of the reality of Paris Misplaced Pages is an Encyclopedia, not a tourist guide, it needs to show a wider view of the city. La Défense as one of the most important business district of the city is as much as its place in the montage than the monuments. Misplaced Pages is useless if it just made to confirm the stereotypes to the others instead of giving real informations about the city. Minato ku (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunalty, there is no like button. :D I've created a new montage. I hope you will like it, and I hope the buildings aren't too recent for you two (because apparently you 2 decides). I hesitate to put the Arènes de Lutèces, but it would have been too confusing with the anthic Rome. I'm sorry I let the Eiffel Tower in colour (and not black-and white like you should like it), I forget it. Sesto Elemento (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)File:Montage X.jpg
That's actually funny, Sesto. And you actually worked on the spacing this time! ; )
Like you, I'm also dismayed at the ville musée effect going on here, but what you have attempted to do (in about the worst way possible) is preempt the government and pretend that changes they should make have already happened, and that just ain't what Wiki is all about. Cheers. THEPROMENADER20:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
This being en.wiki, which I enjoy very much, I'd rather stay out of this lively discussion, as I can understand everyone's point of view & think it is good for everyone to air out their ideas. However, this concerning Paris, I would like to give my thoughts on a couple of points:
The new montage with La Madeleine, put together by Sesto: The pictures represent some of the old & some of the new(er) Paris, although not going all the way to modern architecture, thus avoiding "la raffinerie", i.e. Beaubourg. Each picture in particular is fine but something bothers my eyes & I believe it is the weight: at the bottom is a street like that of an old town in France with one- or two-story houses, and at the very top, the wide picture of the big Madeleine sitting on top of the Arc de Triomphe, with under a small picture of the Seine, and below the already mentioned street. My first impression was: "My God! What if the Madeleine falls on the Arc de Triomphe, which will in turn fall into the Seine... that street down there is going to be flooded & all its houses crushed!" Going to the left, is the Tour Eiffel on top of fragile-looking Tour Saint-Jacques. Difficult to put these pictures together with proper balance. The Eiffel Tower has to be ankered to the ground in a corner, the Seine has to flow at the bottom, and there is something to do about the size of the pictures so that the ensemble is not top-heavy.
My other point concerns La Défense, which we all agree is not in Paris... yet, would I add, as one hundred years from now, it will be, just like Montmartre is, that some 150 years ago was a village overlooking Paris. And just like Montmartre is seen from everywhere in Paris, La Défense is also seen from different parts of the capital - not from everywhere -, mainly on its Axe historique of which the Grande Arche is the most western end - a will of its creators and the "king of the French Republic" at time of its construction. The problem with photographs showing La Défense from the Eiffel Tower, is that they are taken with back turned to Paris, thus showing very little of it & missing all monuments, except for what is in line with Champ de Mars in front of the Eiffel Tower. What has to be used is a photograph taken from La Défense toward Paris, which would show all of Paris, y compris the axe historique all the way thru the Pyramide and the Louvre, its origin, which also happens to be part of Paris oldest history. That way we would get Paris across the centuries in one picture.
I cringe when I see architectural photos which fail to have the necessary perspective correction, so that a building with vertical lines is made to look like the lines converge, or when pointing the camera up at a building, it looks like it is falling over backwards. This is discussed in any introductory book on photography, and in Perspective control. Such images are just bad snapshots and inappropriate in an encyclopedia. An architectural photographer would have made adjustments on a view camera by raising or lowering the lensboard relative to the film plane. Alternatively, Photoshop offers perspective correction. A building which is not a pyramid (or inverted pyramid) should not be made to look like one. Edison (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A cat then?
How about just putting an image of a cat? Everybody likes cats. We can wrap it in a French flag and position it in front of a fresh croissant. Or maybe a picture of a guy bored to death sitting behind the wheel in a hopeless traffic jam, smiling at the camera, with Arc de Triomphe in the background. Now that would really be "reality of life in Paris". Timbouctou (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh and to avoid cliches, we can alternatively replace the cat with an alligator, the flag with a copy of the New York Times and the croissant with a donut. And the background for the bored guy can be an Egyptian pyramid. Timbouctou (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I vote for the donut! Let me count... two, so... two against... none! Okay, we have consensus, we win! And don't even try reverting, it's too late, the vote's over ! THEPROMENADER13:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry we do not want PAris to look like America.
Just would like see the different part of the city, its culture and the reality of its economy and urbanism.
Inner Paris ALSO include Montparnasse tower, Bibliothèque François Mitterrand, La Villette or Centre Georges Pompidou.
For other animals, not my cup of tea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clouchicloucha (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
But what happened to the donut? But we said the donut won! (scrunching eyes, closing fists, shouting upward) "I want my donuuuuuuuut!"THEPROMENADER20:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Please leave out Tour Montparnasse from montage
Please don't include Tour Montparnasse, the least Parisian and least loved building in the city. There's a good reason they decided to cancel further skyscrapers. Otherwise the current montage is very good. Why don't we close this discussion and move on? SiefkinDR (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it is loved or not, this is one of the most important and visible building of the city. It is more centrally located than the Eiffel tower
I don't understand what mean "the least Parisian", I didn't know that "Parisian" was an such a restrictive term that it excludes everything that does not correspond to the stereotypes. Most of the French media shows the Montparnasse tower when they speak about Paris, it is noted as a monuments on maps. Minato ku (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
SiefkinDR (talk) We would like to put the montage you have seen, but 2 people, THEPROMENADER and SchroCat (talk) don't want that. I proposed many montage, they refused everything. And they are not moderators, they are 2 people like you and me. I could re-take the montage and put another better pic of MOntparnasse, or something else, they say that they wouldn't accept anyway....Sesto Elemento (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't lie. I have not "refused everything": I have pointed out that some of the images used in one of the suggested montages were not very good, while I accepted that the buildings themselves may be OK to include. That means swapping out images with better angles, not just that I "refused everything". If you could try and be honest it would make life easier on everyone. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
When a discussion is not going 'your way', just deny that it exists!
Comment on the latest revert: "There is no "talk-page discussion in progress", there is only obstruction by a few editors. Sesto Elemento was entitled to create a new montage, given the criticism of the old one, see WP:BOLD"
The latest addition by our friend Der Statistiker, defending his meat-puppet. When discussion is not going your way, deny it exists! And authoritiarian-toned wikilawyering trumps consensus and fact, too. All carefully crafted around an oft-counted three-revert tally, I'm sure... you guys are behaving despicably. THEPROMENADER21:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
...and the reverted-to thing up there isn't even finished, look at the spacing! It's not about quality, is it? It's all about misusing Wiki as a disinformation platform; your behaviour these past days shows that only too clearly. THEPROMENADER22:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of the quality, ThePromenader, have you seen the quality of the montage (the one with an invisble picture of la Defense) ? The spacing is maybe correct but the quality of the pictures is horrible, this means that as long the modernity is not visble you don't care of the quality. Trying to show Paris as if it was a sole mix of old monuments is disinformation.
I am not interested by your war among editors but by the way that Paris is shown in Misplaced Pages, I find rather disturbing that an encyclopedia does no go further than the usual Hollywood clichés! Minato ku (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
You are perfectly entitled to that opinion. You are not entitled to violating Misplaced Pages's rules to enforce it.Jeppiz (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a question of definitions. You take care to stay just outside violating 3RR, but you most certainly edit war actively.Jeppiz (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Not more than you and the other editors who participated in this discussion. If I am violating rule in this case, you are also violating the rule. Minato ku (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I've edited Paris two times in five years. If that's your idea of edit warring, do go ahead and report me. Don't forget to report any other user who edited an article more than once every five years. But your bizarre accusation just shows what kind of level we're discussing at.Jeppiz (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The last two editions you have made in this article were to revert the picture, so, you are actively participating to an edit war if there is one. Minato ku (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
You think it is great because you only know Paris through usual stereotypes. What do you would think if London was only represented by few cliché stereotypes ? I note that you have never participed at the Paris talk or edition but that you know Dr. Blofeld and SchroCat. Minato ku (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm was led to believe Minato ku, that this is a "talk page" where people "talk". So because I haven't edited this article before, does that exempt me from all discussions? Cassianto08:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Possible case of ownership behaviour
Paris cityscape dominated by the Eiffel Tower.
Correction: The tower skyline of La Defense, a suburb 4km distant from Paris, dominated by the Eiffel Tower.
Posting an urban landscape of Paris focusing on the Eiffel Tower to illustrate the article on Paris cannot be compared to "posting a cat". This is pure troll to assume otherwise. I insist on these points:
The picture is currently used on the French version of the article.
The picture has been used during years for the Paris article.
The article of San Francisco is illustrated by a similar picture of its urban landscape dominated by the Golden Gate, which isn't technically fully located within the City : San_Francisco.
A city cannot and should not be reduced to the strict administration managing it under its name. According to Misplaced Pages a city is defined as a relatively large and permanent human settlement : city. It is under that definition that city's article should be elaborated. This has been the rule on Misplaced Pages since its origins.
I don't know how exactly we can alert Misplaced Pages administrators on these points. But this should be done. This article is not the private property of Promenader and Shrocat. Metropolitan (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, FFS, more trolling by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about? (And that's about what ownership is, not about the choice of image) I claim no rights over this article at all, and have discussed possible changes to the montage above, disagreeing only on the angles of some of the images used. If you are going to be so uncivil (and yet so terribly wrong) in your opening sentence, you say more about yourself than anything else. As to "insist"-ing on anything... This is a discussion to reach consensus, not somewhere for you to insult others and insist upon anything. - SchroCat (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
LOL it's so obvious the canvassing which has gone on off wiki. That they're even commenting when the image is not going to change and think they can force something is quite amusing. It's an image. Why the big fuss? Move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
'skyscrapercity.com members, most all of them, save their wily ringleader.
Funny that we're not expected to notice that they are all on a mission (and, just by coincidence, all at the same time) to put that one low-quality and rather unattractive picture there (there are ~millions~ of others to choose from), and no other. Why? THEPROMENADER13:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
As per the MoS, section titles need to be neutral. As per the comment from an administrator's comment below: desist with the personal attacks, or take it to ANI if you think you have any evidence at all to do this.m- SchroCat (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
RESTORED MESSAGE - Thanks for your tips. I'll indeed take it to ANI and I've neutralized the title without completely changing the nature of the topic (which was the purpose of your action). Metropolitan (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
To reiterate: what's being thwarted here is an aggressive off-Wiki campaign effort to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox. Mkay?
I almost feel badly for the skyscraper city.com people (and whoever else was off-wiki called here): they've been played like a fiddle. THEPROMENADER14:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I may start issuing warnings or even go straight to blocks if this behavior persists. First, stop edit warring over the section header. The non-neutral header was that way I believe before my comments below. I don't see what difference it makes at this point. Nor do I object to changing it to Eiffel Tower, but I won't tolerate battling over it. Second, ThePromenader, stop with the attacks (lies, etc.). This is not the forum for it as I said below.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll tone my earlier writ down a bit, but I felt the need to make clear what's really going on here. I have nothing more to add, and I'd only be repeating myself, anyway. THEPROMENADER14:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I notice that nobody is addressing Metropolitan's fourth point:
A city cannot and should not be reduced to the strict administration managing it under its name. According to Misplaced Pages a city is defined as a relatively large and permanent human settlement : city. It is under that definition that city's article should be elaborated. This has been the rule on Misplaced Pages since its origins.
No, the crux of the matter is his edit warring (despite an admin saying "stop edit warring over the section header"), and the fact that the section header is fundamentally untrue. If it had one tiny, microscopic shred of truth, he would, could nd should have gone to ANI. That he hasn't is more than enough proof that it is not a serious accusation, but just an excuse to throw out yet more untrue, incivilities round. Enough is enough, and this needs to stop. – SchroCat (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Then in this case the article should be renamed "City of Paris", and the "Paris" name should be left for an article about Paris in a non-narrowly-administrative sense. This is exactly what has been done for Brussels. There is the City of Brussels article for the narrowly-defined commune (municipality) of Brussels proper, and there is the Brussels article for the city of Brussels in a larger sense. This is also the case for Sydney (compare City of Sydney and Sydney). It would be ridiculous if the Sydney article contained information and pictures only about the narrowly defined "City of Sydney". Yet this is exactly what some editors are trying to do in the Paris article. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment The claim by Metropolitan is quite simply false. There are a number of users opposed to showing areas outside of Paris as the main image for Paris. We are well aware of the canvassing of those from the Skyscrapercity project with their agenda to impose images of skyscrapers regardless of whether they are representative or not. Nobody requires you to like how Paris looks, but it's a simple matter of fact that there are next to no skyscraper in Paris. Tour de Montparnasse is very much the exception. This is something a large number of users have commented upon, not just the two users Metropolitan mentions.Jeppiz (talk) 17:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
If so, then can you explain me why the Tour Montparnasse markets itself in its own advertisement as offering "the most beautiful view of Paris" illustrated by a picture offering the exact same angle on the Eiffel Tower:
Why would they do so if "no one considers this image as picturing Paris", maybe they are bad marketers? And similarly, can you explain me why the official magazine of the City Council of Paris also use an image from the same angle on its cover:
Current versionFile:Montage X.jpgFirst of Sesto's suggestions up for consideration
Can we go back to some of Sesto's montage suggestions for further discussion? At least he was trying to be constructive with his suggestions—many of which had merit—although some of the angles of buildings I didn't agree with. If we can possibly look objectively at one or two of his suggestions along lines that we can all agree on. I hope that, despite people ignoring what admins have to say, we can possibly get through this without any more stupidity from any party. Can we start with File:Montage X.jpg, shown on the right? - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
There's not anything wrong with the current one though, not to mention it looks more striking. The top image makes it looks like Athens! All of the landmarks in my montage are very well known worldwide. Why anybody would remove the Louvre beats me.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Definitely, I also think your montage, the current one, is the best option. I don't think Sesto's is bad either, but I do prefer the current one.Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I generally prefer Blofeld's montage overall too, although there is one image I think you should consider dropping: La Défense. It's just too small for a montage; nothing is discernible in it unless you click on the image to enlarge it, and you have a large spralling image of the same area in the economy section. Each landmark should ideally be identifiable by just glancing at the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, it's a nice image, but in the montage at small resolution not really helpful. Open to updating that one image with a different one.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hm. I think 'instantly recognisable even when small' is capital here. For 'Long' images like that, I'd say the Pont Neuf, panorama of the Champs Elysées (arc de Triomphe small in centre), the Louvre image (already there) I like a ~lot~... but that Madeleine image, one would say Greece ; ) I'm not particularly against having a La Defense distant skyline in there (if there is room for it after priority), just don't try to make it look as though it's ~in~ (or ~is~) Paris - but that's actually quite a hard thing to do.
(after looking at existing montage) I really think we could keep it KISS and keep the strength of the present montage if we changed just the bottom-right and long bottom image. The 'night-pont-neuf' image is a bit... busy. THEPROMENADER18:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I've always found this image to be particularly striking. No need to use all of it though - a central crop (with Eiffel 'in wee')?
So, Paris should be reduced to old tourist clichés, this is what do you mean? Rename Misplaced Pages into Lonely Planet if this is to make a tourist guide. It is not because tourist don't know or don't like the modern sides of the city that it is not revelant and should be hidden ! This is an encyclopedia, we don't care of tourist, what matter is the functionning Paris. (the global multicultural economic power, not the accordeon and café) Minato ku (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
No. The montage should have the city' best known landmarks within them. That mean tourists and any body on a world scale. The London montage for instance has three of its best known landmarks. I'm sure Schro living in the London area could think of dozens of other landmarks he thinks worthy of picturing too but would agree that on a world scale those are among the best known. ♦ Dr. Blofeld19:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
All of it. The top image makes it looks like Athens, and the bottom images could quite frankly be in Estonia for all I know.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Minato ku, did you read the comment by Bbb23? If you have a constructive suggestion, please do add it and take part in the discussion. If all you're interested in is to heap cynical scorn at those who disagree with you, then don't write. There is nothing inherently better with a skyscraper from 2014AD or a temple from 2014BC. What matters is whether they are representative and illustrate the article. In the case of Paris, there are a number of well known monuments that represent the city, regardless of how well known they are by tourits. There are hardly any skyscrapers at all in Paris except Tour de Montparnasse. The current montage is representative of Paris.Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Jeppiz (talk), SchroCat (talk), and the others: Please, tell me that you're joking...The image with the Madelaine is a joke You understand that ?! This montage I made is completly bullshit ! You don't even know what "irony" means ?? I put the oldest buildings of Paris I've found, I have even put the Rue Irénée Blanc, a street that looks like part of a small village, and you, you are saying "Hmmm that's very very old, I love that !" A huge LOL ! Pfff, you're completly over the top...My REAL proposition is the previous montage I've made, this one. Sesto Elemento (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Sesto Elemento, I think they were ironic too. They responded to your irony with some irony of their own. A good way to bury the real debate. Now if everybody could stop the diversions... Cats and 19th century photographs of La Madeleine have nothing to do in this discussion. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Those of us who are interested in discussing the article and the image have been quite unanimous. We prefer the current version in the article, but are open (and of course obliged) to discuss changes to it with serious, good faith users. If someone has a change to suggest and to argue for, I'm all ears.Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Who is we? As we have no trust in each others and a consensus seems improbable, I think it would be better to have the opinion of more neutral editors. Minato ku (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
When saying "we", I was thinking of the users Sesto Elemento choses to ridicule, including SchroCat, ThePromenader, Dr Blofeld, Coldcreation, Betty Logan and myself.Jeppiz (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I was asked to come here by SchroCat on my talk page. I'm not sure what brought this page to Mike V's attention, but I can readily see why he locked the article. The problem on this talk page is I see little effort to reach a consensus on the disputed images. Instead, all I see is a bunch of sniping and accusations. Obviously, if that's all you can do, then either the lock will be continued or editors may be blocked for edit warring once the lock expires. That would be up to an administrator evaluating the situation.
My suggestion is that you forget about how much you apparently hate each other and focus on the content. There are, of course, other tools besides discussion on this page that you can use.
If you believe that there is editor misconduct and you have sufficient evidence to back that up, then take it to the appropriate noticeboard. If you don't have enough evidence, then stop making the accusations in the first instance because, in that context, they constitute personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
@Bbb23: "I see little effort to reach a consensus on the disputed images. Instead, all I see is a bunch of sniping and accusations." That's because there is already agreement on the montage and this has been hijacked by a bunch of amateurish skyscraper fanatics. It's served the article well for over a year without complaints, and it will continue to do so.♦ Dr. Blofeld06:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Ernst, if you want us admins to keep an eye on this, it would be nice if you could point us to the supposed agreement on the montage. I'm thinking about closing the discussion below, after it's run its course, but I'd like to know what all happened. Please don't give me a laundry list of diffs, but rather one (or two) solid discussions with clear consensus. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
@Drmies: See the "consensus on the image section" below for a brief indicator for support among most established editors. Sesto Elemento, Cloudicloucha, Minato ku and obvious 2A01 are not only editors but moderators from skyscraper.com who created accounts on wikipedia purely to stack votes and try to force this through here. See the article history. The other opposers are mainly Metropolian, who strangely turned up last July August 2013 after long being inactive to support Der Statistiker after a previous article disagreement and Cadem who of course has recently had a run in with Cassianto which I heavily criticized. I see very little evidence from established respected editors that the current montage isn't acceptable. Above all I'm concerned that no admin has stated that they've found the behaviour on this talk page suspicious nor have protected this page from being edited by newbies trying to sway a "vote". Consensus in favour of the image should be clear, especially if you discredit the editors from skyscrapers.com who are trying to push an image of Paris with skyscrapers. What I ask for now @De728631: or Drmies is an admin to semi protect this talk page permanently from brand new accounts and to leave a permanent notice at the top warning of our policy on Meatpuppetry trying to sway consensus. This page has a history of disruption from people creating accounts to try to push something, I think that's a perfectly legitimate request.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The point is moot now; De and I were working on this at the same time, but they were a few minutes ahead of me. I don't see the need for semi-protection, though: we have a consensus, underwritten by two admins, and attempts to either subvert or change that with some disruptive frequency will be dealt with. (Also, feel free to make fewer edits. Because of all these edit conflicts, something that should have taken five minutes has taken twenty.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
As for the disruption on numerous occasions by Der Statisker with obvious canvassing off wiki to stray to sway consensus from sympthaizers on skyscrapers.com, currently reported at ANI with a topic ban request, Jmabel has closed that asking Der Stat to stay away from conflict here. If he interferes again in future then it will be enacted which is fair enough. My concern is that this page is a target for new editors pushing a point, so if not any blocks, at least a warning at the top warning against canvassed support and that if this happens again it'll be punished?♦ Dr. Blofeld14:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I notice that nobody is addressing Metropolitan's fourth point:
A city cannot and should not be reduced to the strict administration managing it under its name. According to Misplaced Pages a city is defined as a relatively large and permanent human settlement : city. It is under that definition that city's article should be elaborated. This has been the rule on Misplaced Pages since its origins.
Then in this case the article should be renamed "City of Paris", and the "Paris" name should be left for an article about Paris in a non-narrowly-administrative sense. This is exactly what has been done for Brussels. There is the City of Brussels article for the narrowly-defined commune (municipality) of Brussels proper, and there is the Brussels article for the city of Brussels in a larger sense. This is also the case for Sydney (compare City of Sydney and Sydney). It would be ridiculous if the Sydney article contained information and pictures only about the narrowly defined "City of Sydney". Yet this is exactly what some editors are trying to do in the Paris article. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I quite agree with Der Statistiker. the metropolitan area is the WP:COMMONNAME, not the strictly defined city limits. Another wonderful example O'Hare is Chicago's most famous airport, but conveniently just outside the city borders for tax purposes. As the cities have grown to consume their suburbs, the concept of the city changes. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Apples to oranges, again: nothing of the sort exists here, and nobody here knows what a 'Paris Metropolitan Area' is.
Or are you really proposing that Misplaced Pages rewrite French terminology and usage for them, or tailoring them for what other countries are "used to hearing" ? THEPROMENADER06:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm proposing that this is a naming issue rather than a content issue. There will always be two articles, one for the city inside the Périphérique and one for the metro area. Right now, the former is at Paris and the latter is at Paris Metropolitan Area. If the articles are moved, all the discussion here will still pertain to the former: the city of Paris proper. --NE206:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Consensus among established editors supports the use of the current image as a representative depiction of the city of Paris. It should also be noted that there have been several discussions in the past about this matter but it has not been the case of an arbitration. Consensus can change and as of now consensus supports using a composite as shown in revision 626969947 of the article. De728631 (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC) De728631 just beat me to it, but let me add that I fully endorse their reading of this discussion, and that in future discussion this can be taken as a yardstick. As De says, consensus can change, but for now let peace rule in the city of love. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we agree to accept the lead image as it is? It's not perfect, but it presents the most recognizable landmarks in Paris, so someone looking knows that they've found the right article. I hope we can stop the personal attacks and work together with respect and civility. Thanks!
SiefkinDR (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Support. The current composite image represents Paris more so than any other image (or composite image) proposed as an alternative to date. Coldcreation (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. This topic has already been the topic of multiple arbitrations in the past, none of which reached consensus on a multiple-picture montage:
2013 arbitration:
2013 request for contributions:
2010 arbitration:
2006 arbitration:
2009 arbitration for the French article:
The 2006, 2009 and 2010 arbitrations reached consensus on the Eiffel Tower single image. The 2013 arbitration reached no consensus for a change, thus confirming that the single image of the Eiffel Tower should be maintained. A decision which was overstepped by User:Dr. Blofeld on July 2nd, 2013. Here is a link to the diff - Metropolitan (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
What would you know about consensus? Prior to this you haven't edited all year and you only stopped by in July 2013 to be a complete twat and tell me how awful the article was..♦ Dr. Blofeld12:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The current composite picture is showing a completly biaised image of Paris, and does absolutly not represent the variety of the city. And now Blofeld is insulting peoples ("complete twat", just before) without hiding it...This shows his behavior when a people are not going in his direction. Sesto Elemento (talk) 12:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
Comment at the silliness of this becoming a vote. Already it's been clearly established that two potential 'voters' are direct parachuters from skyscrapercity.com who have done nothing on Misplaced Pages but push one image and their 'skyscraper' agenda on this article. And a third, with hardly any editing activity since years, was obviously canvassed too. I suppose now we can expect more new 'voters'. THEPROMENADER13:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If you read my editing list, you can see that I've done many edits before this photo problem on others pages, without any link with Paris page (what we are talking about...). So I'm surely not a """parachuter""" from skyscrapercity, as ThePromenader says everytime without any proof. I don't know Statistiker, I'm just agree with him. I can also say that Jeppiz and Coldcreation are parachuters from you, so not real "voters". Now stop lieing please. Sesto Elemento (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Sesto Elemento, could we be honest here? In August 2013 you were recruited to come here from Skyscrapercity, and ThePromenaderhas provided proof of that. I don't want to be uncivil, but please refrain from such obvious lies. It's exactly that kind of irresponsible behavior that pollutes the atmosphere here. Why can't you just be honest instead?Jeppiz (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose As I of course like and would like main monuments to appear representing Paris (Eiffel Tower, Arc de Triomphe etc), i think we should add a complementary modern monument (Bibliothèque François Mitterand & passerelle Simone de Beauvoir may be perfect for me) and, even if indeed La Défense is not in inner Paris, could be visible at the back on a picture like a discrete appearence behind Eiffel Tower or something.
It could IMHO be a nice balance Clouchicloucha (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
@Metropolitan: Yeah, his years of experience and hard work and educated opinion are really valuable here. Pathetic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@SiefkinDR: How about making it a condition that only established editors who have edited in the last few weeks prior to this to be permitted to vote here? Otherwise these meat puppets from skyscraper city will create lots of new accounts and oppose as if there's a consensus against. Consensus is determined by general agreement conducted civilly between established editors over time. There was never a problem with this image until the sock puppets from Skyscrapers.com arrived to push their agenda.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@Dr Blofeld Hmm sorry how old are you? I think I may have a lot more years of education than you have my little friend especially when I see your agressive coments.
Do you have any suggestion to advance discussions or do you prefer to continue insult everybody and not being constructive ?Clouchicloucha (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
In my 30s. And if you met me you'd realize how amusing the "little" friend comment is. All you've done is joined wikipedia to try to force an agenda. Come back after several months editing elsewhere and then your intentions might be taken more seriously.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have a problem with something called "democracy". Democracy as a principle of equality in the value of votes (no votes more valuable than the others), and everyone should have the right to vote. Sesto Elemento (talk) 14:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with democracy. What I have a problem with is editors being canvassed off wiki on some shoddy architectural website to push an agenda and cause people like you Sesto and Clouch to create new accounts to stack votes and try to force something against the established consensus from experienced regulars who have quite happily accepted the montage over the past year. Mark my words, you won't be able to push it.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@DRblofeld OK that means we can have a discussion between adults.
FYI i joined Misplaced Pages to give my feeling and my opinion, am i on my good rights?
And again, i know Paris very well and live there for decades, this is why i think there is 2 parts of Paris, the historical one, as a lot of people imagine in the world, and the second one, touristic and business district as well, that should be mentioned.
I don't think it is transgressive to show a little part of this modern and new Paris in Misplaced Pages, an open media supposed to be the more precise as possible (this is not a touristic booklet)Clouchicloucha (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not going to be possible is it given the circumstances in which you've entered here. If you were an experienced editor who genuinely happened to stray into this without being canvassed off wiki I'd be happy to discuss it with you.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Support - Images such as File:Paris-tours.jpg as well as reports on the controversy of new developments since 2010 (like this one) indicate that city proper (particularly the central area) is nowhere near a hub of skyscrapers. I may be able to get behind something with a depiction of the 13th arondissement, which is part of the city and not a suburb; La Defense does most assuredly not meet that criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Dr. BlofeldFirst, there was never a consensus. I don't know where this information come from. He just had a picture imposed by a few people to everyone. Secondly, we did not create double account as you say, this is wrong. Where are my double account ?? Sesto Elemento (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
To be experienced in i have to start with something right? This debate is interesting, and i don't know why the fact i don't have years of experience make my coments not valuable.
Do you want me to propose a new picture you to see what i suggest?Clouchicloucha (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. There were various discussion on the talk page and arbitrations which User:Metropolitan has summarized above, and they all concluded that there was no consensus for a photomontage replacing the single view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense. User:Dr. Blofeld started editing the Paris article on 23 June 2013 because it had been nominated for GA (Good Article) status, and on 2 July 2013 this editor put a photomontage in the infobox without paying attention to the previous talk page discussion and arbitrations or opening a discussion on the talk page: . 5 days later, I reverted Dr. Blofeld's montage and politely pointed out that there was no consensus for a montage, and that it had already been discussed on the talk page (in case Dr Blofeld didn't know): . Only 3 and half hours later, I was reverted by User:SchroCat without any explanation: . Please note that after going back in the edit history of the article until 2011, I cannot find a single edit by SchroCat in the Paris article until that 7 July 2013 edit which consisted in reverting me and replacing Dr Blofeld's montage in the infobox. SchroCat came to the article apparently with the sole intention of "protecting" the montage of Dr. Blofeld. And all that has happened since then is the consequence of this original problem: forcing a montage in the infobox with disregard for all previous talk page discussions and arbitrations, and then reverting anyone who attempts to remove Dr Blofeld's montage from the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You do realise that it's now September 2014 and the montage has been perfectly stable and satisfactory for over a year?? You've edited a fair bit in that time, and have also discussed the history expansion of this article in great detail since and you didn't seem to have a problem with the montage or mention it then...♦ Dr. Blofeld20:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
More bad faith as to the legitimate reason I came here. If you have suspicions over bad faith on my part, provide a diff. If not strike out the lies and innuendo. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Support per Dr. Blofeld. The montage is absolutely fine; I can't see what's wrong with it and why people are threatening each other and inadvertently causing unnecessary arguments! ☠Jaguar☠21:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The current image is not fine as it is just picturing Paris with the usual cliché of old munuments, ignoring its functionning reality (as if Paris was just its monument and its history). The concensus would be a montage with mix between the monuments and the modernity, not just one option or one other option and then nobody would have win or lost. Minato ku (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages would loose what ? Nothing, quite the oposite, people would undersand that Paris is not just the usual cliché but a REAL CITY. The fact that you don't like la Défense and that you do your best to diminish its role in Paris has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages. La Défense is not a distant suburb as you try to claim, this area is located at 3.5km (2.1 miles) of Arc de Triomphe, infact the distance between the Eiffel tower and La Défense is almost the same than between the Eiffel tower and Notre Dame. It is by presenting Paris with only the usual cliché and trying your best to dinimish its size (all the discussion about the metropolitan area in the past) that Misplaced Pages would loose. This is an encyclopedia, not a tourist guide. Minato ku (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually La Défense is not several km outside Paris, it is at several km of the Arc de Triomphe. If you take the official boundary of the City og Paris, La Défense is at less than one km of the border. You can't pretend that La Défense has nothing to do with Paris. Minato ku (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, you can try to wheedle that down (into what?) by measuring from the closest corner of the Bois de Boulogne, but La Defense is still not in Paris, nor is it representative of Paris. THEPROMENADER07:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Representative of what Paris ? The cliché tourist Paris or the real Paris ? There is a big difference between both and this is worry to see that even in an encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages, Paris can't escape to usual hollywood stereotypes which exclude a large part of the population. Why Paris should be always reduced to its clichés? Why this is so difficult to see that Paris is much more than that? Minato ku (talk) 02:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Support current version, as per the above, and per Jmabel's comment at ANI "Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a special-interest site, and in the case of an article about a millennia-old city, it is not surprising that the most iconic structures in the city would be ones that have been around for a while", a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
About Jmabel's comment at ANI. He also said that more things should be done to present the modern aspect of Paris. This is because Misplaced Pages is not a special-interest site but an encyclopedia that the city should not be limited to a tourists point of view. My point have always been clear about this, I am not trying to push skyscrapers above anything else but to add the skyscrapers with the rest. Note that there is no skyscrapercity conspiracy, I haven't see or wrote anything about the current dispute on this site which is about much more things than skyscrapers (architecture, urbanism, transports. Many of its members are surprisingly against skyscrapers) there is no conspiracy to try to make look Paris as if it was full of skyscrapers but Paris is not empty of skyscrapers either. La Défense is not an invisble district far outside the city, it is very visible from many points of view, from many important places. You can't ignore it just because it is not offically inside the small city boundary.
Here in Misplaced Pages everything seems done to reduce many of the actual aspects of Paris. Look at the cultural part, almost nothing about the end of the 20th and 21st centuries cultures. France and Paris have a large rap scene yet nothing is said about this, a music that represent more its today inhabitants than the bal musette. Look at the cuisine, the French food is good but Paris restaurants are not limited to French foods. Minato ku (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"I haven't see or wrote anything about the current dispute on this site": yes, I'm sure the private messaging system on the site hasn't been used at all, and it's just a staggeringly monumental coincidence that other members of the forum – including another moderator – have found their way to this conversation to join in on your behalf. Mind you, I'm sure the moon is made of cheese, that fairies and Father Christmas exist, and that DUCKS don't quack when there is meat around. - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose @ Promenader as i know ok La Défense in oustide PAris if you want, but who told about putting a picture of La Défense?? The picture was Eiffel Tower with La Défense at the back (or any other inner monument at the very front), so where is the problem i do not see. 2A01:E34:EEAC:BD40:1D6:BD24:1E84:59A5 (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2014 (UTC) This template must be substituted.
Because it's a poor image of the Eiffel Tower, the most iconic landmark of Paris. The current version is a much better image of it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh dear; another newbie from the skyscraper forum. Only Misplaced Pages editors should be allowed to vote here. Coldcreation
As Clouchicloucha has already opposed the image by name in this thread, and has now opposed for a second time, without logging in, I do hope an admin can take appropriate action in striking his opinion here. - SchroCat (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm rather late to the discussion, I'm afraid, but I am another in favour of the current image, and concur with all those supporting its retention. Tim riley talk10:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's really deplorable that every time this discussion comes to light, we see extensive WP:CANVASS by those who wants to add pics of skyscrapers and go to the website Skyscrapercity to recruit people to support their view. Clouchicloucha and Sesto Elemento are prime examples, canvassed to come here to support DerStatistiker's view. Well, Misplaced Pages is not a vote and it's not about numbers. Given the obvious canvassing going on, I hope some administrator would take action. This is getting close the Muhammed image controversy. Just put forward the policy that we stick with the current image and let's have an end to these constant flame wars that always involve heavy parachuting from Skyscrapercity. It's quite frankly ridiculous.Jeppiz (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like, once tried, this 'technique' is doomed to repeat itself ad infinitum until "success" is made. This is so deserving of sanction. It would be better if those involved would be forthcoming, especially the instigator, but I don't think that's going to happen. But please, prove me wrong. THEPROMENADER15:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It is of course absolutly not a question of skyscrapercity or not.
Some of us were at first talking about putting La Défense because for me it is representative of actual Paris. OK some people do not want because it is not in inner Paris, why not.
Now i just suggest to add modern view complementary to historical pictures, as 13th arrondissement (so no skyscraper i think?) and i don't know why evrybody looks like getting mad with that point and no possible discussion.
Why?Clouchicloucha (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Why? Because you're violating WP:MEATPUPPET. You're here because another member of your forum asked you to come here and to endorse a change in image. What you have to say given the circumstances of your arrival will have little shape on consensus so believe me you're wasting your time.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely not.
I came here by myself (as i know i use wikipedia services for years and i can create my account right?) and just would like to participate at discussions . I am not here to justify why i create my account a year ago now.Clouchicloucha (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Proof, and site moderators to boot. You're also a regular proof. At least 3 editors from the same website turn up in the matter of days to push their agenda on urban images. It's pathetic that you think we're not intelligent enough to notice.♦ Dr. Blofeld15:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Well i do not even want to enter in this kind of consideration because.. who cares? i think we all have much other things more interesting to do.
@Dr. Blofeld|What do you think me to submit modified montage you to give me your advice? Clouchicloucha (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to use one huge composite image. I changed the collage to be individual images here but it was reverted for some reason? The images look better quality, can be enlarged AND... can be selected individually. Wonderful hey? Then you can gain consensus for each image individually. I propose we remove the collage and discuss each image, starting from the top, adding them individually to the article once consensus is established for that image. Thoughts? Also I think that four lines of images is too much. Three is plenty. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You do realise that montages are the norm in articles on major cities, in fact they're encouraged rather than one photo to more fairly cover landmarks. I suggest you view our articles on places like London, Rome, Copenhagen etc.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Never mind the Doctor's bad humour, Rob; he was probably still a bit heated (and rightly so) over the shennanigans this article has seen these past days.:: That's some great work, actually, and exactly what the article needed (bigger, individual pictures). I can't tell you why it was reverted, though, I came here only after the fact. Thanks! THEPROMENADER18:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The nomber of pixels is not the problem of the composed picture, the problem is the content which represent very baddly the city. But now, with THEPROMENADER, Jeppiz (talk), and Dr. Blofeld, I see that representativeness of the infobox doesn't matter at all for them...Others composed pictures (with better quality than my previous pictures)will be proposed. Then, we will see if you can argue seriously. Sesto Elemento20:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't even know how to comment properly! What exactly are you trying to prove here, especially with those faux-authorative tones? And after what you've done these past days? Seriously! THEPROMENADER20:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Boy, that message that anyone can see that didn't even mention you must have really hit a nerve... for some reason. I keep my game above the board, sunshine. THEPROMENADER20:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, it's not accusations when there is ample proof, which has been provided here. Once again, users from Skyscrapercity have been canvassed to impose their view of what Paris should be, violating about every Misplaced Pages rule there is.Jeppiz (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Propositions of montage will be made this week end (for the third time, I hope you will not ignore them and critic in a constructive manner...). So could we just make a little break in this loop discussion and talk like adults ? I'm getting borred about talking with a wall. Sesto Elemento20:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If you're bored by the discussion, Sesto Elemento, you're free to leave. At Misplaced Pages we discuss, didn't your meatpuppetmaster tell you that when recruiting you to come here? As for proposing montages, do go ahead. Please keep in mind that we already have a montage that many users are perfectly happy with it. Wanting to stick with the current montage is not "ignoring". Nothing says the image has to change just because canvassing at Skyscrapercity had brought a number of meatpuppets to the page. Quite the opposite, the way it has been done (both this time and last year) is only detrimental to reaching any compromise.Jeppiz (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Decision on the Lead Image
By my count ten editors support the current image, and six oppose. That seems to me a general consensus, until someone can propose a better image and win majority support for it. The only alternative I can suggest is to go back to the single image of the Eiffel Tower, which would also be fine with me.
Friends and colleagues don't behave like Der Stat and his meat puppets!! It's become ridiculous. And the six opposes are hardly all valid opposes. Count only those from established editors..♦ Dr. Blofeld10:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I welcome the intervention of SiefkinDR, and I agree with Dr. Blofeld that at least three of the opposes are obvious meatpuppets, perhaps even some sock, as they only registered to edit this page. That probably explains quite a bit of the heated atmosphere, but I concur that we should leave it behind. The montage is fine as it is, and there is a strong consensus among regular Misplaced Pages users for keeping the current version.Jeppiz (talk) 12:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
There is already an image with Notre Dame, if you add this one you should remove the zoomed picture with the Pont des Art toward Ile de la Cité. Minato ku (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Minato ku, it's a nice image but perhaps not the best we could find. I have no strong feelings on the subject, but here are some thoughts. We could add Centre Pompidou, as it's famous and more modern than the current images. Alternatively, we could also consider adding a view from some street if we want to get away from only monuments. There would be lots of options, everything from Le Marais (Rue des Rosiers could be an option as Paris has Europe's largest Jewish population) to one of the larger Boulevards (Boulevard Haussmann, Boulevard Saint-Germain) or Champs-Élysées (but then without L'arc de triomphe). Again, these are just some suggestions.Jeppiz (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I have just uploaded a picture I took from Centre Georges Pompidou where we can see Montparnasse tower, Saint Jacques tower, the Conciergerie, Saint Sulpice church. The picture is moderately zoomed and shows a more diverse view than just old monuments File:Tour_Saint_Jacques_and_tour_Montparnasse_from_Beaubourg.jpg. EDIT: Trying in smaller size, the picture may be a bit too dark Minato ku (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's best if we just stop discussing this for the time being. I have some other work I want to be doing and I don't think this urgently needs to be change.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to use one huge composite image. I changed the collage to be individual images here but it was reverted for some reason? The images look better quality, can be enlarged AND... can be selected individually. Wonderful hey? Then you can gain consensus for each image individually. I propose we remove the collage and discuss each image, starting from the top, adding them individually to the article once consensus is established for that image. Thoughts? Also I think that four lines of images is too much. Three is plenty. Rob (talk | contribs) 18:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
^ Just extracting what was possibly the most constructive (yet drowned) contribution in all this. Rob's version is much better (clickable larger images), and he's done all the layout already; all there remains to do is switch out the photos, if the need be. THEPROMENADER15:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm a web-guy - do you mind if I have a look later? I'm really surprised that Wiki hasn't worked css into its code yet (css positioning directives called by a single 'class' word). Tables, really? THEPROMENADER22:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Moratorium on further changes of lead image, please
I would suggest we declare a moratorium on further changes to the lead image. The discussion has been going on for much too long, with very little accomplished. If people would like to add images, please add them to the appropriate sections of the article. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Consensus on the composite image
For the record, 11 Misplaced Pages editors supported retaining the current composite image. Those editors include: SiefkinDR, Coldcreation, Jeppiz, ThePromenader, Dr. Blofeld, Cassianto, Darkness Shines, Jaguar, Mariordo, SchroCat and Tim riley; far outnumbering those opposed to the image (most of who were non-Misplaced Pages editors, drawn here for the sole purpose of attaining artificial consensus). The fact that the dubious coercive plan to insert skyscrapers into the the article did not materialize is exemplary of the website's policies and guidelines set out from the start of the foundation. Experienced editors enforced these rules by deleting or modifying non-compliant material. However, in this particular case, Misplaced Pages's high openness has led to some concerns, in detriment of its accuracy of its information: contributions of new community members suspected of having been recruited by an existing member to support their position. Such recruited members are considered analogous to sockpuppets and should be sanctioned accordingly. Finally, as a community member and active editor here at Misplaced Pages (and Wikipédia), it pleases me to see that, despite dubious activity, ‘reason’ used to deliberate and discuss the issue according to universal procedures established for the good of the general public at large has prevailed. Coldcreation (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Enough is enough. Several admins have established consensus and encouraged us all to walk away. One user is already blocked. Consensus is established, all is said. Now is the time for us all to do something else. Jeppiz (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"in detriment of its accuracy of its information"? What exactly was in detriment of the article's accuracy? Are you suggesting there are no skyscrapers/high-rise buildings in Paris? Minato ku (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Detrimental to the accuracy of the article would have been to prominently display La Défense as if it were part of Paris: analogous to a dubious group of "green" fanatics obsessed with posting an image prominently exhibiting the Parc de Saint-Cloud at the top of the page, to give the false impression that Paris is "green". Coldcreation (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Then how come fr:Paris uses that same image in their infobox? Perhaps fr:User:Coldcreation2 could go tell people there how "inaccurate" and deceitful they are? And by the way, Paris IS green: more than 25% of its land area is made up of parks and woodlands, something that is also missing in the current photomontage. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
That is precisely the goal of the (cough) exercise these past few days: Using wikipedia renown to spread "Paris is filled with towers, just like New York!" disinformation to the rest of the world. Isn't that obvious? THEPROMENADER13:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Drop the vile accusations, will you? Be constructive for a change. Even you, deep down, know that most of Paris is made-up of post-WW2 buildings, many of them towers of more than 10 floors, and that this is not reflected in the current photomontage. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The most annoying thing about your comment is its disingenuousity. Do you really think that your words can somehow change the obvious? And if you really had the article interest at heart (and not the disinformation drive), why would you even try to defend the nonsense over the past days? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if you are the instigator of all this; even without my long experience with your antics, others seem to be of the same persuasion. THEPROMENADER14:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I am rather surprised that most of the cultural aspect in the Paris article seems to be limited to the early of the 20th century. Espect few aspect like the opening of the Branly museum which is wrongly
depict as the newest museum of Paris (we are in 2014, this is not 2006. 8 years have happened and several museums have opened during this period) there are very few things about Paris modern culture.
-The music, France and Paris have one of the largest hip hop scene in the world ? Why nothing is said about this in this article nor in music of Paris article? Yet the rap is more popular among the population than the accordion which is pretty much restricted to tourism trade.
-The cusine seems to be too limited on french foods while Paris is full of restaurants from all over the world (and especially its former colonies), we need to make the reader understand that the food in Paris is not limited to French cuisine. The current sentence about this is not clear. It can be understood as "almost every cuisine from the sole France" because the previous sentence only speak about the internal migration and not the international migration.
-About the festivals, in my opinion too much is said about the Bastille day history but almost nothing about other festivals. No Gay pride, no Chinese New Year, no Techno parade, no Nuit Blanche, No fête de la Musique...
Obviously I just wrote few limited examples among many others and while the role of this article is not to list everything that exist in Paris, the absence of some important points is problematic in the understanding of the city. It gives the impression that Paris culture stopped at WW2.
I don't think that somebody reading the section culture of Paris could understand the contemporary culture of Paris.
This section needs an overhaul, not in its structure which is good but in its informations. Minato ku (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that a some more attention could be paid to modern cultural places and organisations (Cité de la Musique, Cité des Sciences, etc.), but I don't think their 'impact' can compare with those from years past, and yes, this article is already far too long. THEPROMENADER06:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
My point was not about the places, the culture section should not become a resume of all the museums of Paris. I don't see the need to speak about the Cité de la Musique outside a specific article about the Parisian museums. My point was about the cultural aspect of Paris in broader way. Today the rap has much more impact on the city than the bal musette but nothing is said about it.
By reading this section you have the impression that the culture of Paris is stuck in the past. This is far to the reality of this vibrant cultural hub. Minato ku (talk) 10:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I was just providing a couple examples. Another good cultural indicator is the radio stations listened to here, and the type of music they play. THEPROMENADER11:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Anybody is quite welcome to talk about its hip hop scene and more contemporary culture, but try to keep it condensed and neatly written and use book sources in the given format if possible.♦ Dr. Blofeld17:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
This appeared today - a few here were interviewed for it. The article neither asks questions nor gives answers, but it is a pretty good 'emotional outline' of what went on... it's behind a paywall, but you can see the first excerpt here. Cheers ; ) THEPROMENADER19:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Propositions for a more representative Paris
As yet discussed, the current selection of photos is a very particular point of view of the city : the point of view of an (american) tourist.
This photomontage should be a little more representative of other points of views.
It should at least show :
an organ of power : Paris is a political capital. Maybe the Elysium Palace or the National Assembly. Senate can be good too (jardins du luxembourg) ;
Metro : it is not possible to avoid the Parisian subway in Paris. Maybe a metro station, or better, the whole map of the metro, that would give a good overview of the geography.
A photo with humans and/or traffic. On the current photo, Paris seems to be a desert. Maybe a photo of the Grands Magasins at 14h should give a more realistic view of the city.
Any (of a very large) list of the second part of the XX century or XXI century building. you don't like Montparnasse tower, there are a lot of other (Institute of Arab world, National Library of France, Bastille Opera, City of Science, musée du quai Branly... ). There are also several buildings from Le Corbusier, and even to the headquarters of the PCF a nice building although too much politically oriented. Note that Montparnasse tower is more seen as a monument than a classical building, and so it is the only one of the town, just as other monuments : Eiffel Tower, Arc of Triumph, are all unique... That is not the same philosophy than in New York. The same differences of philosophies applies to bridges when comparing Paris and San Francisco : in Paris there are a lot of bridges, all different, in SF, the is the Golden Gate bridge...
By the way, it is possible (but I am not sure it is a good approach) to select a photo by period : roman empire (thermes, arênes), Medieval (Notre Dame, Sainte Chapelle... ), etc.
I changed your title, v_atekor, to widen discussion to the entire article (and so I can add me two cents here ; )
Some additional suggestions for a more 'Modern' article:
History - the history section should move down in the page. Way down.
Lede - I'm not so sure the 'origins' history is so necessary in the Lede. Perhaps a single phrase inserted as the beginning of the "Paris is the home of the Louvre" paragraph - this would make for a shorter Lede, too.
Landmarks by District - 0.o - this should go to an article of its own, perhaps into a merging of the other linked articles.
Culture - Unless Paris directly influenced any artistic work, I don't find it particularly useful to indicate it here because the artist simply lived or visited Paris. I think a more 'dynamic' description of the culture today would be helpful, too.
Other stuff - just small things like "Paris is the greenest city after..." in the Economy section (?), and perhaps a rearrangement of the sections ('climate' at the top, really?). And yes, v_atekor and the French Misplaced Pages article had a good point, there's not much about the 'Métro' here... Paris must be one of the densest in metro lines per m of all the world cities. THEPROMENADER09:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I full Agree. Is there a standard organisation for English cities articles ? The one of the French article is quite standard for the French cities. I think we can translate the French article, full featured, with a gold star, maybe adapting it to English readers ? v_atekor (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, let's just do what's most informative ('right'). I just looked at the French version, and I am in admiration of the demography section... there are few other global cities with an administrative/demographic makeup like Paris' (no intercommunality, no 'city and area' association/organisation/administration - although they're working on it) and this should be explained in a clear way. As for translation, the English version requires a bit more 'context' explanation (that is already 'compris' by French readers ; ), but for sure, yeah, this should definitely be an FA article. THEPROMENADER10:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
RE your suggestions: Some contributors were working on the article, section by section, with the understanding (such was my belief) that, in order to have it "length-readable", details judged not necessary in this general article of/on Paris would, after work over, be transfered to specific sub-articles, such as History of Paris and others. To reach that goal in an organized manner, some of us were spending hours of research & editing. Now that access to the article has been denied for about one month (my last entry was on 18 September), criticism is given on what's wrong with the article: you are not telling us anything that we did not know; we are quite aware of it (please read some earlier discussions above) & were doing our best to address the problem, line by line, section by section, with as much accuracy as possible, which takes time. Consequently, at this time, talk of ever reaching FA goal sounds like a dream that may never come true. Also, the addition of pictures would be more logical when article is completed.
Hey, give him credit for caring, that sounds really dissuasive. Probably my suggestions are on the 'to do' list too, and I'm not aware of it. Why would an FA be so unreachable? THEPROMENADER
Worse things have been written on this page beside my suggesting politely - beginning with "Hello" & ending with "Best regards" - to user v_atekor that he read previous discussions on the very problems he points out. If the article had not been subjected to an edit war about the most representative picture of Paris, at which time it was impossible to add a point virgule to it, then blocked for so long, its orderly editing would be done.
As for the FA goal, no doubt that it is reachable, but there is a lot to do before it gets there, and it takes time. While to some the article seems too long... a lot is missing. For instance, the section Photography: 4 short lines & no mention of Daguerre? Literature: on the French side, only Hugo, Balzac & Dumas, père in a little over 5 lines, while Hemingway manages over 2 lines. Other foreign writers mentioned are all anglophone, not a single Russian, not even Ivan Turgenev who, in 1875, was elected vice president of the Congrès International de Littérature, of which Hugo was president.
The above just to say that adding + subtracting + editing + reviewing + discussing + warring + blocking = long way to FA.
Thank you, user v_atekor's, for your comments & please understand that, after reading your remarks, I wanted to make you aware of the fact that a lot of what you are saying has already been taken into account, that we are, or rather "were" working on it until we got stopped: I was only stating the facts.
0.o - your contributions list is not that long - mille pardons! I figured from your "adding + subtracting + editing + reviewing + discussing + warring + blocking = long way to FA" that you had been around a while ; ) THEPROMENADER15:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The more I read the French Paris article, the more I like it. They've done an admirable job of organising the article in a way that leads to a better understanding of the city/agglomeration itself (rather than catering to international ignorance about it). It includes lengthy sections (lodging, etc) that are more 'local' in nature (and understanding) that could be reduced here, and there's a certain lack of rigeur when it comes to references, but overall it's great! Even its language is succinct; I'd be more than happy to help with translations if need be. THEPROMENADER07:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we can start to translate soon. Tell me which paragrapher you will work on, and I will (try to) translate others. Because I am not a native english writer, I wont ever write on the main, on the public page. I will put all the stuff in a draft on my personal pages to be corrected before. v_atekor (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I said the structure of the French article was admirable, but I was careful in my wording to avoid giving the idea that I was suggesting simply translating the article into English. The only parts where it would be constructive to do this is the demography section (minus, as I mentioned, the 'lodging' and other 'local' concerns), as it tells it exactly how it is in a rather succinct way, and it's "straight from the horse's mouth", to boot. Apologies if I gave the opposite idea. THEPROMENADER16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's right, but that make few differences. We need a base to start, and I think this article is good enough to build an English FA. It will be improved, better explained for English readers, references can be enhanced and discussed... but that will be a second step, once the English article will be at the level of the French one. Don't start by the end. v_atekor (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Requesting that the article be un-protected
Can we begin by requesting that the article be unprotected, so we can get back to work on improving it? I agree with Blue Indigo; it's frustrating that we can't work on it, and the announcement at the beginning the the article is blocked is an embarrassment.
I believe we did reach a consensus that the existing image, while not perfect, is acceptable to most editors polled and shouldn't be changed now. The purpose of the opening image is to show that this article is about Paris, France and not Paris Texas, and to have clearly identifiable images that say 'Paris'. We can, however, discuss here, section by section, what changes and improvements can be made within the article. There are some good suggestions above for improvement which merit further discussion here, and decision by consensus here in the talk page. Can we proceed this way? SiefkinDR (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, I urge people to look at the articles on London, New York, and Berlin, which I think are good models for length and organizational structure. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, Paris Texas is a very small city (with no high-rise unlike Paris France), there is absolutly no way to confuse both. To go back in the subject I think we should remove the protection. Nothing can be done about the cultural section, comparing with articles of other cities I believe that it is to long. Minato ku (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely no way to confuse both Paris (France) and Paris (Texas)? Please take a look at article on Paris (Texas) on fr.wiki:
The article should be unprotected on 25 October . After the article published on Le Monde newspaper , it's been recalled on the French talk page that hiding specific dimensions of a topic is considered WP:POV. The current montage doesn't even show the actual city, only a collection of lifeless landmarks close-ups. For the matter, this has raised enough concerns in France for the story to be also mentioned on a major radio, Europe 1. This is why, I believe the better way to calm things out is to go for the conservative option which is to use the same image in the English version than the one used in the French version. An image which is a good consensus as it does show the Eiffel Tower, the undisputed symbol of the city, but also its urban surrounding landscape and its full dimension as a metropolis. That's the only way in my humble opinion to reach WP:NPOV in this case. Metropolitan (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) So the only solution is to give you what you want (because appeals to authority, appeals to popularity, appeals to antiquity, with no clear expression of fact?). That is not what normal editors do, it is what people with agendas do. And people with agendas corrupt constructive discussion, as you have done just now. THEPROMENADER06:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
But thanks for the heads-up about the radio blurb, I wasn't aware of it. Like the article, not asking or answering any questions, just a 'fait divers' playing on the emotion of the whole thing. But thanks. THEPROMENADER07:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Metropolitan, as you are already very aware, there is a consensus against the single image, and that was agreed upon by two admins, De728631 and Drmies. Although consensuses change over time, it is disruptive to start banging the same drum again so,soon after the debate has closed. If you wish to open the whole topic again—a disruptive move, in my opinion—it is unlikely that the page protection will be removed. - SchroCat (talk) 06:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with ShroCat. The question of the lead image has been settled by consensus. We don't need to recycle the old arguments. We need to move on with improving the content of the article. SiefkinDR (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The question of the lead image was NEVER settled by a consensus, otherwise it wouldn't have drawn the attention of various media. It was IMPOSED by Dr. Blofeld without prior discussion, and then defended stubbornly by his friends from the GA project, people who otherwise have never edited the Paris article. This is NOT consensus. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The closing admin had no idea of the entire history of this, and you, more than anyone else, are not entitled to give any advice about this, given that you are the one who triggered all of this by reverting the article in July 2013 to reinstall the photomontage of your friend Dr. Blofeld without any explanation or prior discussion on the talk page: . All of this stems from you coming into this article, which you had never edited before, solely to revert it to restore Dr. Blofed's tourist photomontage. This you cannot deny. I've provided the diff. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There were two closing admins, De728631 and Drmies, who reviewed the information: they closed the thread to keep the current montage. That's all that matters: move on to more constructive areas of debate for the future of the article, and try to retain some shred of AGF. If you continue to press the montage point, it is unlikely that the article will be unlocked. I find it quite sad, and rather underhand of you to shamlessly canvass on French Wiki for people to vote on the issue here, as well as to attack editors on this site. That is a rather shameful stance. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
As usual, baseless attacks from you. WP:CANVASS explains clearly that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions", which is exactly what I have done. I have not told anyone to vote in this or that way. Can you explain to me why you have NEVER edited the Paris article in a constructive way (as in adding information, rewriting badly written parts, updating figures, etc), and you only always appear either to defend your friend Dr. Blofeld or to attack people in the talk page here? I, unlike you, have provided lots of content to this article over the years, to the point of spending hours to design maps, create tables, etc., and I don't spend my life only on the talk pages or the administrators' noticeboards unlike some people here. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Except that it is a lie to say you have not tried to canvass support. Roughly translated you have said: "Your help at all would be welcome to end the deadlock . We cannot accept that a handful of Canadian-English publishers impose their vision of Paris to the world". To try and claim that you "have not told anyone to vote in this or that way" is simply untrue. There is nothing baseless in what I have said: you have gone to another website and tried to get them to vote on an issue here that was closed by consensus three weeks ago. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, as per WP:CANVASS: "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions". There is a handful of Canadian-English publishers who try to impose their vision of Paris, no one can deny it, and I'm not ashamed to repeat it here. All I've asked is for knowledgeable French editors to come to the Paris article and express their opinions about this, because there is indeed a deadlock since none of you is willing to compromise. I have not told the French editors what opinion to express, in fact it would be rather counter-productive given how independently minded the French usually are. All I've said is they should air their views to see if we can move from there. But as usual, you resort to the old Stalinist trick of framing your "opponent" as evil to have him liquidated. It's tactics and harassment like this which increasingly push contributors away from Misplaced Pages. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I am going to step away from your lies, as little constructive comes from trying to discuss anything with you. Thanks for calling me Stalinist: I'll add that to the rest of the insults you've thrown my way, and note, once again, that there is a consensus to retain the current image. That fact you don't like it means little to anyone, as it is the consensus that carries the weight, not the POV of the most disruptive editor. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
What exactly is "disruptive" about discussing things on the talk page? Talk pages were created for this very purpose. What's really disruptive is when some editors make wholesale reverts and delete the contributions of other editors to the article, as you've done here and here. As for insults, you're the king. Anyone reading this talk page can spot your "fuck off" and other niceties. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I just recall that De728631 has been considered involved after he blocked me during 3 days, a decision proven unfounded and cancelled after the appeal from Caden. It is cristal clear that there's nothing solved here, and I agree with SiefkinDR, Minato ku and Blue Indigo that the article has many other flaws that we could address first.
Culture: the section is indeed too big and should be thought as a glance inviting the interested reader to explore the Culture of Paris detailed article. We can also feel a certain trend to mix that section up with the more mainstream Culture of France article. I think an overhaul is necessary in order to focus more on the key elements to understand what is specific to the Paris identity: theatres, the movie industry, impressionist school, few key writers and singers, and the current state of today's Paris cultural life.
Landmarks by district: that section, currently listing 450 different buildings, is totally unreadable in its current form. It should be replaced by a more general "Monuments and Landmarks" section, if not by an even broader "Visitor attractions" section with not more than 20 different mentions. Once again, there is already a standalone article for the Landmarks in the City of Paris which is more reader-friendly for those wanting to explore a more detailed list of those.
Even if that doesn't solve ongoing conflicts, focusing first on these 2 sections is probably the best way to get back to more constructive contributions to the article. Metropolitan (talk) 13:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Leave the personal conflicts out of it. I agree that the Landmarks in the City of Paris is more reader-friendly, but it indicates (without reference) that the Val-de-Seine (?) is in the 15th arrondissement (!) and that La Defense is in the 17th arrondissement (!!), and the Plaine-Saint-Denis is in the 18th arrondissement (!!!)? There's nothing wrong with mentioning these, but not like that. THEPROMENADER08:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Landmarks in the City of Paris might be more reader-friendly in an impeccable presentation, but also - in addition to your mention of the parachuted Val-de-Seine, La Défense & Plaine-Saint-Denis, there are other *monumental* errors. Consequently, maybe it should not be given as a model of perfection:)
Those "monumental errors" are due to Dr. Blofeld. Before Dr. Blofeld started editing the article last year, Val de Seine, La Défense, and Plaine Saint-Denis were listed in the sub-sub-section "In the Paris area", distinct from the sub-sub-section "City of Paris" (see this version of the article as of June 23, 2013). After Dr. Blofeld's massive rewriting of the article, Val de Seine ended up in the 15th arrondissement, La Défense ended up in the 17th arrondissement, and Plaine Saint-Denis ended up in the 18th arrondissement (see this version of the article as of July 7, 2013). I then tried to correct these errors and many other errors introduced by Dr. Blofeld, but all my edits were reverted in two wholesale reverts by SchroCat who had never edited the article before and came here only to "protect" the work of his friend Dr. Blofeld whom he knows from the DYK and GA projects (see these two wholesale reverts by SchroCat here and here). This to clarify the situation for people who haven't followed the entire history of this. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
These "monumental errors" were based on wikipedia's existing category system which I used to find building by arrondisement. If there are any errors it's likely due to categorization errors. I agree that the details should be in the main Landmarks article and it condensed down, but that's no excuse for continuing to behave so pettily and belligerently.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Relatively new here & much interested in articles concerning France, I simply change what I see as not correct & refuse to go on a wild chase after culprits to put on the pillory or burn at the stake. I am neither Sherlock Holmes nor an Inquisitor. When I see something not exact, I correct it to the best of my knowledge, leave an explanatory comment, then go on to the next line. What interests me is the article. Period. It is great that such an article as Paris, France, //"Hello!" Paris, Texas :)// raises so much interest on the other side of the English Channel, the Atlantic or Down Under and, unless in a constructive manner, I will not take part in your discussions. As old buddies from previous fights, you all seem to know each other, I don't. The only time I will put in my two cents worth is to prove my correction is right or when/if someone attacks someone on a racial, religious or national basis. And if I feel that my work is a waste of time, I'll stop my participation.
Oh, I see you misunderstood my comment. It was less a response to you than to ThePromenader who insinuates (and this is not the first time) that the editors defending a broader presentation of Paris (city proper + suburbs) are the ones who put Val de Seine in the 15th arrondissement, La Défense in the 17th arrondissement, and Plaine Saint Denis in the 18th arrondissement. I simply pointed out that the person responsible for that was Dr. Blofeld, and that these three errors were defended by SchroCat in his two wholesale reverts. You're welcome to help us correct these and many other errors in the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
See, that is a perfect example of disruptive behaviour: you just made an ad hominem attack on a strawman you tacked to a comment about content. THEPROMENADER21:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
As the one *guilty* of the present size - by either length or weight - of landmarks by district, I would like to repeat what I wrote a couple of times & will not mention anymore because it does not seem to be read and/or understood: when I began editing this article last May or June, the on-going discussion was about its length, and I was careful to mention the fact that my editing would add length, but that, once accomplished, all that would have to be done would be to remove the details deemed not needed and bring these details, i.e. material already researched with references etc., to appropriate linked articles. In the case of landmarks, the material could be brought to the article on landmarks or to the respective arrondissements.
As for the Culture section, it would be good to give a definition of what is meant by the word itself, as every reader has his/her own idea of what culture is.
A question: what is meant by Literature? Is it literature about Paris (because only three French authors given)? Parisian authors? Expatriates? - and may I mention that there have been more expatriates than the Americans who *fled* the US because of prohibition or in search of a certain lifestyle :) - More of other nationalities fled their country because of political & religious persecution, and settled in Paris for a while or forever; they have been totally excluded from this article. Naturally, mentioning them would also add weight - but then, why favor so heavily the between WWI & WWII anglophone expatriates? There is a lack of balance.
It seems to have a large consensus for the French version of the article, both by francophone (FA, gold star.. ) than by anglophones (previous §) ; then better than starting writing a new article from scratch, better than trying to find another impossible compromise, we can start to translate it. That's a good starting point for everybody. For the photomontage, it will change soon or late, so don't worry ; it would be better to make purposes for others selections of pictures v_atekor (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't go 'counting' consensus - it doesn't work that way. "The biggest number wins (no matter what)!" is driven by irrationality (and immaturity); consensus is a result of rational, constructive, non-fallacious discussion.
(to all) I moved my comment about 'translation' to the section above where it is more constructive. This section is more of a "he said/she said" fight. THEPROMENADER16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no consensus to replace the existing article with a translation of the article in the French Misplaced Pages. That article has some admirable features, but some of its statistics and facts are outdated, and it has a long essay at the end, with little attribution, which doesn't add any new information and doesn't belong in a Misplaced Pages article.
Can we re-open the article for edits for a trial period, and see if we can move ahead with it? Editors who engage in personal attacks, re-open long settled arguments, make unconstructive comments should be blocked from this article, so the rest of us can get to work. Thanks for your consideration.SiefkinDR (talk) 07:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
L'article n'est pas bon à traduire car les citations sont à améliorer et les stats à actualiser. Et la marmotte... Débrouillez vous sans moi, j'ai perdu assez de temps comme ça. Ciao. v_atekor (talk) 08:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Welcome in English Misplaced Pages where French contributors are not welcome because they have a much more urban and functional view of Paris, as the result most of the French contributors who contributed in the past have left, leaving this Paris article in such a bad state where informations are either incorrect, outdated or factual and where real important informations about the city are almost neglected because of not corresponding to the cliché.
I'd like them to stay too. Yet, Minato ku, how is it that you indicate 'a needed point of view' at the same time as you insult ("defending the cliché") everyone else involved in the discussion? This indicates a "my side, their side" mentality that has no place here. THEPROMENADER09:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Minato ku; you sound like a fonctionnaire de l'État, always complaining and never doing anything. Editors of the Paris article welcome editors from French Wiki, and elsewhere, to participate in editing here and/or discussing on the Talk page, as long as the contributions are constructive. Coldcreation12:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Coldcreation This is maybe because I think that my English is not good enough to make major edit in the article. I don't want to diminish the quality of the article with sentences full of grammar and spelling errors that's why I am more active in the talk-page but this is maybe a wrong way of thinking. I also feel that my contributions would be deleted instead of being corrected.Minato ku (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Yesterday, I wrote: "The only time I will put in my two cents worth is to prove my correction is right or when/if someone attacks someone on a racial, religious or national basis." Having followed various discussions on fr.wiki - bistro & Paris talk page -, brought about after Le Monde recent publication regarding the debate on this page, whether I am an American or not, I took as a personal attack upon me, and on all American contributors, the anti-American comments, by which their author disgraced himself. I thus feel that before offering his help on en.wiki, Mr. V should give here some explanation & apologize for the comments he uttered at least twice on fr.wiki Paris talk page:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Discussion:Paris&diff=next&oldid=108347309.
He also should be made aware of the fact that, when working on en.wiki, he will very likely come into contact & have to measure up with some Americans quite knowledgeable on subjects related to France, its history, cultural heritage, in addition to French grammar & spelling.
Reacting to both of Mr. V's 19 October 2014 disparaging comments, there was a "rappel à l'ordre": merci pour nos confrères américains by a Frenchman who, on 21 October, mentioned again l'antiaméricanisme primaire dans l'intervention de V ci dessus....
What changes should be made on the current photo-montages to avoid the flood of laughs critics from the Parisians and much Europeans ;
Is the current design of the wheel a good base or should we reinvent it ?
For the first point, I imagine soon or late the photo will change including several (obvious) changes I have suggested (you can easily do much better I imagine) for the second, soon or late you will conclude that although very old, the circular wheel design is very effective. Now, reread the above so called "debate", and try to understand why I leave. I am working on Gaudi and Goya, you are welcome to make them FA, based on the Spanish and Catalan pages, respectively. v_atekor (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Do you know the definition of scapegoat? According to Collins: a scapegoat is "a person made to bear the blame for others".
On 19 October, what you wrote on fr.wiki talk page were your own words signed by you, and which brought about the following reaction from a French Wikipedian: Et sinon ça va Vaketor les préjugés sur les américains ?-) C'est des attaques personelles pures et simple ton petit discours...
On 21 October, when re-establishing portion of the page which had been removed, the same French Wikipedian added: J'ai remis cette partie effacée par Seudo: en plus de l'antiaméricanisme primaire dans l'intervention de Vaketor ci dessus
When I read your comments on fr.wiki, I was flabbergasted. Then, seeing that you have the guts to come here & offer your services I had to speak my piece. To top it all off, after reading my comment bringing your defamatory behavior to the attention of the English speaking contributors of the Paris article, you complain that you are used as a "scapegoat" - and this, after you signed the most arrogant & disgusting repeated statements one could make against the Americans.
Before adding or removing a comma anywhere on English Misplaced Pages, you owe the contributors of this page, and the contributors of en.wiki in general, many of whom are Americans, an apology.
This should have been put on a section of its own. My apologies.
Enough with the ad hominems, please address the points made which are relevant to the article. Don't distract yourself from the collective efforts to bring this discussion back on track. Metropolitan (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I invite everyone to read again the WP:NPOV policy of Misplaced Pages:
Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it.
Currently, the article is heavily biased towards a historical/heritage representation of Paris. The article is structured the same way as the article of Pompeii with most of its contents dedicated to describe past History, heritage sites, tourism, and past culture. The difference with Pompeii though is Paris hasn't been destroyed by a volcano 2,000 years ago, and here goes the WP:POV.
Facts about what is Paris today are marginalized in shrinked sections burried at the bottom. For the good of the debate, here are some facts about today's Paris we should all remember. Economically speaking, Paris is among the top 5 cities generating the most wealth in the world, it hosts more headquarters of Fortune Global 500 firms than London or New York. Demographically speaking, it is a megapolis of 12 million people inhabitated by large communities coming from all countries in the world. Regarding infrastructures, it is one of the most important transport node in Europe, with 4 airports, 6 major railway stations linked to 4 different high-speed rail lines, and hosts the second largest river port in Europe.
To know whether or not the economics, demographics and infrastructures aspects of Paris are represented fairly, proportionately in the current article, I invite everyone to compare the size of the said sections with the one of those dedicated to History, heritage and culture (which in the case of Paris ignores its modern aspects as everyone obviously agreed here ). I've counted words of each section (including their paragraphs in introduction), and in order to give a point of comparison, I've done the same about London, which is a similar size capital city of a similar country.
Field of interest
Paris
London
Number of words
% of total
Number of words
% of total
History
3,573 words
22%
2,048 words
17%
Heritage
4,277 words
26%
204 words
2%
Culture
2,545 words
15%
1,661 words
14%
Subtotal
10,395 words
63%
3,913 words
32%
Economy
673 words
4%
727 words
6%
Demographics
852 words
5%
1,605 words
13%
Transport
819 words
5%
1,693 words
14%
Subtotal
2,344 words
13%
4,025 words
33%
Overall total
16,388 words
100%
12,131 words
100%
It's worth being mentionned though that London's culture section is entirely dedicated to today's culture. But even putting that aspect aside, the London article, which seems well-balanced, talk about as much of History, heritage and culture than it does of economy, demographics and transports. In the case of Paris, sections about the "past" aspects are 4.5 times bigger than those about today's aspect. In reading this article, we can decently believe that today's Paris is judged not relevant anymore, which is a total distortion of the truth.
Most people who participated to the discussion now seems to agree that the landmarks by district section must be replaced by a quick summary, the culture section needs an overhaul and the history section needs to be moved down. For the new sections to be written, V_atekor proposes us to get inspired by the French version of the article, which has reached FA status. All key facts about the city are clearly mentioned in it and I think it's indeed a good base for necessary improvements.
So despite everything, I do have the feeling we're moving forward, and I thank everyone for their efforts to push the discussion back on the right track. Metropolitan (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
All that to say "this article needs less history, more modern stuff?" Well, I agree! I saw what you did in there, by the way, but let's leave that between us. Fine and dandy, though. ; ) THEPROMENADER16:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@Metropolitan: not surprised about the small percentage of the demographics section. This section was viciously cut down by Dr. Blofeld as a "retaliation" against my criticism of his bloated "Landmarks" section (see his edit with this crazy summary As you campaigned for me to cut the landmarks I'm cutting this bloated section again to even things out). Regarding transports, I am currently preparing some stats that I will add to the section once this article is unlocked, if Promenader & co. haven't managed to have me banned before that is. We are faced with the most vicious people I have ever seen on my life online, ready to scapegoat and request banishments against whoever disagree with them. The fact that ThePromenader, who is not an admin, recently removed the case asking for my banishment from the archives and pasted it again in the active Administrators' noticeboard speaks for itself. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this issue. Metropolitan (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
