Talk:Paris/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Structure!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Déjà fait - Mines of Paris [1] - j'étais assez discrete ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington D.C. (121,175 bytes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infrastructure and transport could be merged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renamed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The summarized 1789 revolution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Structure Bis!

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

Lede

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

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

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

Like the French article. 'Urbanism' is the best (save better suggestions) catch-all phrase for grouping descriptions of the city, city trends, and its function. Sure, the other Wiki 'big city' articles don't use it, but it's common English [2].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA Reassessment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Tim riley: Oh they're all interested in the article, but not one of them appears to be working to meet GA or FA criteria and want to edit in a way which they personally think is an improvement. So with conflicting interests and one editor doing one thing, another doing another it's headed in the wrong direction rather than the right direction!! I'd have restored it to the July 2013 version, minus the big landmarks section if I'd thought it would last...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that no-one there, not even me, really knows what the GA or FA criteria is. My 'improvement suggestions' may seem quite naive for someone familiar with Wikipedia standards, but I'm looking at it from a reader, almost in an art direction way, point of view - trying to arrange it into an article that people can read and understand. Its being pleasing to the eye would be an added bonus. That's why I need you around, Blo, not only for your experimented help, but also to show me the error in my ways. Is there really a 'fast-track formula' for GA/FA status, though? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Give Wikipedia:Good article criteria a read. I think everybody is worrying too much about intricate details and that which don't really matter a great deal to non Parisians and can't what is more important from a global perspective. Yes, we want the article to be as good as possible, but not if it affects the flow and sourcing quality/consistency of the article which is more important. If you want it to regain GA status all you'd have to do is largely restore the July 2013 version, update the large landmarks section with the current condensed one and ensure than every paragraph is sourced and then try to improve the parts of the article you believed give a dated view (culture etc) which I acknowledge not being too familiar with the current city I know little about. I'd have done it myself if I didn't think that it wouldn't last long. Then you could try to follow the sourcing and layout as much as possible and give it the corrections and tweaks needed to get it to FA. But to pass GA an article has to be stable, which this is currently far from being.. As far as I can see there's way too much active interest in this article from editors who in all honesty don't know what a good or featured article requires and can't see that some of the edits made in good faith are actually making it worse from a concision/sourcing perspective.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll read that, thanks. I think what's going on is what I mentioned earlier - it's only natural that a broken article motivates people to fix it. I really have no idea what's changed since it got its GA status (I only noticed after the fact that it had even got one, I left last year's 'lede image' nonsense as fast as I could when it was over), but I'm of a mind to suggest putting it back to that state if it's an improvement... but that means going through all the edit history to see if there were any real improvements made by other contributors... sigh. How did it get into that state, was anyone around to see that? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(after reading above and GAC and checking article) Wait a (expletive) second, it had 'citation needed' tags... again?! I fixed those! And since they were reverted to, they've been sitting there since two days without being corrected?! And I was told - lied to - that the revert was to a version only a 'little hour' before - it had been almost three hours between my fixing that tag and its revert. And our dear admin was reassured many times that all my edits were replaced: none of them were, so I guess it was understood from the get-go that he would never look. (super-long sigh).

So now we have on one side a bunch of contributors who don't know how to bring the article up to GA status, and on the other a group of bully contributors who just don't care. I really think I'm going to propose reverting to the 2013 version. And I'm off for tonight, I'm already getting steamed again. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And thanks for your visit, guys, that was... fun in a way. Odd. Interesting. Whatever. But thanks for your kind words ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's frustrating, but we can't give up. It's a good thing in many ways to review an article periodically and bring it up to standard. I'll be glad to help making sure things are properly sourced. We just need to improve section one by one. Learning from setbacks is the only way one really improves. Though now it seems I finally have to learn British spellings Use of American spelling in some parts seems to be the greatest fault of the article.SiefkinDR (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I just suggested going back to the GA-award version on the Paris talk page. Broken is broken, and all the work it will take (and all the opposition it will meet along the way) to get it back to at least GA is too much for anyone. Since no-one will listen to or even look at the article's dilemma, I think this is the only way. Please do leave your thoughts on this there, in case my suggestion is a bit too drastic - laters, guys. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Article work, length note, lede.

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

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

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

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

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

Shortening the Lead

I agree with Promenader, it isn't a huge task to fix the problems. I believe the lead can be shortened considerably by taking out some of the history and the museums, which are both covered in detail in the article, and by eliminating some duplication. I'll take a shot at those changes. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, by example we don't need to have a detailled description of the biggest museums or monuments.

A simple summary with the names would be enough.

Look at this

• Paris is the home of the Louvre, the most visited art museum in the world, with outstanding collections of European and ancient art; the Musée d'Orsay, devoted to 19th century French art, including the works of the French impressionists; the Centre Georges Pompidou, a museum of international modern art, and the Musée du quai Branly, a new museum devoted to the arts and cultures of the Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania; and many other notable art museums and galleries. It also is the home of several masterpieces of Gothic architecture, most notably the Cathedral of Notre-Dame-de-Paris (12th century) and Sainte-Chapelle (13th century). Other notable and much-visited landmarks include the Eiffel Tower, built in 1889 to celebrate the centennial of the French Revolution; the Sacré-Cœur Basilica on Montmartre, a Neo-Byzantine style church built between 1875 and 1919; and Les Invalides, a 17th-century hospital and chapel built for disabled soldiers, where the tomb of Napoleon is located.

There is a way too much detail, somthing like that would be better.

• Paris is the home to many notable art museums and galleries including the Louvre, the most visited art museum in the world; the Musée d'Orsay, the Centre Georges Pompidou and Musée du quai Branly. It also is the home of several major landmarks including the Eiffel Tower, the Cathedral of Notre-Dame-de-Paris, Sainte-Chapelle, the Sacré-Cœur Basilica and Les Invalides.

Almost as much is said and you can add other important places. I have keep "the most visited art museum" for the Louvre because the lead is a bit like "I have the biggest". Minato ku (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

As Nike says... but a claim like that needs a source. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

But wait, not in the Lede... (scratching head) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(after looking) Wow, great work, guys! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Phrases needing citation

As a temporary measure, I'm removing unessential passages needing citation and placing them here until they can be resolved. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

it is not only the wealthiest area of France[citation needed], but has one of the highest GDPs in the world, after Tokyo and New York[dubious – discuss],[1] making it an engine of the global economy.[dubious – discuss]

What is dubious was only the "after Tokyo and New York " and "making it an engine of the global economy", there were nothing wrong about the rest andit is proved by reference and even by the Wikipedia article about the city GDP. No matter third or fifth or six depending the calculation by nominal (exchange rate) or PPP (Purchasing power parity) or the size used for the metropolitan area, it is still among the highest. I put back the "one of the highest GDP" Minato ku (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine! It's actually good to use that sort of phrasing, as 'who's first' is always changing (and always different according to sources). BTW, other wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources (and similar claims between them are often written by the same person). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, the reference is not the Wikipedia article, I was meaning that it was consistent with the Wikipedia article linked (it is not always the case). Minato ku (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Basic rules for a good contents structure

Alright, there are basic rules for organizing any content:

• The different sections should be clear enough to make sure they don't overlap each others. This is the key principle to avoid redundancy and make it clear for the reader to know where to find what he's looking for.
• The number of sections should be limited to both avoid redudancy and improve readability. If even more sections are necessary, then it should be structured on two levels.
• Contents should be spiraled out. We start with the most important ideas, and only afterwards we optionally develop some specific aspects in details.
• As explained in the article size guidelines. If an article is starting to get too long, contents should be divided into specific articles. In an article such as Paris where a large variety of aspects should be explored, it's important that sections of the main article should be kept brief, and explored in details only in sub-articles.
• Finally, in order to respect the neutral point of view, the article should representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published on the topic. So we should make it sure that no aspect are excessively developped compared to others.

I have restructured the article in following those guidelines. The current structure makes it much easier for the reader to understand the scope covered by the article. Major work is still needed in the text itself, as it seems a large number of sections in this article are approached through a historical or heritage perception of it (see example with healthcare[3], education[4] or religion[5]) of the topic. This should be cleared out. Metropolitan (talk) 17:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Um, you just reverted the work of three editors. I suggest you put that back and work again from where we left off. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I will restore the contents you've edited while I was restructuring the article. Just give me the time for that. Metropolitan (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I just did. You know, we've been discussing this since over a week now, so I suggest you list what you want to change here before implementing it. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Do not revert me. You will lose at that game. Metropolitan (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've checked your recent edits. What's the point of removing La Défense from the article lede? Or mentioning the global influence of Paris? Are you questioning those? Metropolitan (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Who is 'you'? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

And there is no single rule, and one's 'best way' is not another's - I've been announcing my changes here well ahead of time, and those ideas are evolving as discussion goes on, so I can only expect others to do the same. And still, my changes until now are an added section and a section re-structuring, I would never attempt to rewrite the whole article. Patience, and think of the work (and views) of other contributors. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Holy (expletive) ! It doesn't matter if you were working on the side without paying any attention to the editing going on, you can't just trounce over it to keep the 'bits' you like! Work from where we left off, thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I have announced my changes on 26 October [6]. And there's been no argument expressed against those. I have not changed the contents, I've only cleaned up the contents organization. If you're not pleased, feel free to express what you find wrong in it. Metropolitan (talk) 18:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That is the second and last time I will revert - You've had time to read my piece since, and if you revert again, that means you're ignoring it. One can't remain outside of all discussion and just impose their will over the entire article like that. Come to reason, please. And threatening an edit war isn't helping. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Now it's enacting an edit war. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

This is inacceptable. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see why you're starting an edit war on this. Please explain me what you find wrong in the new structure. It seems much clearer to me. Metropolitan (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Making a mistake is one thing, but reverting to it twice is quite another. That's quite a tu quoique accusation. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I quite like the version proposed by Metropolitan, It is much cleared than the previous one. Minato ku (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There's some things I like in there too, but he just ignored/reverted all of our work to impose it. Wikipedia doesn't work like that, that's the worst possible example of editing behaviour. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I needed a small hour, only an hour to reorganize the contents. I couldn't know you would edit it so massively during that timespan. As you were obviously editing the Lede, I have already restored it back to the way it was the minute before my edit. I'm not in your mind and I can't know what is missing; with diffs, you should be able to find back your things. I'll do my best to keep your work, but please be constructive and help us out. Metropolitan (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why haven't my layout or link dedoubling edits returned? It must have been longer than that, because it's all gone. Aside from the 'Human Resources' wrapper regrouping several sections (that you steamrolled over), that's basically all I've been doing all day. I can't believe that I'm being asked 'to cooperate' after what's been done to my work today. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You even reverted my English corrections! The admin who advised me about how to save the article's GA is now correcting them for me - because he thinks I didn't do them! Great. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

All my layout work and link de-doubling work is still gone. Am I really to do it all again? What is the Media section doing in the Economy section? How is 'Religion' (Paris' churches?) part of Demography? Why is 'housing' in 'Geography' (a section treatment I had very clearly questioned a week ago - until today)? All of the 'rules' indicated above have nothing at all to do with what was done today. This all seems very WP:POINT to me. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Media is on the economy section as it is the case for New York City and London.
• The demography section is about people. As religion and housing are related to people, it makes sense to have them described in that section (housing is demography, not geography). I agree the religion section is badly written as it doesn't make sense for it to be yet again describing heritage sites. Its purpose should be to explain religions in Paris. I agree there's still a lot of work to be done to make this article encyclopedic again.

The rules I've given are quite standard academic rules about how to organize contents. I've sourced them with Wikipedia guidelines links. There is only one question to be asked, is the article clearer as it is now or not? If you don't believe it's the case, please explain us why. Metropolitan (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

London economy has no 'media' section. This article's media section was about the culture, not the economy sector - has it been modified for that? Religion in demography - as statistics, yes, but not like that. That's quite a stretch in both cases, just to justify an 'idea'. Sure, those errors would have been pointed out in discussion, but what's the harm in that? But instead, our hasty unthoughtfulness is out there for the entire world to see, 'ourselves' because what's in the article speaks for all of us working on this article, and most of us, I'd like to believe, are people with a real concern about reader understanding. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:12, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

But I really don't see the point of citing them, as none of the work here today has anything to do with any of them. I'd like to see the encyclopaedia that groups things like that, and that would be a reference I'd pay attention to, and again, other Wikipedia articles are not an example - unless they have gold stars. Why doesn't this article have one, either? Perhaps it would if more worked together in the interest of the article instead of making a point of imposing their own ideas (without seeking the advice of others) about what's 'good'... and having only other unadorned big-city articles to cite as... 'justification' for that (not reason). Imposing something (especially when one knows others don't agree with them) begs protectionism, and that's exactly the type of editing atmosphere we don't need. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:57, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the structure is good enough the way it is now, I think the major problems of Paris article is more the content. Minato ku (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

New article structure

I'm discovering the new article structure tonight (largely the work of Metropolitan from what I understand). A few comments. Broadly, I find it a better structure than the previous one (it compares more favorably with articles like London or Berlin for instance). Some welcome changes, which had already been largely called for on this talk page, have been introduced, such as creating an "infrastructure" section merging "transport" with "water and sanitation", "cemeteries", etc. I find the following points still needing some improvements though:

• "Toponymy" is was still a separate section, but I've put it in the "History" section, as several editors had already suggested, to conform with most other city articles on Wikipedia
• "History" has two many subsections, but that is linked to the excessive length of this section, something which has already been pointed out numerous times
• "Parks and gardens" in the "Geography" section... it could also be in the "Infrastructure" section. There are pros and cons either way.
• "Housing" in the "Demographics" section is a bit odd... This subsection currently contains some information that belong to the "Architecture" subsection of the "Geography" section, and other information that could almost belong to the "Income" subsection of the "Economy" section. Nothing in this section, as of now, is truly demographic.
• "Media" in the "Economy" section... I found that odd at first, but I see they do that in the New York City article, although the Chicago and Los Angeles articles have a dedicated section for Media. There are pros and cons either way.
• "Administration" should definitely include a "Metropolitan government" subsection between the "City government" and "Regional government" subsections, informing about the current process of creation of a Métropole du Grand Paris (the law has already been passed in Parliament and enacted, time to update this article!). The "National government" subsection is too long and outsized compared to other Wikipedia articles about capital cities. Tokyo doesn't even mention the national government institutions based in Tokyo in the article. At the very least, this subsection should be shortened.
• "Infrastructure" is a very good move, but I think there should be only one subsection for transport, called... "Transport", and not two subsections ("National and International Transport" and "Local Transport"). That's the case in all other articles I've seen. Actually I'm going to work on merging these two subsections.
• "Culture"... this section still bugs me, but its components couldn't be put anywhere else I guess. This section should be shortened though. It's too long compared to the rest of the article (plus the fact that it's only about classical, White, formal culture, and fails to mention contemporary, ethnic, informal subcultures; let's keep in mind that Paris is a living plant, not a dried dead plant in an herbarium).

Overall, a rather good job Metropolitan. In particular, I found putting "Museums" in the "Education" section a very interesting change (it certainly puts museums in a different light). Geography is also restored to its true dimension (physical AND human). Der Statistiker (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

So even you see the error in that blanket edit (and revert to my work), yet here it looks like... a pat on the back. Cheering for 'your team' does not show a real interest in the article; it's rather WP:BATTLEGROUND, in fact. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, it took me a long time but I've scanned every single edits from the afternoon and I took good care to implement them back in the article, here's a link to the diff: [7]. It was not my intent to revert those, I couldn't know you would work in the article at the same time as I would. Sorry again for that. Metropolitan (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, about the "Administration" section, I think it should be renamed "Government", because that's the way this section is named in most other city articles at Wikipedia. This didn't occur to me earlier. Der Statistiker (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a quick word about Transport, I'm not really convinced that merging back "national and international transport" with "local transport" is a good idea. I think the divide as edited by ThePromenader is good the way it is. The very nature of both sections are different enough in my humble opinion to justify two different subsections. I would be glad to hear others opinions about it. Metropolitan (talk) 11:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Der Statistiker makes several good points, including the need to shorten the history section. I've tried to address it, not really removing much content of value but at least trying to say things shorter. Some things were repeated in several sections, so then I've removed it from one section but leaving it in another (e.g. the name Lutetia which was explained in detail in two different sections). If you don't agree with my edit, do feel free to revert and change any part of it, it's just a suggestion. I haven't removed any subheading, so part of the problem remains. Not saying this is the final and best version, just an attempt to get it a bit shorter.Jeppiz (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The shortening of the history section with the removal of very important events begins to amount to systematic amputation, which will leave the reader who is trying to learn something about Paris with the impression that nothing happened.

• not even three filled lines for the 17th century (!)
• no reason given for Louis XIV's move to Versailles
• in the 18th century, the removal of the Royal-Allemand's charge on innoncent Sunday strollers in the Tuileries gardens, in favor of keeping the peaceful demonstration place Louis XV: the happening at the Tuileries gardens had much more impact on the population than the dispersing of the demonstration.

I am not going to list all the facts that I feel should be kept because it is a losing battle. However, I will say that this continued indiscriminate removal of important facts for the sake of... what? is turning the history section into a clinically disinfected and sterilized piece.

• The reader who knows about Paris will think that the redactors of the article did not know that much about the subject.
• The reader who came to the article in order to learn something will have learned not much in the end, and will not even have been made curious to know more. So much is being removed that he will not know where to search for events about which he is and will remain ignorant.

Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Blue Indigo, I agree that the writing in the history section is 'clinical'. Not sure I agree with the other points. Most of what I removed was simply meaningless lists of "This king built these streets", "This emperor oversaw gaslights constructed on these streets". I don't think that is of much relevance to Paris as a whole. Likewise, the reasons for Louis XIV moving to Versailles are relevant in the article on Louis XIV, but I'm less sure it's of much relevance for a section in the article on Paris. Remember, we have History of Paris. The idea here is to give a relatively short overview of the most important aspects of Paris's history, not to provide a detailed history of Paris. The reader who comes here to read about Paris history should find the main events and a link to History of Paris.Jeppiz (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Jeppiz. Yes, we do have an article on the history of Paris but, if we are going to have so little here, and to the point of making that history misunderstandable, why bother having that section at all? I agree that we must summarize, but summarizing has to be done in such a way that there is still something left for people who are curious & may then go on to the reading of a more complete article on such or such subject. Also, some events are important because of their impact on the future. For instance, the move of Louis XIV to Versailles, which was a voluntary escape from Paris & its darned Parisians *frondeurs*, had a direct impact on the 1789 revolution when the women from Paris went to Versailles & came back with the royal family. Had Louis XVI's great-great-great...-grand daddy not moved to Versailles, the king would have been closer to its people in Paris. That would not have kept the revolution from happening, but it may not have built that hatred toward the royal family - who knows? Whatever, that move of L.XIV had repercussions. So, I maintain that too much is being removed from the history section.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Good points, and please edit as you see fit. As I wrote, mine was an attempt to shorten a section that most users, apparently, want to see shortened, but (needless to say) anyone if free to change my edit in any way they want. It's definitely not intended to be the final word in any way, just a small effort to help.Jeppiz (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"Most users"? What do you mean by users? Some of the contributors to this page, i.e. this very talk page - about half a dozen persons who, for whatever reason, have decided that the history of Paris should be taboo in an article about Paris, or readers, who may be in the thousands and who have yet to come here and complain about the length of the history section? Readers pick what they like & skip the rest. The history section as it stands now looks bâclée - a botched job and, from what I see happening here, it is & will continue on being impossible to work on it: someone will always come & undo what has been done.

I will not put back what you took away because someone else will remove it. A total waste of time.

All the work done by others this past weekend was removed, which caused another controversy & ended up with the "house arrest" of the one who worked the most.

This article does not need the participation of historians, or professionals in certain fields, it wants executioners, and I do not mean you :)

Although I do not (obviously) agree with you, I thank you for explaining.

Best to you, --Blue Indigo (talk) 02:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Jeppiz (things happen!). There is already a History of Paris article if people want to know the detailed events that happened in Paris. I would be totally against deleting/removing any information from the History of Paris article. The longer the better. But here, it's the "Paris" article, and the history section needs only be a short summary. If this was Paris, Texas, of course we could list all the events that took place in the city, but this is Paris, France, former Lutetia, and the entire length of the article wouldn't be enough to list all the events and important things that happened in this metropolis in the past 21 centuries.
And last but not least, keep in mind that the longer the history section, the less likely people are going to read it entirely. So if you want readers to leave this article with a gist of the Paris history, keep this section as short and synthetic as possible. Only the great historical trends and how they shaped the city, and the world, should be mentioned, with not too many details. For example, a "In the 16th century, Paris suffered from the French Wars of Religion, with notably the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of Protestants in 1572 and the occupation of the city by the Catholic League hardliners leading to the Siege of Paris by King Henry IV in 1590." sentence is better than a lengthy paragraph listing all the many events and horrors that took place in Paris during the 16th century (this is just an example, I haven't checked whether there is currently a lengthy paragraph about that in the history section). Der Statistiker (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Blue Indigo: regarding your comment about the 17th century, I think the "History" section should only mention the following things about the 17th century (structured in one or two sentences highlighting the historical trends, not as a non-contextualized list of events): 1- the demographic recovery of Paris in the early 17th century after the end of the Religious Wars, and construction boom (the city doubled its population and footprint in just 40 years), 2- the Fronde during the minority of Louis XIV, and subsequent departure of the adult king from Paris to Versailles, 3- the destruction of the city walls by Louis XIV (wary of the Parisians), and building of the boulevards that replaced them, which greatly shaped the urban structure of the city. Regarding the French Revolution, it should be described briefly and distantly, in terms of 3 or 4 main events during the Revolution (such as Storming of the Bastille in 1789, insurrection of 10 August 1792 which toppled the monarchy, Thermidorian Reaction in 1794 which ended the active phase of the Revolution, no more). Details such as demonstrators on Place Louis XV or in the Tuileries Gardens are out of place in a synthetic summary of the history of Paris. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Blue Indigo, the 17th century section proposed here is much short, and reads like an outline rather than a history. It shouldn't ignore the reason why the King left Paris, or the major landmarks he built. The section on the French Revolution should also give enough information so that readers who don't know anything about the French Revolution can get a sense of what happened where without having to read another article.

By the way,What is the desired end result of these deletions? What length are you trying to attain? What city article are you using as a model?SiefkinDR (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The desired end result? Saving paper & ink :)

Or writing an article for lazy readers.

Merci Siefkin for expressing your view. --Blue Indigo (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't need to have detailed information in the history of Paris section but just a brief summary. I agree with Der Statistiker, if this section is too long, most people will not read this part, it will likely have the oposite effect that what you want.

I think that London is a good example of how the history section of Paris should be in length and informations. By reading it, I understand better how the city grew, the major change that happened over the centuries. This is pretty much unlike in Paris article where I get many informations about things like when and where was imprisoned Louis XVI but very few about the urban history of Paris. Minato ku (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Blue Indigo : that is why I had proposed to define the less important event to mention. Let say that's Mai 68 (can be other, don't mind), then obviously the riots that made Louis XIV to leave Paris are to be mentioned and then we can had few words to explain he wants his while court in Versaille, with link to specialized article for more details on Louis XIV politic.... v_atekor (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC) btw, that can be also done for the art area. Gothic, Impressionism & surrealism should be obviously mentioned, but then, which movements ? v_atekor (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I read the current art §, I think it is not relevant for Paris article, and should be moved to the France article. Mentioning only French artists (with works not so much linked to the town) while XX's movements heavily related to the town are not mentioned is not relevant at all. Things are much more complex, with imbrications of several arts. Also, this paragraph starts with Renaissance, that is one of the less relevant period for Paris (much more in Vallée de la Loire, for ex...) it do not mention Gothic not surrealism... Nothing about music, sorry for all from Rameau to Boulez & Jolivet, with some very related with Paris as a town, indeed v_atekor (talk) 08:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

For fear of bringing them bad luck, there are a couple of sections I will not mention but which, nonetheless, I predict will fall victims to the scalpel scraping their flesh to the bone. In the end, we are going to be left with an article from which all that is attractive to read will have been removed, leaving the readers to an article filled with numbers, statistics & charts: GDP, tourists, bus stops, metro stations & the price of hotdogs on the Champs Élysées, but (fortunately) so thankful to have learned that Paris, aka Ville lumière, Panam, is inhabited by Parisiens AND Parisiennes called Parigots AND Parigotes (thanks Heaven for little girls!), that their favorite musical pastime is dancing the bourrée and play the accordéon at Sunday bal musette. By the way, the argot explanation of Paris fills one and a half line, just a bit below the not even three of 17th century section. That really shows where our priorities are and will, no doubt, bring this article a golden star.

Readers will also have learned from the Religion section that, since there is no mention of a single Protestant temple, Jewish synagog or Muslim mosque, the extremely religious Parisians, who fill churches on Sundays, are all Catholic.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the religion section. This section is indeed currently crap, to put it politely. I'll add other religions one by one. Yesterday I worked on a text about the Jews of Paris, but it's too long for the article. Perhaps we should create a dedicated Religions in Paris article to put the long stuff. I'm trying to make a very short summary of my Jewish text now, for the Paris article. Summarizing 15 centuries of Parisian Jewish life in 3 or 4 sentences IS hard. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

About religion, that's indeed a good move. It's particularly surprizing to read that Parisians are exclusively Roman Catholics just below an immigration section detailing the diversity of the city. I agree also about the idea of a specific article. The mainstream Paris article isn't the place to detail the History of every single religions in the city so please make it short. Few facts coming to my mind: Paris is the city hosting the largest Jewish community in Europe [8]; as for Islam, I think it would be important to mention that the Mosque of Paris dates back to 1922 and has been built to honor the 70,000 Muslim soldiers dead under the French flag during WW1 [9]. Sorry I don't have much time currently to help, I can only support all of you for your hard work. :) Metropolitan (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Is the history section too long? Comparing French and English pages

Some editors have complained that the history section is much too long, and these editors have made drastic cuts in the history section, It's useful to compare the length of the history sections now in the French and English versions.

Early history- 20 lines in English, 19 in French

Middle Ages - 20 lines in English, 49 in French

Renaissance - 2 lines in English, 15 lines in French,

17th century - 4 lines in English, 15 lines in French

18th century and Revolution -28 lines in English, 49 lines in French

20th century - 42 lines in English, 61 in French.

21st century - 11 lines in English, 4 in French.

Total: 153 lines in English, 245 in French

In all categories except the early history and the 21st century, the English version is now much shorter and less complete French version. The English version has lost much of its information and value because of the recent cuts. Less is not better, it's just less.

Conclusion: There's no justification to keep cutting and cutting the history section. It needs to be strengthened, not cut more.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SiefkinDR (talk • contribs)

The French version's section is too long. But I agree, I don't know why the 17th century section was shortened. Apparently the assassination of the king in Paris isn't notable enough for this article... Rob984 (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The French history section is ridiculously long!! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Bob, shss... Don't you know the rules? No history in the history section: Verboten! Too boring!

The details you are mentioning used to be there with a few more, but we want to cultivate ignorance, and the only reason why the 17th century is shorter is because the others have not been hacked yet.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Rob984, you're more than welcome to add it back. My point is that the history section should not be too long, then few people will bother reading it, this is not History of Paris where you go to read about the history of the city. Comparing to London (a very comparable city), the history section here is much longer, and used to be even longer. Far too much of it, I think, was taken up by just listing which building, which street, which square etc was built when and by whom. It's not very engaging writing and not that relevant for what should be an overview of the main aspects of Parisian history.Jeppiz (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

By all means balance the sections, but removing random segments from each section is vandalism [disruptive]. Rob984 (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect Rob984, please read up on the rules. Removing content to disrupt is vandalism, removing content with the intention of improving the article, based on discussions, and with an explicit statement that anyone is welcome to revert is most certainly not vandalism. What is more, accusing others of vandalism for edits made in good faith is considered a personal attack (WP:NPA) and I suggest you strike it. Also surprised to see you restore a comment that consisted of nothing but snide remarks about other users, not a word on how to improve the article. It certainly violates WP:FORUMJeppiz (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Reckless editing in good faith is disruptive. I'm entitled to my opinion. Policy distinguishes between disruptive editing and vandalism quite specifically, so I'll modify my accusation accordingly. Rob984 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again, you're perfectly free to edit, not to attack other users. Could you please try to comment on the article instead and explain why you feel long lists just saying who build a certain building, street or square is so important it should be in the overview of Parisian history?Jeppiz (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Good morning, Jeppiz. Please, have a cup of coffee, calm down, and enjoy the day. We're all here for the same reason, to improve the article. I think the history section is too short now. London and Paris aren't comparable, because London didn't have the Revolution, Napoleon, the Commune, Haussmann, the Belle Epoque and the German occupation. The French article is a better comparison, since its covering the same territory; it has thirty lines on the Renaissance and 18th Century, while our article has just six, which isn't enough. I think it's important that the article tell something about who built the major landmarks of Paris, and why. They didn't just appear out of nowhere. I know that some people find history boring, but some of us find it really fascinating. best wishes, SiefkinDR (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Other proposal

An other option is to make the history § ... longer, and to merge much of the art and other sections into it, at that is usually done for biography of people, relating both life and work at the same time. That Will result in a much longer chapter, but that won't be a such problem. For each century (or period) we should write about most important event in the city, most important architecture changes (given the fact Paris is a town changes of architecture over the time should be related) and then art & sciences changes. The hard point is to correctly link all the fields of town by the time, we can not separate this fields : political power is generally linked to art. Paris is a town and a political capital then, these fields are often linked. This approach implies to not enter in details of each fields, only mentioning it and the links that exists at each period, otherwise we will write a 3 tomes 290 pages book collection... v_atekor (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Paris has acquired a reputation as the "City of Art" only by the XIX century, before it was Rome (or a disprutive position by the second part of the XVIII with Paris, Rome & Vienna). v_atekor (talk) 09:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear V Atekor,

I think it's a good idea to integrate the architecture section into the history; mentioning the most important buildings and landmarks in each period, and the most important scientific or other cultural developments. It will make the history section a little longer, perhaps as long as the section in the French article, but it will allow the shortening of some other sections. It makes a lot of sense to put landmarks into their historical context. I think other editors who are specialists in history and architecture will also be glad to help Thanks for a good suggestion and have a good day. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It makes a lot of sense to put landmarks into their historical context. No it doesn't, at least not among a history section in which the reader wants to a concise summary of the history not architecture. Do you even have a basic understanding of article structure on here Siefkin as I'm not seeing any evidence of it. Good lord, I can just imagine all the discussion of theatres and stuff in the 18th century history. What a mess!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Then : what is historical, for a city ? wars ? v_atekor (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

History, yes Origins and archeological finds pointing towards evidence, founding and early wars/developments, growth as a town and then you can mention a few thins like citadels or churches etc, prosperity, more wars and government changes etc to World Wars and modern developments as a city. You can't reel off when every building was built in the history and discuss architecture in it as it would end up hugely bloated. The history section was already a decent concise overview. Why Siefkin doesn't gear his efforts into something like Medieval Paris, 18th-century Paris etc where he can write in great deal beats me. There he can mention all the buildings he wants to amid the history. I support his work on history, I think it's good, but he really has some bad ideas on how to improve this Paris article which are frankly worrying.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The first point : If you want to have War-only section, that is not an history section, that is quite larger. Wars are much related to France (Gaulle, Europe... ) than to the town of Paris, governments changes too. There were implications on the city, but Paris act as the capital of France, but much of these event did not pass in Paris because it was Paris itself. There were some (Commune, for ex.). Much of the Revolution events occurred in Versailles & in Provinces (except Bastille day and the return of the king in Paris, that occurred in Paris because it was Paris). Second point : about architecture & art, I am not speaking about describing all monuments date by date, but the main cultural movements (involving architecture) giving the close relation between this moments and the other events. You are speaking about Theater in the XVIII century. Well, le Mariage de Figaro is closely related to Enlightenment, and usually considered as warning signs of the revolution... v_atekor (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Blofeld, goodness, you must be having a bad day to write a message like that. I'm sorry if I worry you. All I really want to achieve is a history section that's well-written, clear, well illustrated, and which gives you in a short space a good idea of how Paris got to be what it is. It should not be, in my view, like a comic book, or an outline, or just a list of links. it should not be six lines that cover both the Renaissance and the 18th century, or, like the London article, one sentence that takes care of both World War I and World War II. It should be a stand-alone, with easy access to more complete articles if you want more. It should be about the same length as the one in the French article, not just a sketch. I think we've already pretty much got it, we just need to stop cutting and chopping so that it n longer makes any sense. I'm welcome your ideas how to do this; I'm sure we can find common ground. Best wishes, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not having a bad day, I just see this article going from bad to worse that's all. I just think you're focusing way too much on this article when the bulk of your good work would be best put into detailed history articles by period of Paris. You've overedited this article over several months as have many others and the fact that it is now at GAR says it all. If you genuinely want to improve it to FA status, just look at how concise articles like Trichy which I contributed to are. We need less in this article, not more.. Detailed discussions about architecture and buildings have no place in history, they belong in a cityscape/landmarks section. At best the history would mention the date that several of the core buildings in Paris like cathedrals or universities were built and that's it. The idea to merge architecture and documenting all of the buildings covered in chrono order in history with details too is a really bad idea which it seemed you were pushing for. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Problems with new History section

The new history section has some real problems. The new shortened and "improved" text has the completion of the Pont Neuf in the wrong century, and for the 17th century, has just four lines. No mention of the Luxembourg Palace, Les Invalides, Place Vendome, Moliere, Comedie Francaise. The London article, given as a model of brevity by one editor above, gives the 17th century 11 lines, and manages to include Shakespeare. You don't have to delete all the history of Paris to make room for more text about Paris today, there is plenty of room for both. Instead of slashing the history and culture, please add more about modern Paris. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 09:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, those are exactly the kind of things I think we should not have in the article. An endless list of which king oversaw the building of Luxembourg Palace, Les Invalides, Place Vendome etc. strikes me, at least, as largely irrelevant. The history section here is already much longer than the history section for London, and on par with Rome although Rome has a much longer history. And worse, it's a boring read, exactly because it's far too much listings of who built what.Jeppiz (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

If you find the history of Paris boring, why don't you edit an article on a different subject? You might be happier.SiefkinDR (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm confident most people are able to tell the difference between finding a topic and finding the writing about an interesting topic boring. Instead of violating WP:FORUM by commenting about other users, how about addressing the actual points I made. Why should the history section include long lists about who built which monument, which square, which street and which building?Jeppiz (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR:, I attempted a slight rewrite of the first passages of the 18th-century/revolution section, but you're working on it so I'll put it here. Just as an example.

Main article: French Revolution

Between 1640 and 1789 (note: why these dates?), Paris grew in population from 400,000 to 600,000. A new boulevard, the Champs-Élysées, was built as far as the Étoile. The Faubourg Saint-Germain on the left bank became the most fashionable aristocratic neighbourhood, while the eastern working-class Faubourg Saint-Antoine became Paris' most densely-populated and boisterous quarter. By the 1720s, the cafés that had began appearing throughout the capital from the late 17th century had become popular meeting places for exchanging opinions and ideas; these were central to Paris' role in the Age of Enlightenment.

Parisian dissatisfaction with the crown turned public meetings into demonstrations, and on the 12 of July 1789, an attempt to disperse a peaceful demonstration at the Place Louis XV (today's place de la Concorde) triggered rioting that marked the onset of the French Revolution. Revolutionaries had occupied the Hôtel de Ville by the next day, and on the 14th of July, they seized the Invalides arsenal and attacked the symbol of crown repression of Parisians, the Bastille prison. A meeting in the Hôtel de Ville on the 15th of July created Paris' first Paris Commune city council and elected Paris' first mayor, the astronomer Jean Sylvain Bailly.

...it leaves the 'particularity of people' out of it, and serves more to outline the general ambiance/effects the event created on the city. Paris' first mayor is 'city-important'. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Goodbye GA - back to GA

Whatever's been going on here since this article got its GA status a little over a year ago [10], it hasn't been an improvement, because this article lost its GA status today. User:Dr. Blofeld suggested putting it back to that state without the "landmarks by district" section (incorporating the one taken from here instead) and working from there (hopefully to FA standards), and I see sense in that. But I wasn't here for the duration, or for the original GA drive for that matter, so I leave it to you to compare that version[11] to this one (History, etc), and let us know what you think. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledge that my version was way off "perfect" and had quite a lot of issues which are obvious to locals needing work, but aside from the sourcing which I was still working on when it passed, at least it was relatively technically sound. I don't want people to be wasting their time editing this and having work reverted, and I even mean Der Statistiker. I'd genuinely like to see this further improve but not done sporadically by multiple people each doing their own thing with little regard to the FA/GA criteria. Concision and quality is of most importance I think. It only needs a very basic history outline Siefkin. You can go into all the details you want in article by period as I suggested. Tim riley knows what he's talking about. We need this to develop to a point where everybody is relatively content with it and its stable. And that's not going to happen in the present environment and why I'm distancing myself from this until something changes. I'd argue if anything that the article needs to be cut considerably and for the outline of Paris to be kept as basic as possible given the size of the city. We already have some sub articles with more detail started. Keep things simple and clean I say.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

OK I've put something similar in User:Dr. Blofeld/Paris with the current cut and write of cityscape which I think is one of the few positive changes to be made but again the sourcing is an absolute shambles and would need sourcing and writing properly before it is restored. I'm open to Der Stat's suggestions for demographics and updates as some of the additions he made to article were decent, but please (Siefkin in particular) compare the paragraphing and sourcing to what we currently have in history.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you guys start working on shortening the history section, instead of reverting to a 'golden age' version of the article that was never golden in the first place anyway? Trying to revert the article to its July 2013 version will only lead to disaster again. PS: I'm also all in favor of shortening the culture section. Both sections are bloated. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Who says the history section has to be shorter? I don't hear any 'goal' arguments, just 'shorter, because other article', and the 'other article' is often about a city not at all like Paris. "It has to be shorter" is just an authoritative-sounding affirmation backed by an empty appeal to popularity and phantom authority... and what if they're copying us ? ; ) But for sure there's no chance of that anymore. In short, there's no indication of anything forward, so of course people are balking. Shorter in favour of what ? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

And GA is 'golden' enough to work with. And if that was 'bad', this article is even worse than that now. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how GA is given, I am sure that it is not on the quality of the information because it would never has had the GA. This was more like a tourist guide than an encyclopedia.

Wikipedia should present Paris on functionnal way (like it does for other cities) and not on heritage like would a tourist guide.

The history section need to be shortened and rewritten. It is too long and we Learn a lot about details like the place where Louis XVI was jailed but few about the urban history of the city. When I speak of urban history, I don't speak of the opening date of some landmarks. Minato ku (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the "functional" part, but the city's history is not to be glossed over, either, and that is a major part of the city's attraction. Oh, and the 'touristy' part is only an opinion, so keep in mind that others have theirs too. But if you want to be clear in your propos, it's best to give an example. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The tourist bias is even worse than an "opinion", it's a WP:POV. Metropolitan (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What's this talk of 'bias'? And why still no outline of intent? What is the goal here? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know where to put this link, here or in the above section, but here will do as well.

Arguing over the length of the history section is still going on and, if I understand, next will be culture, literature, art & whatever makes Paris the unique city that it is.

Comparisons with the article in French are not acceptable as there are two camps here, with the one in favor of less history, culture etc. slowly winning out. What strikes me in that argument is that, by hatching into the history & soon the cultural history & aspect of Paris, we are going to end up with an article so summarized that it will really be a "touristy" article, i.e. purposeless.

Now, if we do not want a French Paris-like article, and before turning this into a monumentless & history-gone Paris, why don't we take a look at the article in deutsche wiki? I don't think it is necessary to know German to understand how our friends across the Rhein have handled the matter - very organized and, in my eyes, maybe closer to what we want to attain.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, I don't think comparison to other articles is very helpful, as if one does one section one way, that probably is intertwined to how the rest of the article is written. A prime example of 'part aping' is in this very article, with museums now in the 'education' section, 'hostpitals' in 'infrastructure', and churches in 'demography'. Well, "just cuz I sez it's good" has a lot to do with it, but you get what I mean.

Before anyone can start working on any individual section, we all have to have an understanding of what the entire article will look like, how the peices will fit together. For now it looks like an aimless pulling in five different directions.

I've already voiced my (totally ignored) opinion on this several times... but perhaps I can sum it up in an analogy (that I already made to you, dear Blue Indigo): Imagine a satellite taking stop-motion photography of the city, one image a year, since prehistory, and watching the resulting 'normal-time' film. We won't be able to see individual details, but we can see that the city is growing, sending out tendrils, growing brighter in places at times, we'll see a flash here or there (revolution, explosion?)... only the most visible/remarkable changes we see in that film would be elaborated here. That movie would look like almost like a living creature, so its lifeblood, circulatory system (and what makes it thrive) could be described as well. Was that too abstract? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Promenader, I really like your analogy and believe that seen from a satellite, Paris would look - and probably does - like a twinkling star.

And, welcome back! --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks; as you can see, I've got my hip waders on ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Repeating my suggestion again: why don't you guys actually WORK on shortening the history section, instead of endlessly debating here? ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Precision: by "shortening" I don't mean deleting things here and there, but summarizing the section by building synthetic sentences that encompass the major events and historical trends. I gave one example above: "In the 16th century, Paris suffered from the French Wars of Religion, with notably the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of Protestants in 1572 and the occupation of the city by the Catholic League hardliners leading to the Siege of Paris by King Henry IV in 1590." One sentence covering 40 years. Only 40 such sentences would be needed to cover 16 centuries. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds more like an (oft-repeated) order than a suggestion. And answering my question would help a lot to give people direction and motivation. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

But, FWIW, I just gave an example of the Enlightenment/Revolution shortened to two paragraphs in an example above. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't help but note that you are three to repeat the same thing again and again and again with no further elaboration. Between you, what is your goal for this article, what do you have in mind? I sense a common agreement, as none of you all are answering any repeated questions about this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The German article is crap!! Most of it is unsourced!♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"Crap" oder Scheiße, sourced oder nicht, it may be interesting to look at the way the Germans have handled their history section.

Their article also got a GA award, just like this article did... which may be saying something about the way awards are awarded.

We may also be better off adopting a more humble attitude toward articles in foreign wikis, as the recent debacle we are still experiencing does not fit with "We're the best" or "Take example on us".

Respectfully, --Blue Indigo (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Although the French "Paris" is much more concise and factual (I can only speak for that version), it is much more "loose" with challengable claims and sources. The readership of most other other-than-english WP is nowhere near that of English wiki, so the quality-control and GA/FA requirements are much less strict. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Mieux vaut lire ça qu'être aveugle ; encore que... @ Promenader : are you joking ? v_atekor (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Explain? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Inviting Comments on new shorter history section

Dear colleagues, As some of our editors have requested, I have made large cuts in the history section, from 161 lines down to 116 lines. That is about 25 percent shorter, and makes it only a little longer than the London page (100 lines) and considerably shorter than the French-language page. I would really welcome the comments and suggestions from other editors about this edit, or if you see important errors or omissions. Wishing you all a good afternoon! SiefkinDR (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this section is now shorter than the history section for New York City, 146 lines), though NYC was only founded in 1624.SiefkinDR (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Again again, don't even bother considering other-article history section length (unless it has a similar history (which would mean that you would have to know that 'other article' history too)) let alone 'comparing' - but you just said this yourself quite nicely: New York is a young city compared to Paris (a toddler, even), and London had many of its historical architecture and monuments ('things to reference') destroyed in several fires. Paris has been unscathed by anything but 'natural' urbanism and the wear of time... and Haussmann ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Paris unscathed? Paris is one of the cities that has suffered the most from destructions. Ok, these destructions were mostly not due to wars, they were due to city (and national) authorities, but they were destructions nonetheless. Of all the churches that existed in Paris in 1789, about three-quarter of them have been wiped out. The vast majority of convents and nunneries have also been wiped out. Several palaces and large mansions have been wiped out (for example the Tuileries Palace). Entire neighborhoods have been wiped out by 19th century urban planners. The Île de la Cité has been almost entirely destroyed. The most ancient part of the Right Bank, from the Seine River to the Rue des Lombards/Rue de la Verrerie was demolished. All the ancient bridges of Paris have been demolished. And the list goes on, and on, and on. Paris today may look "old" because it is made of stones, but it is in fact for the most part a sterile late 19th century urban landscape. The pre-1850, and particulary pre-1789 city is largely gone. No other European city has suffered as much as Paris, except those totally destroyed by wars. Even London has more of its pre-1800 churches still standing than Paris. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

All cities have undergone 'destruction' (that I called 'urbanism') like that. Yes, religious properties were destroyed after the Revolution - thanks for the reminder, that is very worthy of mention. Oh, and the Hôtel de Ville (and other governmental property) burned during the Commune. But obviously Paris is way way way older and better preserved than most of the world's cities, beaten in this by only by ancient cities like Athens or Rome. I really don't understand the long attempt to convince to the contrary - an appeal to ignorance? Sorry, but Paris' 'graceful age' is an appeal to obvious. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There are countless cities in Europe which are older and better preserved than Paris. In fact, from where I come from, Paris looks very very new and eerily devoid of the past, as if it had been erased in the 19th century. Tabula rasa of sorts. Der Statistiker (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

From almost all Europe point of view, Paris is mostly a XIXe-XXe century city, including France. Staying in France, given a period from Roman Empire to XVIIe century you can have examples of better conserved cities. Factually, Paris is one of the better XXe century architecture example in France... If you want Roman examples, better go to Vaison la Romaine, Arles, Nîmes, where you want, but Paris.

Usually, the larger a town is, the worst it is conserved. The key point are not the wars, but the people living and changing the city. People usually want better heating than the Romans, better lighting than the Gothics, cars better than horses. v_atekor (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hehe good points. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR: some quick comments skimming through the current history section:

• There are still too many subsections. 18th and 19th centuries should be merged in one subsection, 20th and 21st centuries should be merged in one subsection. London calls that "Early modern" and "Late modern and contemporary". Berlin calls that "17th to 19th centuries" and "20th to 21st centuries". I prefer the London way.
• There is no certainty the Parisii actually built their city on the Île de la Cité. Archeological evidence point to Nanterre instead. No Gallic remains have ever been discovered on the Île de la Cité. So this should be reworded.
• "gallicised to Lutèce" is a bit ambiguous (since we discuss the Gauls). Better say "a name written Lutèce in modern French"

• "Bishop of the Parisii" should be replaced by "Bishop of Paris". At this time the Parisii didn't exist as a tribe anymore. The place of burial of Saint Denis should also be mentioned, since it is as important to Paris as Westminster Abbey to London.
• In the next paragraph, there needs to be a sentence about Sainte Geneviève, the patron saint of Paris, who organized resistance against the Huns.
• Hugh Capet was more properly "Duke of the Franks" (dux Francorum), and possessed several other counties beside Paris. In fact Hugh Capet spent more time in Orléans than in Paris. Paris was under the authority of his faithful companion Bouchard de Vendôme.
• The royal palace on the Île de la Cité was not new, it was already the site of the palace of the Roman governors in the late Roman Empire. Robert le Pieux added new buildings there in the early 11th century which were still standing in the days of Philip Augustus and St Louis. By the way, it's "Philip Augustus" in English, not "Philippe-Auguste" (there is no coma in French anyway, unless it's a street name).
• "guild" is improper for an organized body of students and professors as far as a know. "Corporation" should be used instead. "Guild" is used for bodies of merchants and craftsmen ("the guild of drapers", etc.)
• The University corporation wasn't formed to train students in theology only. There was also medicine, law, and liberal arts (four faculties in total, "faculty" back in those days meaning what would be called a "department" or "school" in modern American universities). A mention of the 4 nations making up the Université would also be nice here, to reflect the force of attraction of Paris at the time. You have this "excellent" map of the four nations made by a certain Der Statistiker here which you may or may not wish to add on the side of the section to illustrate it.
• a league of WATER merchants (water should be added). The name in French wasn't "hanse parisienne" but "hanse des marchands de l'eau", or "hanse des marchands" in short. It should be mentioned that the office of "provost of the merchants" ("prévôt des marchands"), head of the "hanse des marchands", appeared 1260, after which the "hanse des marchands" became known as "prévôté des marchands", and more and more simply as "la municipalité" ("the municipality"). In Paris there was a Provost of the King, and a Provost of the Merchants. Two different authorities. But this is too detailed for the article. What should be mentioned, however, is that the famous Provost of the Merchants Etienne Marcel bought a house on the Place de Grève in 1357 which became the seat of the municipality and is still today the Paris City Hall (the Medieval house was demolished in the 16th century and replaced by the current Renaissance building, burnt in 1871 and rebuilt in its original style in the 1870s, but much enlarged; all these details in parenthesis shouldn't be mentioned).
• Philip Augustus DID NOT build the 1st city walls of Paris. This is a very big factual error. The city walls built by Philip Augustus were the 3rd city walls (the 1st ones, on the Île de la Cité, were built in the first half of the 4th century; the 2nd ones, on the Right Bank, were built towards the end of 10th and beginning of the 11th centuries). The walls of Philip Augustus, however, were the largest ever built around the city so far, and encompassed the Left Bank, which no previous walls had ever encompassed (although the Saint-Marcel suburb on the Left Bank had its own wall since the 8th century, and the Saint-Germain-des-Prés abbey on the Left Bank also had its own wall since the 870s).
• the sentence "replaced the two wooden bridges over the Seine with stone bridges" is totally factually WRONG. There were only two bridges in Paris back then. The Grand Pont had its pillars built of stone by the grandfather of Philip Augustus, around 1140, but the deck was made of wood. Destroyed by a flood in 1296, long after the death of Philip Augustus, it was then rebuilt entirely out of stones. As for the Petit Pont, it was entirely made of wood, and it is only in 1409-1410, almost 2 centuries after Philip Augustus, that it was rebuilt entirely out of stones (after several floods and destructions of the wooden structure).

This is already long enough, so I'll continue tomorrow. In the meantime, if you could work on these points I've mentioned... Der Statistiker (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Why didn't you just fix them yourself? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm already working on the religion and transport sections, and soon the economy section too. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It took longer to write all that than to fix those simple errors... and your writ is quite belittling. Fixing mistakes is fine, but having a different opinion is quite another matter. By the way, the marchands de l'eau was a river tradesmen/merchant guild; they didn't sell water. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

But just a couple notes on the University, too - it most certainly began with theological roots - the universitas magistrorum et scholarium Parisiensis was a corporation made for the Notre-Dame theology school. What's more, Philippe-Auguste, with his 1200 university edict, made students and teachers subject to ecclesiastical law (and immune to civil law), making them clerics (I don't know when that ended, though). Only theological law was taught until Roman and civil law was authorised by its ecclesiastical leaders, and medecine wasn't authorised until much later. Oh, and there is no factual evidence of the Ste. Génévieve story - Attila did attack Orléans (a more important city at the time), only that is certain.

But for the petit point, the Parisii on the Cité island (but don't forget boats were found at Bercy too), and the first city walls, you are of course right, but there is no need to get all condescending and shouty about it. The rest amounts to nitpicking, and I won't comment about the map. And the merging of the sections is only your desire; it is in no way a necessity, and there are other views already expressed above. And I have yet to see an answer about why the history section 'should be' shorter. Sorry, even shorter, now.

Such a big block of text for a few easily corrected errors doesn't seem to have the errors themselves in mind, especially with that tone. But, FWIW, so Siefkin doesn't see this as an obstacle or dissuasion, I'll correct what needs correcting myself.

BUT, Siefkin, one should be especially careful when writing about things "first" and "origins"... and the opinions on these often vary, too; the Parisii is a good example. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Had an edit conflict with The Promenader whose words express better what I had written, so I am not going to add my lines here.

However, I will express a concern of mine: Sietkin is nobody's "larbin", and suggestions to him should not sound like orders. Instead, we should thank him for taking on the task, and not give him only criticism in return.

Best regards to all, with sincere thanks to Siefkin, --Blue Indigo (talk) 21:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Der Statistiker, for your comments. Now we have a discussion going, rather than some editors simply deleting entire sections which they didn't like, which unfortunately happened rather often in the past. A lot of things in the section are simplified because of demands from some editors that the history article be shorter and shorter (I recall you called my additions "berserk" not long ago), and there's disagreement between sources on some points. but these are good points I will also work on your suggestions and make some fixes.SiefkinDR (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I see you understand me better than the two guys above. I will comment on the rest of the history section later tonight if I have time. Obviously it's only criticism since I'm only discussing what need/should be corrected, not what is already fine. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker, whether we agree or not, I would like you to know that I do appreciate/value your knowledge. We probably should have a link to this talk page as there is a lot to learn about Paris that will never be in any article, but that you laid out so intelligently. I am very serious saying that: I mean it... but you do sound "herrisch" sometimes:) Mit freundlichen Grüßen from one of the two guys above.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Question: What will happen, say, six months from now & probably sooner, when someone totally stranger to this discussion reads the article and, feeling the history section is missing a lot of events, starts doing his own thing with it? It is bound to happen. Will that contributor's edits be reversed?

--Blue Indigo (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

DingDingDingDingDingDingDingDing! - damn good point. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

As to new additions, I suppose it will depend upon what they are; if they really are important, they should stay in. If they're not, we can suggest that they go into the History of Paris or Timeline of Paris articles; or move them there ourselves. Wouldn't that work? SiefkinDR (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Could not there be a problem doing that? It would not bother those who have participated in shortening the article & those of us agreeing to it more or less willingly; however, would not that be interpreted by the new contributor as if he/she is being pushed away from a certain circle who "owns" the article? Are those discussing here a sort of Board of Directors or rather a Board of Censors whose say is the only one acceptable? Do some ten to twenty at the most persons on this page have the given power or the right to discourage or enrage newly-arrived contributors by reverting their work or moving it somewhere else? That is or could be interpreted as dictatorship! Is that allowed in Wikipedia's chart?

--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That's certainly something worth thinking about. In theory any editor who proposes verifiable, neutral and relevant text should have it included, but then you run into the problem of length; the article on Paris could run to hundreds of pages. As Dr. Blofeld suggested, we need more sub-articles, like history of Paris and timeline of Paris; the section in the Paris article will be just a summary of the content of the sub-articles. Also, there's plenty of room for new editors to contribute on subjects which aren't well covered at the moment in the Paris article, such as contemporary music, theater and culture, city government and politics, the environment, new industries, etc..SiefkinDR (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker: Concerning your suggestion that we redo the structure of the history section yet again, and merge the 18th and 19th century and other changes, I'm afraid I'm really against that. The sections now are about the same size and easy to edit and illustrate, and they match the format of the supporting articles on the history of Paris and the Timeline of Paris. I think we need to focus now on the content and not rearrange sections any more. Thanks for your understanding. SiefkinDR (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I avoided looking at the history article beyond the few details mentioned here to let you guys sort it out (without the talk-page burden of 'wordy me' ; ), but now that I have, I am totally against it getting any shorter. I think some context and flow would help a lot with what's left. Is that because of all the cutting? Reason is the leader here, not bullying, and I have yet to see any answer to why the history section should be shorter. I really think you all should stop cutting until the damage can be repaired. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The history section is short enough, maybe even too short in my opinion. Do not cut anymore of it. Caden ^cool 20:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Unless considered a historical & cultural must, and since we are still on the shrinking binge, is it really necessary to preserve this most valuable argot information at the time 90 percent of the history of Paris has been removed? Old-fashioned argot is practically gone from the French language, being replaced by banlieue-originated verlan - thus, what's the purpose in keeping these three lines:

• "Since the mid-19th century, Paris is sometimes also known as Paname ("panam") in Parisian slang.[17]
• Inhabitants are known in English as "Parisians" and in French as Parisiens ([paʁizjɛ̃] ( listen)) and Parisiennes, pejoratively also called Parigots ([paʁiɡo] ( listen)) and Parigotes-.[18]"

Is this earth-shaking information?

Also: while bal musette (mentioned twice), bourrée & accordion are given about five lines, there is no mention of a single concert hall: have salles Pleyel & Gaveau been razed? Chopin is also missing in action.

But, with 170,024 bytes (NYC has 263,683, and no one is complaining), we have surgically removed 100,000 since the beginning of this carnage.

What are we trying to accomplish?

--Blue Indigo (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I've asked that question around, oh, nine times now. Still no reply. I would have waited for an answer before even... whatever. Did you say 'surgically'? ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Blue Indigo: Bal musette, bourrée & accordion are Blofeldian edits from the summer of last year. They should indeed go, as they are just some tired old clichés not representative of today's Paris. "Paname", on the other hand, is a contemporary slang term that is very used and should be mentioned. It's not an old slang word used in 1900 and not anymore today, in which case I would be opposed to have it in the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least the POV in that is clear. The pasttime may no longer exist (and the thought of it does make me cringe), but it and the places where it happened played a big role in giving this city the reputation it has. Are we really to be expected not to make any mention of them, and the fact that some of those places still exist even today, even only for tourists (which itself is worthy of mention)? This explains in a nutshell the "cut the history section" orders being given left and right.

But let's do cut everything historical and popular from the city and area and see what's left: the Montparnasse tower, La Defense and a bunch of statistics standing in a the middle of an aire urbaine that no-one here has ever heard of. That's about what the article looked like when I came here ten years ago. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker! You obviously know Paris very well, and I imagine your French, "argot" & "verlan" to be perfect, but where do you hang out to hear "Paname" a lot? Please read last sentence of the article below:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/livres/2010/09/29/03005-20100929ARTFIG00742-revoir-paname.php

On the other hand, "Lutèce" can also be heard, and even "Soixante-quinze", since Paris is department 75.

Anyway, you do what you want: I was only suggesting the removal of details that seem weird, minor details being kept in an article that has lost so much flesh, while a composer like Chopin, who did most of his composing & concert playing in Paris, the only town where he lived during his adulthood, he was 21 years old when he arrived, died there 18 years later, and was honored with a funeral worthy of a stateman, is left out of the picture. There is not even a link to him & other artists - French or foreigners - who had such an impact: they are removed, no trace left, "disappeared". Where do we look for them when we are not even aware that they existed?

Is this article to be only about statistics? Readers will pick what they want to read and I am pretty sure that most will want to read about history, monuments, even about cafés etc. than spend hours reading about statistics on population, stuff about aire urbaine & other rebarbative language, no matter how well written. On the other hand, economists, bankers, heads of multinationals, politicians, urbanists and the like get their information in last minute-updated publications or directly from the horse's mouth, not from a Wikipedia article whose numbers will be obsolete the day after they have been included in the article.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, Blue Indigo, "Paname" gets 67,100 results on the Skyrock blogs ([12]), and "Panam" gets 30,600 results ([13]). The Skyrock blogs are some of the most youngish, ethnic, 'informal French' blog platforms in France. "Lutèce", on the other hand... gets only 1,840 results on the same blogs ([14]), and "le 75" gets only 1,730 results ([15]). Vox populi, vox dei. ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Chopin can be mentioned in the middle of a sentence in the 19th century/early modern subsection: "In the 19th century, Paris was the focus of artistic and cultural life in Europe, attracting artists from all over Europe such as..., ..., Chopin, ..., ..., etc." Brief and neat. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I've lived here for going on 24 years, and the only (rare) common use of "Paname" I've heard is as an almost derisory ironic adjective used to refer the antiquated quaintness of something in or of the city, but perhaps it is a term commonly used by Parisians who know what an aire urbaine is. Google results turn up exactly what you want them to (the entire point), and an argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy, not an argument (and this is not a debating forum). Perhaps that would seem convincing to someone ignorant about Paris, but I had to interject... and I've seen this "argument" many times before. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker: "Results from Google hits": Thus the new Évangile has spoken! There used to be a time when, upon getting up, the routine was: open the window, stretch up & down touching toes: now, we must turn on our computer & do google hits, getting our brain in tune with the new Parisian linguo. My way of life is not based on google hits, but on mingling with people who speak - French citizens from Paris and the province, both in Paris & in the province - and I maintain that I can go a whole year without hearing "Paname", as well as "Parigot" & "Parigote", on the endangered species list together with the "titi parisien" who has become "un jeune". Outside of Paris, when "provinciaux" speak about their "compatriotes" living in the "capitale", they say "Parisiens", putting their lips a certain way & with a certain accent & tone of voice qui en disent long!. Also, when planning a trip to Paris, you will often hear them say going to "le Soixante-quinze" for business. And, by the way, when in "Panam'", if you run into a Parigot wearing a béret, it probably is an American tourist.

Have a nice Sunday, --Blue Indigo (talk) 08:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@ThePromenader: in your own admission, you live in the 5th arrondissement of Paris, which is one of the most elitist and bourgeois parts of Paris. You probably don't mingle a lot with working-class Parisians, and obviously you're not going to hear "Paname" very often among the stuck-up Latin Quarter/St Germain des Prés crowd of wannabe "intellectuels" and "elites". Der Statistiker (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, and I never dare to leave my bourgoise elitist sanctuary because of those (shudder) commoners.

Hee hee hee 'the idea is funny though ; ) But since you again make it about me: I'd lived in the suburbs and all over the city before I moved here, I'm very into the Belleville music scene (I play bass sometimes), my office is at place de Clichy, and I have clients all over the city. And I love to photograph abandoned factories and I'm a Cataphile. Oh, and I cook, too: there are men who would kill to have a wife like me ; )

Seriously, I don't even know what you're trying at here - why the reality-bending attachment to one word? We both know that what you're saying is not true - "Paname" is almost as antiquated as the history you'd have us remove. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously seriously, did you just call me a "stuck-up elitist wannabe intellectual"? ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Latin Quarter, Belleville, Place Clichy, the Catacombs... yes, the very bobo Paris, not the working-class Paris. Thanks for confirming my impression. Mingle with people at Flandre or Place des Fêtes in the 19th, at Porte de Clignancourt or Marx Dormoy in the 18th, talk with the black people at Gare du Nord, and you'll see Paris can be a very different place. In any case, this discussion is pointless because it is absurd to deny that "Panam(e)" is a very frequently used term today. Just step away from the bobo/elitist crowd and open your eyes: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc., etc. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Belleville = bobo? Kataphile = bobo? Place de Clichy = Bobo? Do your select quarters, where I've never heard that word, either, speak for all of Paris? It's absurd to insist that it is commonly used, and we are two to tell you this. Again, google gives you exactly what you're looking for (cherrypicked examples), and those examples are the ironic use (that even itself invites ridicule) I mentioned earlier. Again, I see a dependance on "foreign ignorance" to get a POV across, although I don't see the point of that POV - it's just a word. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Belleville and Place de Clichy are pretty bobo, it is where the bobo move even if Belleville still retain its working class feel. Cataphile is also pretty bobo or hipsters in my opinion, it is not something that young working class Parisians do.

Anyway non matter who use this term, Paname is still used among people. This is not obsolete and I think that the use of this term is increasing, especially among hipsters and working class youth). When you look the music using the term Paname in the French wikipedia article, many are pretty recent https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paname . Minato ku (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting removing it or anything, just refuting the suggestion that it is commonly used in everyday conversation. I see it mostly in advertising and revue names and titles (probably because "Paris" is over-used). It's no big deal, really, and I don't understand why what I just said wasn't used as an argument. Much ado ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Quality, not quantity

The discussion about the history section (sometimes even about the article as a whole) seems to be a little too hung up on length. It's just my personal opinion, but I don't think quantity (either shorter or longer) is as relevant as the quality of the article. My main issue with the history section was the poor quality of the writing. I think it has become better, but I'm sure it could still be improved. Jeppiz (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jeppiz,

Thanks for your comment. Considering the number of times this section has been deleted, reverted, cut, enlarged, shrunk, slashed, attacked, killed and brought back to life in the last few months, it's amazing that it can be read at all. What surprises me is that there are very few editors who actually are willing to research and to add new material with good sources, and very few who are willing and able to work smoothly with other editors.. There are a lot of strong egos out there, and not so many who know how to work collaboratively. But luckily there are a few who have the gift, and little by little, the article id going to get better. SiefkinDR (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Jeppiz,

No one is going to contribute with the apprehension that their work is going to be discarded, and ridiculed. Getting references takes time & once you write something with sources, but your work is removed because it is adding length to the section you are working on, because an unseen authority has decided what length this particular article should be, then you do something else. Those who work on this article have had the courtesy to bring to the talk page the changes they made or plan on making. Whether we agree with them or not, we owe them a big thank you for their time-consuming contribution.

The ones I have in mind are Siefkin, The Promenader & dear Herr Statistiker.

Regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Urban tissue/Urban function

This article has very little about the city's urban growth, and this is where I began working a couple weeks ago (in an ignored (in light of the latest undiscussed edit-war-imposed restructuring) topic I opened Here and Here). This is the proposition I made: - this is largely a translation from the French article (with updated statistics), and it gives us a clear idea about the city's structure, urban growth and its demographic and socio-economic intertwinement with its suburban urban tissue. But, structured the way the article is, there is no place to put this information. Thoughts on my proposition? I've added a couple sections from here to show how it all fits together[22]. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This section[23] could very well go into the demography section, but I wanted it to be closer-attached to the description of Paris itself - the architecture section here. They are complimentary, and both reference the same areas and same Paris-suburbs urban expansion past its 1860 limits. Urban sociology is pertinent, too, as it describes the overall city socio-economics situation (without too many statistics). Housing was complimentary to this too. In short, I like the clarity of the French article around this [24], and most all of the proposed writ was translated from there. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm just about done with the citations, so without further ado will be adding it later today. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

All of this would fit quite well under an "Urban Geography" section. Therein could be the subsections "Paris and its Suburbs" (translated from French article, almost done), "Urban sociology" (ditto - wealth distribution, housing, etc) and the existing "demographics" section (pure statistics). The French article does all this under a unique "Urbanism" main section, but apparently English-speakers don't understand that word. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox update

commune status = 'Skyscrapercity' total type = 'City'
Skyscrapercity
Country	France
Area 1
• City	105.4 km2 (40.7 sq mi)
• Urban	2,723 km2 (1,051 sq mi)
• Metro	14,518.3 km2 (5,605.5 sq mi)
Population
• City	2,203,817
• Density	21,000/km2 (54,000/sq mi)
• Urban	10,142,983
• Urban density	3,700/km2 (9,600/sq mi)
• Metro	11,769,433
• Metro density	810/km2 (2,100/sq mi)
Time zone	UTC+01:00 (CET)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+02:00 (CEST)
1 French Land Register data, which excludes lakes, ponds, glaciers > 1 km2 (0.386 sq mi or 247 acres) and river estuaries.

default
Country	France
Area 1	105.4 km2 (40.7 sq mi)
• Urban	2,723 km2 (1,051 sq mi)
• Metro	14,518.3 km2 (5,605.5 sq mi)
Population	2,203,817
• Density	21,000/km2 (54,000/sq mi)
• Urban	10,142,983
• Urban density	3,700/km2 (9,600/sq mi)
• Metro	11,769,433
• Metro density	810/km2 (2,100/sq mi)
Time zone	UTC+01:00 (CET)
• Summer (DST)	UTC+02:00 (CEST)
1 French Land Register data, which excludes lakes, ponds, glaciers > 1 km2 (0.386 sq mi or 247 acres) and river estuaries.

I've been working on a template lately (the wiki-wide {{convert}} template so we can convert per-area currency figures - working, yay!), and this drew my attention to the infobox template - its population was pushed way down to the bottom (under the urban/'metro' area population) making it hardly recognisable as Paris' population at all. I'm surprised this problem wasn't noticed.

One of the improvements I made was the ability to show the type of settlement (Paris, for example, is both a commune and a department as well as being a city), but this defaulted to 'total' if no 'settlement type' was presented in other articles (a trifling problem easily fixed with a single update). Yet I saw upon returning today that the contributor who had helped me with my changes (the template is locked and guarded because widely used) had been presented with that 'problem' with a completely incoherent explanation, and with that managed to get the template locked into displaying 'commune' with no other possibility (probably to prevent 'city' from being shown).

After yet further work because of this, the infobox now will display 'population' if the 'settlement type' is other, as Paris is, than a simple commune. This is a problem even more trifling, and other solutions are being worked on (and the 'urgency' shown today is odd (even ironic) in light of the months it spent broken). I'm not pleased with the manipulation that went around that work today, and I expect there will be no further similar attempts. Any further reverting is without cause, so if you have any further suggestions, please state your case clearly. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A couple other changes: The references after the city/unité urbaine/aire urbaine were 'breaking' the template's 'population density' calculation - it was commented there that the dates were 'already noted' (and the date shown was wrong: the numbers represent 2010 population; it was only published the year after (under the title "x area 2010 population")), but this made it impossible to leave a reference in the proper spot. There was room enough to do things correctly. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Meh - reverted save for corrected date, density for all three is a bit overkill. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Updated template so that all opinions and tastes can be satisfied. Defaults to no header and 'commune' as a population indicator. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Update update: numbers will now appear on same line (no title) as "Area" and "Population" if "total type" not provided; "commune status" will show banner if filled, defauts to empty (no banner). Just waiting for some testing and inspections and then c'est bon. (buffing fingernails on shirt) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You LOVE controversies, don't you. This template is about more than just the commune/department of Paris, so it's best not to have any banner below the name "Paris". And the population figures ARE from the 2011 census (which was published not in 2011, but in 2014). Der Statistiker (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Now the problem that still remains with the template is "Land" should be replaced with either "Commune" or "Municipal", and "Population" (the 2nd one) should be be replaced with either "Commune" or "Municipal". As it stands now it's pretty ambiguous. I've asked Frietjes to make those changes 3 times already. If the template wasn't locked I would have made those very simple changes long ago already. Templates didn't use to be locked in the past. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

(looking to previous comment) I just noted that I had just fixed those problems (and provided examples on the template talk page), and they would have been fixed without your intervention, and you seem to be forgetting that you were completely ignoring the population 'squashing' problem (urban/metro population on top). I didn't see any attempt to fix anything anywhere, just demands - and some of those were asking that things be removed or made permanent (not an option) for incoherent reasons.

Well, now if you put nothing at all, you will get exactly what you want, by default. You're welcome ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that my modification has been reverted yet again. Paris is both a commune and department, quite a particular status (and I provided links to both articles there) and I don't see any reason to 'hide' this. My bad for the statistics date - the unité urbaine and aire urbaine are indeed from 2010, though. Apologies. I'll deal with the template when my changes become 'live'. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, we are not going to rehash things indefinitely. This talk page is turning into a soap. I'll repeat for the last time: this infobox is about more than the commune/department of Paris. It is about Paris as a commune/department, Paris as an urban area, and Paris as a metropolitan area (hence the three set of figures in the infobox), so it's best not to have any banner that says commune/department on top. But I'm all in favor, of course, of saying "Commune" or "Municipal" inside the infobox to specify clearly to the attention of the readers that the 105 km² and 2.2 million figures refer to the commune/municipality of Paris. Right now the wording "Land" and "Population" is ambiguous. People see a "land" area figure, and then an "urban" area figure. They can only be confused. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

A simple thank you would be nice - the examples are there just to the right. But I'll answer all the same.

What, still that POV? We've had this discussion thousands of times before. There is a Paris Metropolitan Area article, as well as a Paris urban area one. No, wait, the latter links to the first now (?). Anyhow, this article is about Paris, which is a commune and a department. The suburbs are extensively mentioned here (although not in a very straightforward way), but they are not called "Paris", and we can't pretend they are. The French article doesn't, and there is very good reason why, but perhaps most English wikipedians don't know enough about Paris to know the difference (especially when we invent a familiar use of terms familiar to them to try to sell them this) - I see ignorance taken advantage of a lot here, and there would be no need for bullying and subterfuge if those behaving like this were promoting fact.

Blue Indigo brought up a damn good point - even if those trying to use Wikipedia's popularity to convince the world that "Paris" is "really" a skyscraper-filled metropolis manage to dissuade and bully any contributors daring to touch the article into submission to get their 'message' across, its divorce from reality will always draw people trying to fix it. How long is this to continue? It's been ten years under several names that this has been going on already, isn't that enough? And even when Grand Paris comes about, it still won't be called just "Paris". Enough already. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I haven't see anybody trying to convince the world that Paris is a skyscraper-filled metropolis (even if it does have high-rises and even inside the city limit; so Paris is not a metropolis full of skyscrapers but it is not a metropolis without skyscrapers) and anyway skyscrapers are not the point here. Please stop to use this argument to discredited the editors who don't agree with you, this is ridiculous.

You can't act as if Paris and its suburbs were two different things which have nothing to do with each other, putting a strict border almost as impassable as Berlin wall in your mind. In reality you can't distinguish Paris and its suburbs because many things in Paris city limits can be only explain because Paris has suburbs. If you remove full mention of the suburbs and you can't make a good article about Paris because almost all the current functions and all the modern history of Paris can't be explained without the suburbs. So please, don't act as if the suburbs of Paris were a different world with no relevance in Paris article. Minato ku (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's pretending that the suburbs don't exist - they are largely covered in this article - it's a question of using the correct terminology. There's a certain resistance to that here. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I see flame-wars are flaring up again. There is evidently a very long-standing POV difference here between two individuals or small groups of editors, and what I'm seeing is that neither of the two sides, in all these years, has shown much of a willingness to consider the possibility that the other side might have some point. If that doesn't change, and you guys turn out to be unable to have a rational discussion about this that involves taking the other side seriously, then more blocks will probably be unavoidable. What I suggest is, if you can't let go of this issue, formalize it into an RfC and then stand back from that and let others decide. However, since the core of the disagreement is apparently so abstract and keeps fanning out into various side issues (as seen last year in that fight over the infobox image) that before such an RfC can be run, you people need to narrow down and find a commonly accepted wording about what the actual core point of disagreement is. Can you formulate it as a question? Something like: "Should the scope of this article be treated in such a way that the term "Paris" can only refer to the administrative areas officially so named, with the outer districts only treated loosely as a side issue, or should the scope of the article include the entire city as a geographically defined urban area?" Is that it? I want you to come to an agreement about a mutually accepted formulation of this question, first thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no debate over the scope of the article, but it does try to rear its head from time to time. The exchange above was a misunderstanding of an earlier exchange, and that's quite understandable. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a debate about the scope of the article and this debate has been in Paris Talk page for years. Future Perfect at Sunrise has well resumed the core of the debate, the strict use of administrative city limit or an use of a more metropolitan view for Paris article. The question is right "Should the scope of this article be treated in such a way that the term "Paris" can only refer to the administrative areas officially so named, with the outer districts only treated loosely as a side issue, or should the scope of the article include the entire city as a geographically defined urban area?"

There is an other debate about the function or Heritage, Paris article tends to be more sided on heritage than on functionality of the city. Minato ku (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@Future, "I see flame-wars are flaring up again. There is evidently a very long-standing POV difference here between two individuals or small groups of editors, and what I'm seeing is that neither of the two sides, in all these years, has shown much of a willingness to consider the possibility that the other side might have some point." Not so much POV from my viewpoint as a quality one. Did you take a look at the state of the religion section?? I want to assume good faith with editors on this but the article has without the shadow of a doubt degraded and any decent editor here would agree with me. If the quality of this isn't perked up in the next week or two I will be replacing with User:Dr. Blofeld/Paris 2 ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that quality issue is largely orthogonal to the POV issue I was trying to pinpoint, although there may be an interrelation insofar as the bad blood between the main POV opponents (Promenader and Statistiker) has been preventing them from collaborating more constructively on this (as evidenced in the sections below). What happened to the religion section? As far as I can see, there was a fairly brief but well-cited section at the time of the last GA promotion; by the time of the article protection last month, that had been shortened (don't know why and by whom) to a form that curiously didn't seem to mention any non-Christian religion at all [25]. Then, during the last few days, Statistiker moved that section up under the "demographics" heading and started reworking it; then Promenader decided to re-insert a duplicated new (but shorter) religion section near the place where it had been earlier, under his new "human resources" heading, then Siefkin started expanding both sections with a lot more material, in a well-intentioned attempt at adding more coverage of the non-Christian groups, but much of that material appears to have been unsourced and partly fragmentary (so I would guess what you point out as being sub-standard is probably mainly that); then Statistiker tried to re-merge these sections again (under his "demographics" heading). None of this is immediately related to the POV conflict between Statistiker and Promenader over the narrow or wider scope of the term "Paris", though the inability of these two to come to an agreement about where the section should be is probably fuelled by their old animosity; the presence of uncited stuff seems quite a separate issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it was Metropolitan who moved Religion to Demographics (amongst many other things)[26]. Anyone would say that descriptions of Paris' churches don't belong there, and it was just left like that in spite of discussion about it, so I moved only the part of it not statistics it after a week had passed[27]. 13:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty good summary of what's going on. I appreciate Dr. Blofeld's comments on quality, and I have been adding citations today and and working to make this section more representative and well sourced. most of the information comes directly from the French-language page, so I've been digging up additional sources. It's only been up in its present form for one day, so its not finished. I welcome input and text from other editors.SiefkinDR (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if there was a POV issue, there would be no problem if everything was on the talk page. That is not the case. Discussing POV's is one thing, but ignoring discussion to force a POV by canvassing, reverting or moving another contributor's just-contributed work, edit-warring, bullying and belittling and dissuading and other subterfuges is quite another. The problem here is behaviour, not content. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.: about the religion stuff, this is how I can reconstruct its history (sorry if this is rather long and complex, but it's very illustrative of what's going on this article, and very interesting from a Metawiki point of view; I'm Der Stat by the way, you'll see my signature at the end if you have the courage to read all the paragraphs, lol).

Before Dr. Blofeld started editing the article last year, there was no mention of religion in the article: [28]. Dr. Blofeld then created a dedicated section about religion on July 2, 2013, but it was only an empty section calling for people to fill it: [29]. From what I can see, several editors started to fill this section mostly with a list of Catholic churches in Paris.

On July 4, 2013, User:Nvvchar from India made several edits in the religion section, and added content about non Christian cults, but his edits were merely describing the situation of religion in France at large, not in Paris or even the Paris Region, and the figures he cited referred to France, not Paris: [30]. The same day, Dr. Blofeld rewrote and shortened what Nvvchar had written in that section, but left the figures that referred to France at large and not Paris: [31]. The same day, Nvvchar added more data about other religions, but they again referred to France at large and not Paris (in fact he/she wrote in his/her edits: "data for Paris is not available separately"): [32].

On July 6, 2013, Dr. Blofeld removed the latest figures added by Nvvchar and rewrote Nvvchar's latest edit, but left the earlier figures that came from a nation-wide survey and did not refer to Paris or the Paris Region: [33].

On July 31, 2013, an unregistered IP address from the suburbs of Washington, DC rewrote parts of the religion section, but left the figures untouched: [34]. That same day, the French editor Superzoulou removed the citation from Le Monde that served as a reference for the religion figures (justification: "remove figures that are not about Paris"), but actually left the figures in the article despite the summary of his edit: [35]. 5 days later, Superzoulou realized he had forgotten to actually remove the figures, so he did remove them this time, with this justification: "forgot to remove the figures themselves (not about Paris)" : [36]. In this edit, Superzoulou also deleted one sentence in Dr. Blofeld's rewriting of Nvvchar's last edit which simply named the main religions in Paris without giving exact figures. This is the sentence: "There is a significant population of Muslims in Paris, partly attributed to the many Algerian and Tunisian immigrants who practice Islam, and a sizeable Jewish population, with the Grand Synagogue of Paris being the central location for worship." I do second Superzoulou's removal of a survey with figures that referred to France at large and not Paris proper, but he shouldn't have deleted that one sentence after the survey figures which simply named the main religions in Paris without figures (note, in parenthesis, that this sentence written by Dr. Blofeld on July 6, 2013, contained no reference/footnote at the end).

So on August 5, 2013, after Superzoulou's edit, the religion section stopped mentioning other religions than Catholicism : [37]. From what I can see, nobody bothered to reintroduce the sentence deleted by Superzoulou, and no one added content about the other religions after August 5, 2013.

Then on November 1, 2014, more than a year later, ThePromenader created a "Human resources" section within which he placed the religion section (now downgraded to sub-section of this "Human resources" section): [38]. The next day, Metropolitan, who was already working on a reorganization of the article's sections, and had talked about it on the talk page, proceeded with his reorganization of the sections of the article, and moved the religion subsection from the "Human resources" section to the "Demographics" section, as is the case in many other city articles (see for example London where religion in under demographics): [39].

The same day, ThePromenader contested in this talk page the fact that Metropolitan had placed the religion subsection in the Demographics section. Metropolitan explained his choice, and agreed that this subsection was poorly written and read like a heritage list of monuments, and should be rewritten to explain religions (plural) in Paris: see their two comments here: [40].

My attention to this subsection, which had never really interested me before, was drawn by their comments. I then started to work on that section to add the other religions present in Paris, and give some figures when they are available. So far what I've done is I've added the 1st paragraph of that subsection (see the 1st paragraph in the article, or here and here for the diffs), mentioning the other religions plus the last figures available from the 1872 census, and I'm working on some content for Judaism and Islam, but haven't had time to finish it yet.

On November 8, 2014, ThePromenader moved several subsections of the article to his "Human resources" section that he had created on November 1. ThePromenader gave no justification or summary edit for these moves (although his disapproval of Metropolitan's earlier reorganization of the article's sections was obvious on the talk page, so it's probably the reason for his Nov. 8 edit): [41]. As a result of this edit, he recreated a religion subsection inside his "Human resources" section, where he moved the list of Catholic churches, and left the rest of the religion subsection in the "Demographics" section. The article now had two religion subsections.

SiefkinDR then started to add content in the religion subsection of the "Human resources" section, notably by adding religious buildings from other creeds. On November 9, I remerged the two religion subsections inside the Demographics section, and left the content added by SiefkinDR within it totally intact: [42]. I must point out that I actually didn't know it was ThePromenader who had (re)created the religion section in the "Human resources" section, since his edit contained no edit summary and I don't check each and every edit in this article. In fact, to be honest, I didn't even know this "Human resources" section had been created by ThePromenader until doing this thorough research of the article's history that I've done now to write this. I realized there was a duplicate religion subsection after seeing the several edits made there by SiefkinDR, and that's how I then merged them.

It's fascinating really to check in detail the history of the article and to see the editing processes at work. Lots of different people with different motives and who don't necessarily understand each other, especially when a time lag is involved. What would be REALLY great is if some editors would stop questioning the motivations of other editors (i.e. stop arguing or even thinking that they have evil ulterior motives). Errare humanum est, as the old Latin saying goes. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

FTR, "I think it would be wise to re-arrange the contents. I will probably make a proposal in the upcoming days."[43] was the 'announcement' made on the 29th of October. Reverting a day's work of three contributors, and enforcing that revert, (and pointedly not replacing the work of one), is not a "proposal". There were many propositions already being discussed - all ignored. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to attribute the quote to its owner. I'm not the one who wrote this "I think it would be wise..." sentence or who "reverted a day's work of three contributors". If you make accusations against another editor (which, in parenthesis, is now forbidden), you have to name that editor and not imply that it is me. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a play-by-play drowning of discussion in an interpretation of events ("this is what you should see!") is very helpful: the edits should speak for themselves, if they are ever examined to any depth. What's clear is that versions were forcibly imposed while talk-page discussion was ignored. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No edit comment? Nice try [44].

Also forgotten in the 'synopsis': discussion about this (ignored) had been on the talk-page since more than a week, and the move was discussed and partly approved (save the sports section, now moved out of there because to discussion). On the other hand, the (undiscussed) moving of the 'religion' section back to the demography section where it had already been criticised was roundly and soundly condemned. But there it sits still, as proof that bullying works. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Maintaining peace, calm and respect

As Blue Indigo mentioned above, some very good editors have been reluctant to contribute recently because of the possibility that their hard work would suddenly disappear without explanation because one of the other editors didn't agree with it. A number of us have had the very unpleasant experience of looking at the article one morning and finding that another had deleted our hard and long work, without any explanation or discussion. I think it's important that we show respect to the serious work of all editors.

Therefore I propose that no major deletions (anything beyond deleting vandalism or nonsense) should be made without prior notice on the talk page and giving the possibility of discussion. . Does anyone disagree with this? SiefkinDR (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course, agreed, sir. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

If you want this article to stay the mess it is... with double sections everywhere such as what you did for religion (the second one being way too detailed for a lead article but whatever). It's your choice. Metropolitan (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is a temporary measure because of an unannounced rewrite/revert and another contributor's quickly supporting this by adding content that made it unsuitable anywhere else (even though it was unsuitable where it was moved to). This is exactly the type of 'editing' that Siefkin is referring to. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

@SiefkinDR & Metropolitan: I've merged the two subsections. It may indeed be a bit too long. Perhaps removing the sub-sub-section headlines (Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, etc.) would already save a bit of space. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

...right back to the Demographics section where part of it was moved from, where anyone would say it is misplaced (unless it is just statistics). I pointed this out several times over the past days, but this is ignored; Siefkin and I were even discussing it, and you all were welcome to join the conversation, but you didn't, and to add to it, I'm pointedly not being adressed here. Siefkin expanded the section where it was this morning (meaning that he agreed to its placement), and right away his work is moved to join the first contested move (to "confirm" it), again in ignoring all ongoing discussion and already-voiced contestation. This sort of editing is but disruptive WP:POINT, and is very indicative of WP:OWN, and even WP:BATTLEGROUND, as those tag-team 'enforcements' pointedly defy not only discussion and the already-voiced opinion of other contributors, but logic. This move had everything but article quality in mind. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And how is it that you three always show up at the same time? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Der Statistiker,

I see that you moved the text I had added today fwithout any prior discussion or notice on the talk page. It is about religious activity in France, not about demographics, and I'm not sure that it really belongs in the demographics section. That would have been something to discuss with other editors. The only demographic statistics in the section are more than one hundred years old, and I think they're probably very out of date now.

As to Metropolitan's comments that the text is too long, it's taken from the French Wikipedia Paris article, and it seems to be the basic information one wants to know about religious activity in a city. Again, this would have been something to discuss on this page.

I really wish all editors here would treat the work of other editors with respect, and not make large changes without prior discussion or consolation with their colleagues.SiefkinDR (talk) 17:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Compromises have to be made. It's not entirely demographic (although it's going to become a bit more demographic once you guys leave me time enough to make the edits I was planning to make ;)), but it's better to discuss religion in one section instead of two. That's common sense. So yeah, we have a bit of monuments in the demographic section, but I'll reestablish a balance by adding more... statistical figures (hearing some people shuddering here...). As for the 1872 census, it's the last serious figures we have, and they are interesting to give a historical context (I'll build on it for each single religion with more recent data). Der Statistiker (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no 'hurry' here, there was no need nor call to behave like that, point. Compromise is over content (that's what the talk page is for), not so that discussion-ignoring contributors will stop reverting/maligning/moving other-contributor contributions at their whim. Especially when that contributor just finished working on them. That's disruptive, and look at the result. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Who on earth wrote the demographics section, the religion in particular. It's an absolute shambles. Entire sub sections with just a few stubby unsourced words. If this article isn't whipped into better shape within the next 2 weeks I'll be restoring to July 2013 version without question. Can you all just please STOP making a hash of things until we can decide the best course of action here? It looks to be getting worse, not better. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The editing of this new section on religious life in Paris today had just begun and was there for less than a day when Der Statistiker moved it, without notice, to his own section on demographics. The text here comes from the Website of the Archdiocese of Paris and from the French language article; it is all sourced, but the citations hadn't been added yet when it was seized and moved. This section is not intended to be historical overview of religion in Paris (that would be a good article by itself); it's going to be a brief overview of the religious life and institutions in the city today. I propose that it be moved out of demographics back to where it was.

Der Statistiker, again I would ask that you consult with other editors before, rather than after, you make major changes or move their work.SiefkinDR (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Just move it wherever you see fit, anywhere is better than where it is now. That move was just a WP:POINT tag-team confirmation (or WP:OWN), it didn't at all have the article itself in mind. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The section seems quite less statistic-y than it was before, it could be moved as a whole (and actually be quite informative as a section), but this is up to you: I can comment on any bad behaviour, but we're no tag-team, and this is your call. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need a summary of the religious buildings in Paris divided by religious ? The presentation of the religious buildings could just only be few paragraphs. PS: Panthéon is not a church or a religious building. Minato ku (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, the religion section (save the statistical part that can be merged with the rest of the statistics there) has no place in the demography section. Please remove it from there. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I moved to its own section until it's decided where it's going - anywhere is better than where it was, and I'm not the only one who was complaining about this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Placing of images

Right side vs left side: to pick the right spot for an image, we must pay attention to details in image itself so that it does not look weird.

1. Infrastructure: Metro at rush hour should be placed at the

• left: where it is now, the crowd seems to be pushing right out of the article.

2. Literature: Victor Hugo & Jean-Paul Sartre:

• right: VH should be put back on the right, where he used to be;
• left: JPS should go to the left: right now, he is looking outside the frame of the article.

3. Sports Tour de France, same reason that given for metro crowd & Sartre:

• left: right now it is racing right out of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Indigo (talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

If it makes sense to you, --Blue Indigo (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Juss dew eet! ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks good! ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to hijack your thread, Indigo Blue, to bring up a question raised with Siefkin earlier: What is an 'ideal' image size, does anyone have any clue? The difference between two of my laptops (a difference of ~200px resolution) already makes a difference (as is those vast fields of white left by 'hanging' images and the TOC). I imagine that Wikipedia for mobile devices takes care of this itself, so I'll only worry about 'real' computers here.

I've "schmoozed" (sticking to without really doing it) to an infobox-width-size for righthand images (285px wide) and 450px-wide for horizontal images, and the lefthand images I've made slightly smaller, but have no idea what a 'good' size for that is... the only ideal I've kept in mind is keeping things uniform within a visible section so that things seem 'homogenous' while scrolling through the article. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)