Talk:Paris/Archive 7

message: The first thing that needs to change is the Paris infobox, which is pointless because it serves only one article. I am going to move the information directly into the article until there is consensus on a generic infobox to be used. Green Giant 13:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL - I was working on something of the sort - something resembling the infoboxes present for most every of the world's other major cities. Doesn't matter though - Green Giant, are you on it already? I would love to give a 'graphic touch' to it if I could - nothing heavy, but lightly 'French' - lightly, I said : ) THEPROMENADER 13:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: I stress again that I consider having an entire section of a city infobox dedicated to the development intricacies of its commuter belt qualifies as 'needless'. Most every other city in the world has one line for such info in their respective Wiki articles. Since the Paris agglomeration is a special case compared to other cities (unchanged city borders), I suggest compiling population into three lines in the same cell: city limits, agglomeration and urban area; this will define each quite clearly for what they are and lighten detail overkill. Hey, that reminds me of something... THEPROMENADER 14:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Paris infobox 

message: The infobox 'template' present within the Paris article was imposed without any regard at all for consensus and earlier discussions on the matter. It also anuls the efforts of another contributor to slim it down and make its statistics and information more credible. I do not find it suitable for a 'city' article, as it resembles none other for other 'big city' articles. These have separate pages for much of the info it contains.
This aside, I have one major question concerning the object in question - why does the infobox contain nothing about the Paris agglomeration? I really don't see the logic of jumping directly from the recounting of Paris' population to that within the limits of its... commuter belt. Where is Paris' natural growth in all this? It's as if it doesn't exist. Also, the inclusion of the second box as it is would have the layman believe that these numbers are those of Paris itself - They aren't. One last question: If the argument would be that, with the added info, that the box would be 'too long' (as I seem to have heard before), why is the commuter belt favoured over the agglomeration? This to me is neither logical nor credible. THEPROMENADER 16:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is good that the new template :Template:Large French Cities is being used in Lyon as well as Paris, but it needs to go into more articles and it needs some trimming. The title at the top says Ville de Paris so the infobox should contain information on the City and not the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Area section should be moved to a new Paris metropolitan area page. The City proper and Miscellaneous labels should be removed as well. The population estimates need verifiable references and should not be inserted until the references can be found. The (Ranked 1st) bit should be removed unless a list can be found to back up this. Green Giant 05:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree on all counts - I in fact will begin the Paris metropolitan area page today. I do hope you understand what a chore it will be extracting the information that is to go there from this article - the infobox is simple, but for the rest... well, it should be simple as well, but it will have to be done coherently. There will be much rewriting to do. To a more positive end, since the metropolitan area is simply a statistical unit used only for statistical purposes, this will make its role vis-à-vis French administration and culture very clear (in its article) to all, as well as making room (in this article) for information a greater audience can relate to. THEPROMENADER 11:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I would like to suggest that Image:Ile-de-France jms.png and Image:Paris metropolitan area.gif are redundant, and that the first is the one that should be used in the demographics section.  Thoughts? -- Gnetwerker 06:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the author of the first one - I had originally made it to quell/satisfy misgivings about defining Paris' actual reach so for that it contains even 'metro area' info where none is needed (in the administration section). It's true that as it is, it is redundant. What I had thought to do was eliminate the 'metropolitan area' info and title (along with brown urban growth) as soon as the final 'demographics' plan was complete - this should make two completely different plans. I could do this later on and upload it as a new version for perusal if you like. THEPROMENADER 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust you to make the right decision.  If you want feedback, fine, but don't upload/wait on my account. You know my complaints about the second, busier, graphic. -- Gnetwerker 17:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a question of waiting; more of time. I'd already begun the transformations that account for former criticisms - have yet to finish. I'll leave a word when it's done - tonight or tomorrow I hope. THEPROMENADER 18:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Er, since I moved them side by side, I would be the authour of the 'second' one or the one to the right. As for the 'demographic' plan whose publishing means a simplification of former, I've just completed and uploaded very simple and 'less busy' version that does its best to show urban growth and statistical borders without being too crowded. I suppose I should best ask for an opinion in its section, but just to let you know the updated version is up there. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 20:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ile-de-France images 

message: I'm from Paris but "moi j'suis pas de Paname" as it's said in the record. It's funny, but a little exagerated, isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonray (talk • contribs) 
: Not sure what you mean by 'in the record' - could you elaborate on that please?  Sounds interesting all the same. THEPROMENADER 07:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC
::Pardon my english, it's the little recording in the section "name" (Traditionally, Paris was known as Paname (/panam/) in French slang, but this vulgar appellation is gradually losing favour ("I'm from Paname" (help·info)). ). It's sounds very strange! Only comedians could pronounce like that!
::: LOL! That's the first time I listened to that. Sounds like a very nasal John Wayne : ) THEPROMENADER 20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The guy copied the accent of Maurice Chevalier, and if I remember correctly his intention was to illustrate the fact that "Paname" is an old term of the past losing currency. I think, however, that we should change the sentence and the recording, because I have noticed in recent years that young Parisians are using again the name "Paname". So the name had become old-fashioned, but now it is being revived by the newer generations. Hardouin 10:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moi j'suis d'paname 

message: Hi, I had added a link [1] to a website that has an amazing amount of pictures of all the most important sights (> 900) in Paris.
Now somebody deleted the link and added
< !-- links to official and standard-reference sites only please. -- >
Does everybody agree with this? I believe that if a website shows interesting, related and not yet covered information it should stay there. With this site and its >900 photos you can practically plan your visit and decide in advance which sights you want to visit.
[1] http://rso.mine.nu/gallery2/v/Paris/
: Comment Links such as these are often removed as they tend to be either ad-linked or somehow promotional. While I'm sure there are exceptions, it's less of a gray area to just stick with official/highly notable links. OhNoitsJamieTalk 15:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links to Photos 

message: The Boutiques, Department Stores and Hotels was removed and replaced with an image of some place called 'The channel'.
Why?  Kevin Breitenstein 06:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was vandalism by an anon, now repaired. -- Gnetwerker 16:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boutiques, Department Stores and Hotels section 

message: Before you go and change the infobox, here are some ideas:
Think about who it's for. The info box should contain the basic information so people can glance at it and immediatly know some information. 
The Basic Stuff is the
1. Country
2. Continent
3. Location (Coordinates)
4. Population
5. Total Land area (this includes every bit of Paris!)
6. Climate
7. Time Zone.
I think this is what's needed, then students espically will know the information they need. I know the Paris infobox doesn't have all this, that's why I'm saying it needs this.
: I'm sorry Akid - I didn't see your message down here until just now. This is exactly what the goal is here - instant comprehensibility even for the uninitiated. I hope the newer proposition meets your criteria - you may note that the infobox now contains 'urban spread' info that goes well beyond Paris. Climate - would it be possible to put this in one line, and is it really useful? Please feel free to join the thread above. --THEPROMENADER 06:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The InfoBox 

message: Although the intention was well-intentioned (and many of the points valid), I would suggest l leaving suggestions for comment before leaving lists resembling pre-contrived/already-decided orders. True that some sections could expand; true also that the details of some should better be in other articles, as this has been the direction the article effort has been attempting to take since almost a year now. If you have some spare time on your hands, have a look in the archives for more info to this end. Give us all a chance to decide what's best for this article, please. THEPROMENADER 21:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But to answer a few of your questions:
* Economy has been shortened, if anything, until now
* A good lot of 'Climate' has just been removed
* Demographics statistics are only predictions after 1999, but this will change in a few month's time
...that should about do it for now, non? I do more or less agree with the rest. Please start a new Talkpage setion for this if you please. THEPROMENADER 21:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: np, cool, but by the look/prose of your announcement it just looked as though everthing had already been decided. If you just start a Talkpage section outlining your suggestions others - myself for starters - will surely comment it, and this will give us all a chance - and even spark contributor interest, which this page has sorely been lacking. As for changes, if you see the need for something, there's nothing stopping you from fixing it - your list is pretty lengthy though, so best outline your aims first. Thanks and Goodnight. : ) THEPROMENADER 01:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "To do" list