Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris/Archive 1

message: On the French version of this page, structures, the Eiffel Tower and the Tour TDF from Romainville have been moved to a specific category. The main list is called "tallest buildings in Paris" and the other list is called "other structures". It includes three other radidiffusion towers and an industrial chimney which are currently not listed. I think it's better organized this way but in the same time I like to have the Eiffel Tower at the top of the main list since it's after all the symbol of Paris. Anyway, if you read those lines, feel free to post a comment, I don't know what to do. Metropolitan 15:09, 28 March 2006 (CET).
:I don't particularly think we need to do anything about this. Personally, I think a building is a structure is a monument; the only factor we're concerned here is with height. So, no, I don't think that the Towers should be separated from the structures. If you think it is necessary, though, we could change the "Use" column to "Type" and give each building lables like residential, office, tower/monument, etc. so that people who are looking at it will realize that it contains rankings for all types of structures.
::P.S. I plan on helping you translate some articles from the French WP if I ever get around to it! → J@red talk+ ubx  20:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separating structures from buildings ? 

message: Okay, just a quick note here because I've forgotten to explain my edit. The problem about the table display on smaller screen resolution should be, at least partially, solved. The main problem was that metres and feet columns had a fixed width of 7% which was forcing the table to be at a certain size. I've changed this for a fixed width of 45 pixels. The point about having fixed width is simply to make both columns of the same size, which is in my opinion more esthetic knowing that both are about heights. If the problem persists, a solution could always be to completely remove those fixed width. Metropolitan 05:27, 31 March 2006 (CET).
:Thanks. When I tried to make the pictures smaller, I knew it didn't work. I figured it was something with that percent thing, but I didn't know how to fix it. You're right, though, that it does look better with two equally wide columns. (It's also great you added a feet column, too.) It shouldn't pose more problems, I don't think. 
:P.S. What does that (CET) stand for after your timestamp? Everyone else has (UTC) except for you! → J@red talk+ ubx  03:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (CET) means "Current European Time". It stands for the current time in continental western Europe (From Madrid to Warsaw). Anyway, I've never figured out what UTC was... I guess it's about the universal time, but I don't know what's the time difference between Paris time and the Universal time, so I continue to post in CET, even if I know everyone else uses UTC. Anyway, if there's any logic in the timing of your message that means that UTC is -2 compared with Paris. So I'll give it a try to post in UTC. Metropolitan 04:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table display with smaller screen resolution

message: I fixed a wikilink and some minor grammar. Is it possible to change the redlink "Front de Seine" because redlinks don't look good in the intro. Also, in the introduction and the title of the first table, the "Paris, France" could be reduced to just "Paris" as it is the only truly famous Paris (the Hilton girl doesn't count). Otherwise this looks very good, especially as it seems to have taken a little more than a week to set up. Green Giant 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent list 

message: Isn't there an error with the towers in Levallois-Perret? They are listed as located in the "Front de Seine" distrinct. The "Front de Seine" is in the 15th arrondissement of Paris, so this is  very confusing. Is the area of Levallois-Perret where they will be built also called "Front de Seine"? Hardouin 11:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not a mistake as it's located near the banks of the Seine. The district is called "Collange-Front de Seine", I will add the word Collange first in order to disambiguate it from the 15th arr. "Front de Seine". Especially that since the list has been reduced to the Top 50, none of Front de Seine buildings appear anymore (datas are still there but hidden). Metropolitan 12:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twin towers in Levallois-Perret 

message: I don't believe this mention should remain as the criteria to be used could be very subjective. Indeed, there's no official height determining the limit above which a building is considered as a highrise. It could be 90 meters as it could be 20 meters (see high-rise page). Due to the large number of residential towers above 90m in Moscow, the Russian capital city could be considered as having the most highrise in Europe once using that height as a criteria. The limit at 150m may be rather arbitrary, if we would fix it to 200m, than Paris would have only one building as opposed to Frankfurt having four and London having three.  Moscow has no less than 6 towers currently in construction which will be above 200 meters and Madrid has 4. All this to say that it would certainly be preferable to keep it the way it was mentioned before. Metropolitan 12:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I modified Hardouin's statement before reading what you just said. Thbz 13:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention about the city "with the most high-rise buildings in Europe" 

message: I think we should change the title of this article to Tallest buildings and structures in Paris, as the current title gives the impression that the article is all about non-office towers. Compare this with Tall buildings and structures in London and Tallest buildings in New York City. Hardouin 14:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I myself changed it to the current title from the one you now suggest because I thought that saying building and structure in the same title is kind of redundant. I don't care what happenes, but I do think it looks better like this currently. Other comments? → J@red talk+ ubx  14:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is indeed an informative article, but I have one question, and it's one I've brought up before with Metropolitan: Why is this article called "Tallest structures in Paris" when over 60% of the structures it lists are not in Paris itself? Most of this article's information and images were ported from the French version quite accurately titled "Liste_des_plus_hauts_bâtiments_d'Île-de-France - why does this one not follow the same example with the namespace "Tallest structures in the Paris Region"? The "in Paris" is not as accurate as it should be. Any thoughts on this? THEPROMENADER 08:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While true, I honestly think that when someone hears Paris, they think of a more broad trem of city limits: they would include its suburbs (in which most of the buildings are located) and main regions associated with Paris (like La Défense), and even small villages like Versailles. Atleast that's my connotation. Therefore, the need to change the title for this respect doesn't seem right, because of (a) This, (b) The title would be longer any more ambiguous, and (c) the municipalities are already listed on the table. → J@red  12:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother J@red, ThePromenader is POV motivated and is trying to impose his bias ("Paris is the administrative city, period, suburbs are not Paris") all over Wikipedia. Have a look at Talk:Paris where I have given examples of Promenader's bias. And make comments there if you wish to. Hardouin 12:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  La Défense district, having as postal address name "Paris La Défense" is ending a historical perspective starting at the Louvre and continuing through Place de la Concorde, the Champs-Elysées and the Arc de Triomphe. The district is located in the inner ring of Paris suburbs. Should we consider that Big Ben isn't part of London because it's located in the City of Westminster and not in the City of London ? Here is a picture taken from the Arc de Triomphe showing how much La Défense has no link whatsoever with the city proper, I'm ironical on purpose. Metropolitan 13:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I do get your point about common foreigner references and cedex numbers, Metropolitan, but we're talking namespaces here - I'm sure you also got my meaning. Yes, I'm a stickler for this point, but contrary to certain bait-ridden accusations, I am certainly not inventing anything. Paris is unique compared to other major agglomerations (very black and white there) so even there it is difficult to justify through comparisons to other cities ("region of London"? "London Bouroughs"? "Greater London"? These are all official). But my basic question is, and my question itself in a way proves this point: Why does the French namespace for this article have "Île-de-France", yet its English namespace has simply "Paris"? THEPROMENADER 16:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Following Promenader's rigid logic, then the Paris Métro article should be renamed Île-de-France Métro, because the Métro goes beyond the limits of the administrative city and serves many suburbs. And what about renaming Aéroports de Paris into Aéroports d'Île-de-France? Hardouin 17:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What 'logic'? My question is simple - in what way is it not legitimate? THEPROMENADER 14:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change 

message: I noticed some inconsistencies in the tables: some heights listed are roof heights (like Tour Total), but some other heights are structural heights (like Tour Les Poissons). Either way, we need to choose one height and stick to it consistently in the tables. Hardouin 13:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, the official height only includes spires in the case they are fully part of the structure. The antenna at the top of Tour Total is an additional feature which is not part of the structure in itself. As for Tour Les Poissons, I don't know and I should check about it. Metropolitan 14:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Tour Total article, the antenna is mentioned in the infobox as part of the structure height. Hardouin 14:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, I did get your point. That comes from a misnaming in the template. I've renamed the "structure height" into the "total height". This way, there's no ambiguity anymore. To be clear, I'll take examples. The Hôtel Concorde Lafayette has a 53 meters tall antenna on its roof. That means that the total height is of 190m, however, its official height is only of 137m, as the antenna isn't considered as being part of the structure. That's rather logic. On the other side, the Chrysler building has a spire which is fully part of the structure and is considered in its official height. Metropolitan 14:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies 

message: *Arguments for:
**describes this article's content perfectly
**agglomération parisienne is a French term commonly used by public, reference and government, to describe Paris and its suburbs, and the above is a direct translation
*arguments against:
** has no common use in the English language to describe Paris and its surrounding suburbs
** Ungainly?
:: - this one is my personal favourite. THEPROMENADER 08:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paris agglomeration

message: Since there can be no possible factual argument against the incorrectness of this article's former namespace, I have moved it to a correct one. Not only is "Paris region" an official translation of the only administrative area encompassing everything in this article as per Wiki naming conventions, it means also "in and in the area of" to even the layman to such subjects. Thank you for your comprehension. THEPROMENADER 12:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's quite obvious from the discussion above that you are the only one wishing to move the article. Consensus is against the move. Hardouin 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You cannot have consensus on inaccuracy. I will be seeking an administrator's aid in reinstating the article to its proper place. Thanks for making trouble for everyone once again. THEPROMENADER 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, everything was explained above by Metropolitan and I. There's only inaccuracy in your small world, where Paris is only the administrative city proper. In the real world, geographers, demographers, economists, and people in the street use the name Paris in the generic sense of the whole agglomeration. It's beyond me that you want to deny this at all cost. Hardouin 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can 'explain' all you want or put your own opinions in anyone's mouth you like, but the best thing you can accomplish in doing that without reference is make your arguments seem as fact. They aren't. THEPROMENADER 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Since this article is back where it was before, it has been returned to its pre-move state. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last move 

message: Right.  First up, move warring is evil.  Second, a majority of a few is not consensus.  On the other hand, neither is a minority of one.  
So, what is the problem?  The problem is that not all of the buildings listed are apparently in the Paris metroloplitan area.  Is that important?  London can refer to the City of London (approximately one square mile), Inner London or Greater London - or any one of probably half a dozen other administrative constructs.  Redirects are cheap, and the most likely search term is Paris, so I'd suggest a redirect at the ~region location and leave this here, but make the intro more inclusive - it starts off by talking about Paris metropolitan area, which appears to be ambiguous given the existence of this dispute.  I know nothing about the subject, mind, other than form the perspective of a regular traveller to the City of London (my firm is currently opposite The Gherkin and just moving into 25 Canada Square).  Please talk it out among yourselves and come up with some kind of solution that doesn't involve move warring. Just zis Guy you know? 13:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. Actually all the building are in the Paris metro area - but that's not the article title. Paris does not enjoy the naming conventions Greater London has - anything outside Paris is only loosely described as "Paris", and let's just say that the chances of this happening increase with distance and lack of knowledge on the subject. You would not find a tower in Courbevoie under "Paris" in any reference - perhaps "Paris suburbs". I would have no problem at all with the article being called "... in the Paris metropole" because at least that would be accurate. Actually I think that title would make everyone happy. THEPROMENADER 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobody move! This is the [[WP:TINC|Cabal]]! 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support - proposed name is accurate and follows Wiki naming conventions. THEPROMENADER 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Note on the above - A single purpose account most likely another sockpuppet from the usual. The chances of  a user on his first visit landing on this very talk page by accident - and registering to vote in expressing the same arguments in the same language as another contributor? Then returning to no other than the very same page? Really. See below for confirmation. THEPROMENADER 22:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey (Result: Opposed)

message: One-time Wiki contributor (to this vote) User:Yotambien doesn't at all seem unfamiliar with this page or wiki, the "other people think" language is quite familiar, and how would someone just browsing the web for info even know this vote was going on? Chalk my doubting up to the sock-puppetry seen these last days. THEPROMENADER 07:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notions of puppetry

message: La Défense is not in Paris it's in the Hauts-de-Seine and split between joining communes. Only the Green Michelin guide has La Defense in its Parisian edition, you can't cite other people's ignorance as a source ("La Défense in Paris" leads to 12,100 references). It isn't a commune itself either. The list cannot be named with the Paris location as it is not situated in it. Use the département or the region, as do every other list on Wikipédia; List of red polka dot trees in Shropshire. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct naming conventions

message: Proposal made by Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support Well I would, wouldn't I? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discreding other people, that's what you always do. You want to impose your rigid literal administrative reading to all Paris related articles, which goes against both common usage and common sense. If we apply your rigid definitions based solely on administrative borders, then the List of Art Deco buildings in Sydney, which contains many buildings that are not inside the City of Sydney proper, should be renamed List of Art Deco buildings in New South Wales, and the List of people from Los Angeles, which contains many people who do not live in the actual City of Los Angeles (because they live in the cities of Beverly Hills, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Monica, etc.) should be renamed List of famous people in California. Your administrative rigidity is simply absurd, and several people have already told you that. Hardouin 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hardouin, you've done a pretty good job of discrediting yourself. You are again unable to provide even one reference to support your claims. "How other countries are" doesn't make the situation in France any different, so please stop with the blurring arguments and cite some references for once. Otherwise, please drop it. THEPROMENADER 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Promenader, do you ever ask yourself the rationale of your editings on Wikipedia? The actual real name of King Louis XIV was "Louis Dieudonné", yet would it make sense to have his article renamed Louis Dieudonné? The actual real name of Bangkok is "Krung Thep Maha Nakhon", yet would it make sense to rename the article Krung Thep Maha Nakhon? Think about common sense for a change. Hardouin 18:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now you're just being silly. And those references I asked for? Getting any closer? THEPROMENADER 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter move proposal 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support Well I would, wouldn't I? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discreding other people, that's what you always do. You want to impose your rigid literal administrative reading to all Paris related articles, which goes against both common usage and common sense. If we apply your rigid definitions based solely on administrative borders, then the List of Art Deco buildings in Sydney, which contains many buildings that are not inside the City of Sydney proper, should be renamed List of Art Deco buildings in New South Wales, and the List of people from Los Angeles, which contains many people who do not live in the actual City of Los Angeles (because they live in the cities of Beverly Hills, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Monica, etc.) should be renamed List of famous people in California. Your administrative rigidity is simply absurd, and several people have already told you that. Hardouin 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hardouin, you've done a pretty good job of discrediting yourself. You are again unable to provide even one reference to support your claims. "How other countries are" doesn't make the situation in France any different, so please stop with the blurring arguments and cite some references for once. Otherwise, please drop it. THEPROMENADER 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Promenader, do you ever ask yourself the rationale of your editings on Wikipedia? The actual real name of King Louis XIV was "Louis Dieudonné", yet would it make sense to have his article renamed Louis Dieudonné? The actual real name of Bangkok is "Krung Thep Maha Nakhon", yet would it make sense to rename the article Krung Thep Maha Nakhon? Think about common sense for a change. Hardouin 18:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now you're just being silly. And those references I asked for? Getting any closer? THEPROMENADER 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey (Result: No consensus)

message: Another baseless revert, Hardouin? The list was separated by User:Metropolitan because of its present name. If this list should move to a broader and proper namespace it can be joined again. In the meantime, you must respect the work and decision of both User:Metropolitan and myself. And please stop grasping at straws for reasons to revert - to a version that has been proven countless times to be factually incorrect. Such behaviour is nothing but disruptive and shows no respect at all for both fact and other contributors. THEPROMENADER 18:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list was separated by user Metropolitan because of your harassment Promenader, and nothing else. Now your harassment has paid off, and Metropolitan is gone (at least for now), and so he can't even participate in the vote concerning article move above. You should be ashamed. Hardouin 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not your place to put your own desires in other people's actions as reason for your own. My "harrassment" was asking for answers to what is quite obviously untrue affirmations. In the meantime, it was Metropolitan who separated this article and myself who corrected its extensive errors, so you will and can not annhilate this work on your baseless whim alone. Once again, you are ignoring fact, consensus and discussion in favour of your own opinions, and in a rather disruptive and pigheaded manner I might add. THEPROMENADER 18:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the title is full and correct at "List of tallest structures in Paris" because "buildings" are "structures" and the city Paris implies its suburbs. Enough said. → JARED (t)  18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jared. Some common sense is greatly needed here. Like you, I would also favor the simple title "List of tallest buildings in Paris" (i.e. removing the word structure), or removing the word "buildings" and leaving only "structures", either way. The word structure was added in the first place because of the Eiffel Tower, and a few other telecom towers, which some people said were not "buildings" strictly speaking, so we added the word "structures". If people think we can remove either of the two words, let's remove. It will make the title more simple. Hardouin 18:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jared, the city of Paris does not imply its suburbs - where did you get that information? Excuses, but if I'm going to ask Hardouin, I'm going to have to ask you too. Hardouin, collective ignorance does not make fact. But one knowing full well the falsity of his claims does not have this excuse. The issue is "Paris" here, not "structures." This page will be going back to its pre-consensus separated state until consensus is reached, so thank you for respecting this. THEPROMENADER 18:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And those references, Hardouin? Busy looking? THEPROMENADER 18:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Promenader...take a look at the La Défense page's first sentence! It clearly states that it is one of Paris's major business districts! Its not in Paris, but a suburb of it! And yet it is still considered in Paris. And as long as the table shows which town each buiilding is in, that fine enough. → JARED (t)  18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jared, La Défense may belong to Paris, and may even considered to be part of Paris, but that doesn't make it in Paris. Even the EPAD itself will not say that La Défense is "in Paris".  Perhaps one day it will be. May I also remind you that La Défense is far from the only locale spoken of in this article. THEPROMENADER 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm done arguing over such a trivial matter. I'd just like to leave you with the notion that most of the time, when someone speaks of a large city's name, they are referring to the metropolitan area or greater city area as a whole, not just the city proper. Therefore, saying that these buildings are in Paris for the sake of keeping a short title is more than legitimate. → JARED (t)  19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You see, that's the problem with you, you always believe you're right, and therefore you don't accept dissenting opinions. This talk page exemplifies this very well. Hardouin 19:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have fact and reference on my side. Wiki doesn't publish opinions, only fact. Still looking for those references? THEPROMENADER 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  PS: Although you did your best to start one, Hardouin, no need to worry about any revert war tonight: this article's present state only serves to show why it should move. Should the article stay, it will be going back to the version made by User:Metropolitan and myself. Goodnight. THEPROMENADER 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting again?