Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris/Archive 2

message: Does theses building really need two lines in the table ? (rank 6) they have firsts floors in commons so i don't know if we can say they are two buildings (a little bit like a cathedral could have 2 towers). I found strange to see two separates lines for that, specially because they have exactly the same description, with two links to the same article (but it's not a real problem for me :) ) Hervée 09:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hervé, I see your point but the fact is that both towers are independent on most of the structure. This is actually similar to the Deutsche Bank towers in Frankfurt. While Coeur Défense should be considered as a single tower because the two main bodies are linked untill their roof, this isn't the case for Alicante and Chassagne. After all, would you consider the Petronas Twin Towers as a single building knowing that they also share the same basis and that there's even a platform linking both in the middle of their length ? Actually, towers consisting in different bodies are numerous in La Défense: Tour Total, Coeur Défense, Tour Les Poissons, Tour Michelet, Tour Franklin... You see clearly that where it would be dubious to consider all those as several towers, it's more natural with Alicante and Chassagne. Metropolitan 12:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tour Alicante and Tour Chassagne 

message: Because of the strong feelings of both sides - I propose we ask make a request on either Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Mediation Committee for a person who was an active mediator prior to September 5 to review the discussion above and make a determination re concensus similar to a articles for discusssion determination. Reasons:
# The feelings on both sides are strong - need a neutral person to sort things out
# Accusations of sockpuppetry, use of anon IPs etc can stop - the reviewer always takes numbers of edits, etc into account when they review the discussion to make a decision
# Hopefully, provide some closure to this discussion
Thoughts? --Trödel 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trodel, it is far too early to call results. BUT -  I would fully support a mediation. Thank you actually for suggesting it. THEPROMENADER 15:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yet I hesitate to waste more people's time because of the sheer silliness of this debate.  Again, adding "results" is neither a fair or appropriate - the debate/vote is not over, and for one participant to declare it so is both unfair and premature. Let both go on, and call mediation into the existing debate - this would be the wise thing to do. I really don't want to make everyone/anyone go through this once again. One person asking all parties concerned to "cite your facts" would be enough to end this. THEPROMENADER 16:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed - we should give it the total time at least a week from the start - but it would be nice to agree to have an independent reveiw of the discussion. --Trödel 20:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, thanks. By all means, please review away. Time to see whether my stubborn insistence has a base. If not, I'll answer for it. THEPROMENADER 00:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  What I would suggest is that you accept that there is no consensus for a page move, after several attempts, and drop the subject.  Last night there were 35,000 words on this talk page.  Tonight there are getting on for 38,000.  The majority were written by you.  How many people have you convinced?  --ajn (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is impossible to convince anyone who won't verify the fact of anything I write. Why don't we have a look at the fact of the matter and be done with it?  Isn't Wiki supposed to be verifiable? THEPROMENADER 18:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh for heaven's sake.  Not only have you failed to convince anybody that your proposed solution is the right one, as it stands I don't see much evidence that you've persuaded anybody that there is even a problem that requires solving in the first place.  You don't need mediation, there is nothing to mediate.  What you need is to accept that this is one of those cases where pedantry can safely be left to the opening descriptive paragraphs.  The average American can't find France on the map let alone Île-de-France.  Now click Random Article and find something else to clean up.  And if I find one more personal attack from you, you'll find yourself on an enforced wikibreak. Guy 18:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excuse me but this targeting is highly unfair - and inappropriate. There was no personal attack of any kind in anything I wrote, and if anything what you've just written is more condemning of stupidity than anything I've ever advanced. The ado is in the unverifiable resistance - the fact of the matter has been confirmed above, through fact, by contributors both knowledgable and from the region in question. I don't see why you choose to ignore this and target me - and if you'll look at the history, you'll see that I was on a break and that it was not I continuing the discussion. My exasperation is no more exaspertating to anyone than myself - and mediation perhaps will provide an objective look into its cause. THEPROMENADER 19:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking over the case, I'm rather confused about how this name change has erupted into accusations of sockpuppetry, uncivilty, et cetera... I'm going to take the case (I've always loved civilty disputes) but I am unsure as to what the conflict is. Is it mainly over the name change, or has it evolved to be mainly over the civilty issues, or the sockpuppetry? GofG |||  Contribs 00:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Above all, this is an issue about the present title's accuracy - I trust those who have spent so much effort maintaining that it is indeed accurate would willing to continue to do so through mediation. I think the choice of a name is a second step. THEPROMENADER 06:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay. Well, I ask that discussion of the page move on this page stop, along with communication on user talk pages, as it greatly interferes with the mediation. If you have any intention of participating in the mediation, go to the Medcabiation page  and sign up at the space indicated. GofG |||  Contribs 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what this mediation is for. Are you here to decide what the title of the article should be? It has already been decided by a clear majority of editors that it should be the current title (cf. polls above). Other than that, I don't know what's there to mediate. Mediation was asked by ThePromenader because he failed to garner support for his repeated title change demands. That's not what mediation was meant for. Mediation is when there is no consensus and editors cannot agree on something. It wasn't meant to be used by single editors who wish to overturn the consensus of a clear majority. Hardouin 10:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mediation was asked for because of my accusations of bad faith and your incivility and accusations of sock-puppetry. More than a few knowledgeable have indicated the title's inaccuracy based on fact, and this is not to be ignored - mediation will help to seek definition there too. I say stick to fact and save interpretation of motivations for those arbitrating, and this on the mediation page, as asked of us, please. Thank you and see you there. THEPROMENADER 11:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You could do a lot to reduce the temperature here by simply accepting the consensus and moving on.  Guy 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation Suggestion 

message: This made sense to me - but it was reverted. Is there a short explanation of why two lists are not appropriate. It has been said, "a key Wikipdia skill is to persuade succinctly." --Trödel 18:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the list is now a list of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region. Most everyone agreed that the list was better as one, and now that it is in a namespace covering a region bigger than Paris, it no longer has to be split between "Paris" and "outlying communes". I reverted it back to Metropolitan's last pre-split modification (as it was not split by he) - but by all means, arrange things as you see fit. I'm no longer involved from here. THEPROMENADER 19:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  sounds reasonable --Trödel 20:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List for paris seperate from other surrounding communitites