Talk:Paris/Archive 9

message: It has been brought to my attention that there is a certain level of unrest here. I think that we should work together to resolve it (I believe there is also some mediation underway, and I am not involved with that). May I ask that everyone here (and none of thise is based on claims or comments) remains WP:CIVIL, and if you fear that something could upset someone that you try and make your comment another way. Also, everyone needs to be prepared to comprimise. I also think it would help if when making a claim that we try and cite a relevent source. Remember that everyone here is trying to just improve the articles, and that we should not stand to prevent development. If you are thinking of reverting an edit/making an addition, I think it may help to give a full breakdown here on why each of items were modified, as well as citing sources on the article.
There seems to currently be rather a few areas needing discussion, so please do make comments here. If items have been previously reverted, I think that discussing here will help to make progress. Please however do not just revert edits without involving in discussion.
It may also be helpful to read the french version of this page (if you can read french!) for guidence to clarifing a point if no relevent sources are available. Also remember you can cite a french source if you need to, but it is probably best to try and clarify it or find an english alternative
I hope this helps in some way. Ian¹³/t 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: The current photo accompanying the introduction is interesting, but I don't think it's the most appropriate for the top of the page.  It creates a false impression that the Eiffel Tower is surrounded by skyscrapers and moreover, that it is dwarfed by the Tour Montparnasse.  A photo of the Eiffel Tower alone, or of the Arc de Triomphe, would be preferable in my opinion. Funnyhat 23:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more... the photo also shows La Défense which is not even a part of la "Ville de Paris". (→Netscott) 23:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ach, Netscott... (grin). Let's put the "old standard" back again. THEPROMENADER 13:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Nota: in our past discussions, I did find it amusing to note the length of the lens used for images "proving" that La Défense is "in Paris" - this one has to be at least a 500mm lens : ) THEPROMENADER 13:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why User:Grcampbell wants to subjugate the image you've added ThePromenander for the infobox...but the infobox sure looks pretty ugly as a lead image. For a pleasing esthetic I tried to stack the Eiffel tower image up against it but I was reverted.... got another idea on how to "pretty up" the article? (→Netscott) 17:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like the photo up top as well for esthetic reasons, but do see the informative value of having the infobox first. Depends on what you want - to the point, or pretty. Let's leave the infobox first for now. I would really like to find a TOC solution though. THEPROMENADER 21:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Infoboxes in general go at the top of the articles and is more informative this way. The way that Netscott stacked them ended up with the image being side-by-side with the infobox which was just overkill and looked bad. --Bob 23:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You must be seeing something I'm not - the photo lined up nicely underneath. I assume that you're using IE Windows as a browser? Anyow it's nothing jjjanyone could fix, short of adding an extra styled  around what is supposed to be clearing right... THEPROMENADER 09:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Best not to exaggerate your POV. There are many other photos throughout the article showing La Defense and other parts of the Paris agglomeration. Nothing symbolises Paris any better than the Eiffel tower - that's the only reason it's there - recognition - in addition to the photo's obvious aesthetic value. THEPROMENADER 14:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: We'd best put the Eiffel photo back until you get an answer from User:Thbz. Thanks for your understanding. THEPROMENADER 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My only understanding is that you've been doing your best for months now to hide the reality of a modern world metropolis with more than 11 million inhabitants in the metro area, and instead present a cliché image of small Paris, the touristic central city with only 2 million inhabitants within the Périphérique beltway. You've been aided in this by the occasional "allies" such as User:Netscott or User:Captain scarlet. Each time User:Metropolitan or I have tried to present the reality of a modern metropolis with 11 million people and one of the largest economies in the world, you've branded us as "propagandists", "people with an agenda", or, last but not least, " a couple suburban kids doctoring a few low-traffic high-ignorance pages with the goal of making a city seem big enough so they can pretend they live there" (). Here you're using false pretenses to remove an image of modern Paris showing skyscrapers and dynamism, and replace it with a cliché image of the Eiffel Tower. The goal of Wikipedia is not to propagate quaint clichés, but to enlighten people and present realities that they may not be familiar with. Hardouin 15:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no conspiracy, FairAndBalanced. Your agenda, on the other hand, is very clear. The image is of poor quality, as you have yourself complained on Thbz' talk page - that's it. The fact that it represents your particular POV wasn't even in the question, so leave it be until a better is found. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 16:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, it's good to see the photo changed.  Hardouin, I understand your point, but when you're talking about the FIRST image that people will see when they article, I think it only makes sense to have an image of its most famous landmark.  Naturally, there is room for other photos below. Funnyhat 04:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo at the top 

message: After leaving the article for more than two months, I'd like to head for a final clean-up, another peer review, and finally recommend this article for Featured Article status. Please help! If anyone has any improvement ideas, please add these to the "to do" list. THEPROMENADER 11:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Final?) [[WP:FA|FA]] Drive 

message: There are further historical articles about Paris at the following URL: http://www.oldandsold.com/articles35/paris-1.shtml
These could be useful references. Smithville 02:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further reference articles 

message: Either the information for Paris is wrong, or the information displayed currently for New York City on the tourism section is wrong. The NYC page suggests they have 40 million tourists, whereas Paris claims only 30 million. I don't have time to find out which is accurate but I suggest this is removed or the NYC page is clarified. ny156uk 23:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have 'been bold' and removed the bit I mentioned above, feel free to re-add but we should make sure that this and the NYC articles are not giving out conflicting information. For now left showing annual tourism amount but no longer the claim of 'most viisted'. ny156uk
Paris actually receives 75 million visitors annually.
Correct - Paris receives some 70 million plus visitors - of which 30 million are foreign, that I believe is the distinction. I have no doubt that New York receives 40M but how many are foreign? Would someone be "bold" enough to reinstate that fact? 90.242.28.201 03:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most visited city in the world...= 

message: PARIS NEEDS TO PUT MORE INFO ON THE INTERNET......... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.139.141 (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PARIS 

message: I've read two articles on the BBC News website on a phenomenon amongst Japanese tourists called "Paris Syndrome" (found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6205403.stm and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6197921.stm. I think this might be worthy of mention in the article and possibly a mention of the Parisian attitude to tourists, which I'm sure many people will have experienced! 
--Mouse Nightshirt 19:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I could be a first-hand witness to that phenomenon - my wife's Japanese - but I think your subject proposition, in this rather generalistic article at least, deserves a passing mention at best. As for tourism and Paris' dependance on (and attitude towards) the same, I do agree that a more elaborate mention could be made therein. THEPROMENADER 00:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Paris Syndrome" 

message: ...I've removed another one today that was to a site concerning the city of Paris, but wasn't a reference to any precise additional information. It's hard to draw the line on what is or isn't acceptable for inclusion here - "Paris" is so full of commercial-oriented touristic cruft that once we let one non-information-oriented site come, they all will. So for now the rule is strict strict strict. Yet perhaps there could be some discussion here about what should or shouldnt' be included as an external link. I would think it safest to remain strict. THEPROMENADER 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...after giving the www.metropoleparis.com website a good looking over (I do know it well, but not completely since its early beginnings), it does indeed have tons of information about Paris - but it is not really "reference-style". All the same, I am replacing it for the time being - but am considering dividing the existing into "official" category and "Other English-speaking sites dealing extensively with Paris". The line has to be drawn somewhere (inclusion criteria?) or the article will be literally swamped with linkspam from every tourist-grabbing endeavour selling (something in) the city. THEPROMENADER 00:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ...I would like to add www.bonjourparis.com but am sensitive to your concerns about opening the flood gate. However, after looking at the metropoleparis site it seems BonjourParis.com would be equaly as appropriate. Bonjourparis.com has significant amounts of original content on Paris that would not be available anywhere else. I would be interested in what you think. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Miles202 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I find it hard to believe that nothing happened in Paris between Roman occupation and the 19th century. If there are any experts on Medieval Paris, please pitch in a hand.Just H 18:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing that out - someone removed the entire "middle ages" section! It's back now. THEPROMENADER 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval Paris? 

message: You know, it's pretty &#$%^ maddening when, after leaving the article alone for months in order to give others a go at it (and having the disinterest for this article confirmed), that even the first attempts at shortening and improving the article since months are opposed by a frantic flurry of sock-puppet reverts to a phrasing written by a single Wikipedian months before. This is behaviour both disruptive and uncivil, and should it continue, it will get the attention it deserves. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 14:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Cleanup Opposition 

message: Metropolitan area = aire urbaine (in French)
Urban Area = agglomération (in French)
So:
Paris urban area estimation for 2007 is 10.1 million inh. (so it is UE's largest)
Paris metropolitan area for 2007 is 12 million inh. (so it is UE's second largest after London)
END OF THE STORY PLEASE!!
: This link provides the latest "comparitive source": http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/chifcle_fiche.asp?ref_id=CMPTEF01103&tab_id=18
: ...unless one can find 2007 estimates for Essen (presently #1 in the EU) included in a similar already published comparitive list compiled by a respected demographics organisation, the above is the only reference to date. Wiki contributors shouldn't compile "comparitive essays" of their own - this is Original Research. End of story indeed. THEPROMENADER 12:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metropolitan area ranking 

message: Due to increased ip vandalism, I have made a request to semi-protect this page. STTW (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good move. This page should be in the top half of the "Wiki's most vandalised articles" list. Thanks should go to users such as Atlant for always keeping an eye open... thanks! THEPROMENADER 12:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You know, after months of contribution to this page, I made a point of leaving it to let others have a go at it. Almost all that's changed since is a quite regular many-times-daily vandalism. Is there any reasonable means to counter this? THEPROMENADER 22:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try requesting semi-protection again at WP:RFPP. I'm not an administrator, but after a cursory look at the page history, there's probably enough vandalism to justify it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotect the page 

message: Instead of revert-warring over this, how about a bit of discussion?
I can very well see reason for a hidden TOC, and this is nothing to do with nonexistent 'Wiki standards'. Yet I don't like the idea of having no TOC at all, either. Would it be possible to make a 'reduced TOC' having the 'main subtopics' ( '==Whatever==') only?
I'm divided on this - but would prefer to have a hidden TOC rather than an overly-long one, at least until a better solution is found. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated the hidden TOC until a better solution is found - please continue discussion here. I will be alerting concerned parties about this. THEPROMENADER 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been quite a bit of support for the TOChidden on a number of articles. Editors find that the massive amount of blank space in the lead is distracting and not very esthetically pleasing. People are used to using such a user interface across the web as far as "hidden" content is concerned so I don't really see a problem having the TOC be one click away (no utility is lost at all whatsoever).  01:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I've seen that support, and see sense in it - and do find the present TOC system to be rather half-assed in the bargain. I also see that the 'hidden' TOC is still visible to people using non-javascript non-graphic browsers. But what of making a 'first-level heading only' TOC? This could be even more useful IMHO. Can we look into this, perhaps somewhere else? THEPROMENADER 01:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden TOC 

message: I am new here, and I am not sure I am writing at the right place. But anyway, I have been surprised by the climate data about Paris that seem pretty inaccurate, especially for the winter temperatures. I suggest to replace it with informations from http://www.worldweather.org/062/c00194.htm, like the one used at the page about London, which seem a lot more accurate and precise.
Thank you, and sorry for disturbance.User:Biskui 18:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This section was subject to a lot of vandalism (people changing numbers) so most probably needs some cleaning up. Thanks for the link. What disturbance? You're just as at home here as anywhere in Wikipedia : ) THEPROMENADER 07:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate Data 

message: The article says: "French Land Register data, which excludes lakes, ponds, glaciers > 1 km² (0.386 sq mi or 247 acres) and river estuaries.". The sign ">" means "larger than". So this means that the land register data excludes big lakes. This is not very likely. It is more likely that they exclude small lakes. --Ysangkok 16:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's actually pretty funny : ) Consider it fixed. Thanks! THEPROMENADER 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, we both are wrong - land register data does discount lakes and glaciers larger than a certain size - for the simple reason that neither are land. Luckily someone saw this error and set it straight. THEPROMENADER 07:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in template 

message: I see no reason for the exclusion of the land area of the Bois de Boulogne and the Bois de Vincennes from that of Paris in the factbox's city statistics. They are part of the commune, which has a total area of 105.4 km². Are we to arbitrarily exclude legal parts from other communes also? Backspace 08:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the "with and without 'les bois'" information part of the footnote of the aforementioned factbox? Its authors (myself included) did find the "inhabited space" info more relevent... but of course a modification should/could be made. THEPROMENADER 12:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bois de Boulogne]] and [[Bois de Vincennes]] 

message: With her recent jail sentence Paris Hilton has become more famous than the city of Paris, France. I propose that people searching wikipedia for "Paris" should be sent to Paris Hilton's page instead of this one. Who's with me? Ogeez 19:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris Hilton More Famous 

message: I think this article lacks a -small but important- section on prépas (in Education). (Randomblue)
: Then by all means, please add something about it - ! THEPROMENADER 09:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-schools, universities and grandes écoles, but what about prépa? 

message: Here are two links relating to Paris travel, written by IHT reporters living in Paris.
http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/travel/globespotters/?cat=4
http://blogs.iht.com/tribtalk/travel/globespotters/?p=2
Chrisvnicholson 14:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IHT blog 

message: :It doesn't make sense to spell the word center as "centre". Although this is the way it is spelled in France, this article is written in English. Therefore, the language in which you're communicating dictates the spelling of the word. In other words, if America was being written about in French, it would be spelled as "centre". So, to keep it consistent, when writing about France in English, we would use "center". You cannot use "centre" when writing in French and English. That's not consistent.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.192.176.30 (talk) 02:37, August 23, 2007 (UTC) 
::Centre is BrE, center is AmE. The article should be consistent, either BrE all along or AmE. Squash Racket 09:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article is written in British English - most European articles are written in BrE (as their contributors are often European), as American English is common more to the U.S. than anywhere else. If there is any inconsistency, it should be corrected for sure. THEPROMENADER 09:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: True that the original comment was misguided (not to mention ignorant - "centre" is also U.K. English), but no need for the vitriol. The general trend for Wikipedia seems to be using the form of English "closest to" the article subject - for example: American for American subjects, Canadian English for Canadian subjects, and English for things more European - but all that depends on the consensus created by the article contributors. It is of course essential that a single article be consistant in its use of one language. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English vs. American English 

message: In the "Partner Cities" section Montreal is represented by the flag of Quebec, a province of Canada, while all the other partner cities are denoted by national flags.
Any particular reason?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.112.200.188 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I have changed the flag to the Canadian one. Green Giant 23:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same for Quebec City. done. Mariokempes 04:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor issue 

message: This user seems to be on a one-(wo)man mission to change the Paris article to his/her preferences. On October 4th and 5th, there were eighteen edits made to this article after Thum Fel had made this edit. Then on October 6th, Thum Fel carried out a blind revert, undoing eighteen edits and restoring various spelling mistakes, unnecessary reference-fields, and in particular several images which had replaced perfectly valid earlier images. How do I know this was a blind revert? Compare the two revisions and you will see there is absolutely no difference between them. Normally, I would never object to useful edits made by anyone but all of these edits were made without Thum Fel making a single comment on any talk page or offering even one edit summary. This is despite messages on his/her talkpage explaining how to use edit summaries and asking him/her to utilize the talkpage here. My reason for highlighting this is to ensure nobody misinterprets my action in this edit which basically undid the blind revert. Green Giant 20:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record - blind revert number 2 took place here at 21:51, October 7, 2007. The obvious point is that it seems to be an act of vandalism because Thum Fel is simply ignoring the requests on his/her talkpage. Green Giant 22:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the vandalism of this guy is not limited to the Paris article. Check his/her contributions, you'll see he/she's also botched the Monaco, Nice, Sao Paulo, Barcelona, and couple other articles. This should be notified to the admins some way or another. Keizuko 23:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thum Fel has been reported now. We'll have to wait to wait for an admin now. Green Giant 23:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok dokie. Keizuko 23:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wholesale revert by [[Special:Contributions/Thum Fel|Thum Fel]] ([[User talk:Thum Fel|talk]]) 

message: Please leave any Peer review comments here.
This information didnt help meh at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.4.20 (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review Comments 

message: The French page gives the official name of Paris as Paris. I've removed an (in any case) inaccurate "Vill de Paris" from the city box. If the official name actually is "City of Paris" rather than "Paris," it would be Ville de Paris. -LlywelynII (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Name 

message: In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of 
September 19, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAC. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R. 
*Every statement that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs an inline citation.
Regards, Epbr123 15:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be a good opportunity to initiate some discussion as to the direction being taken by the article's editors. I propose we forget good-article status and work towards featured article status. Green Giant 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Another editor was kind enough to indicate all the phrases that he thought needed sources - I'll see if I can find that somewhere. FA ho! THEPROMENADER 22:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA delisted 

message: I finally managed to dig up the "citations needed" sandbox version of the Paris article generously concocted by User:Zleitzen; all highlighted phrases need sources - many, unfortunately. You can find it here. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks to be the sort of thing this article needs. A lack of sources for potentially controversial statements is the first hurdle that many FA candidates fall down on. Green Giant 11:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA drive 

message: In looking at the past week's edits, I see that User:Thum Fel's reverts are very similar to those made by two anon IP's, and both of these involve the reappearance of overly-detailed texts that were phased out of the article even a year ago. Can anyone confirm what I'm seeing? THEPROMENADER 06:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Thum Fel obviously wants things to look good on "his" monitor. On mine (1680 x1050px) the photos are miniscule. Compromise on this at least? THEPROMENADER 18:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The compromise I think is what User:Med has done by removing the pixel field from the images. The problem is Thum Fel has only one response to any attempt to talk with her/him --> "You is crazy you wants to help or to make vandalism? you change the article of the city of Paris the all minute its article this exquisite the page is also with many photos!". Anyway, irrespective of Thum Fel's numerous small edits, I have managed to fix the references so they all display the author and there are no 's as well as correcting some spelling errors. Green Giant 20:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is going on here? 

message: I think, at its origins, this article was written in British English, also to reflect its European origins... and, by what I can see, a large part of it still is. Can we stick to this format please for sake of consistency? THEPROMENADER 14:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I had the impression that the article waz more American-spellingamatized than British-spellingismed. However, there iz no particularly good reazon that American spelling shud be uzed in this article. I have therefore reverted myzelf and reztored the editz by Uzer:Swedish Fuzilier. Green Giant 15:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ssomeone wass making a great effort to "Paris's(s)" this article (instead of Paris'), but asside from that I didn't ssee much movement in the language department. Thankss all the ssame for bringing back all those essess and uus : ) THEPROMENADER 18:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree we should use British English e.g. colour, pavement, metre, of which many of the origins come from old french languages or more french languages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.200.23 (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Internal consistancy is good, but apart from articles about various members of the Commonwealth, there is seldom any good reason to use British variant spellings. Apart from petty nationalism, if the posters above were genuine in their rationale, American English is actually much closer to middle English, which was the English heavily influenced by Norman French. -LlywelynII (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In your *humble* opinion of course? ~ Brother William (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American vs. British English 

message: Although it uglifies the article, I've added begun to add "citation needed" tags to all the phrases needing at least some sort of references - the selection/targeting of phrases needing citations was generously provided by User:Zleitzen, and you can find the original page on his talk page here. Cheers. Although ugly I hope that integratrating these tags will make improving this article easier, and provide a motivation to do so - it would be nice that, after all this time, that an article of this importance get closer to its much-deserved FA status. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: The statues of liberty cited in the monuments and landmarks section points to the wrong artical. The statues that are being referenced are found in the Ile des Cygnes, and Jardin du Luxembro. I wasn't sure where it should link to, maybe the artical Replicas of the Statue of Liberty, the replica section of the statue of liberty page, or the ile des cygnes park.
TwistedWeasel (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Green Giant (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monuments 

message: Here's a nice photograph of coins of the Parisii. Could someone introduce it in the article in the first paragraph on History? Thank you. PHG (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parisii coins 

message: Why does it not include subsections? How'd that happen? --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The table of contents with subsections is far too long - so we cut it short using a template. Much better this way - trust me! Cheers, THEPROMENADER 06:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents 

message: The previous precipitation data from MSN was not accurate. I replaced it with the information from this Paris-Paris-Paris.com tourist site. Certainly, there are probably better choices for information, but I could not find many other sources that did a month by month background and felt the figures were accurate, so it works. If someone can find a better source, please use that, but realize that news sources are not always accurate. The precipitation figures given by MSN showed that Paris receives less precipitation than Phoenix, Arizona, a pretty doubtful claim. Vertigo700 (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed faulty climate stats. 

message: The Two SISTER CITIES of Paris, as defined by Sister Cities International, are:
1) Chicago, Illinois
2) Washington, District of Columbia
http://www.sister-cities.org/icrc/directory/Europe/France/index
Eddiecougar182 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The website you point to shows world cities' affiliations with US cities only. In the case of Paris, they listed the two US cities that are actually "partners" (not sister cities per se). I'm not sure there is any real difference other than a symbolic gesture, but Rome is Paris' only "sister" city and vice-versa.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.177.23 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sister Cities Section is Incorrect! Edit Needed! 

message: Good lord, here we go again. Hardouin, stop it with your incivil 'reverting for the sake of reverting' attacks that follow my most every edit by only a few hours. You're making any editing at all here a real headache. All the same, let me once again make this clear to you and all:
"The city of Paris, within its administrative limits, covers an area much smaller than the urban area of which it is the core."
...suggests that the City of Paris is bigger than its administrative limits. It isn't. Not to mention the grammar is downright clunky.
"The city of Paris covers an area much smaller than the urban area of which it is the core."
...how isn't this clearer? No more vague allusions to an unmentioned "something more". What's more, Paris' demography is quite clearly described in even the sentence following:
"At present, Paris' real urbanisation, defined by the pôle urbain (urban area) statistical area, covers 2,723 km² (1,051.4 sq mi),[31], or an area about 26 times larger than the city itself."
...making redundant the phrase removed. My edit was simple, but once again the same revert-bully is back to blow all out of proportion. For the principle, it would seem. The target of your reverting makes your agenda quite clear - Grow up.
THEPROMENADER 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You just don't fucking care, do you? If you're not going to edit seriously, find another occupation; you're wasting everyone's time. Get real. THEPROMENADER 05:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, the concerned section is the demography sub-section. "Paris" alone may be ambiguous to the uninformed foreigner, but "City of Paris" is a precise and well-defined entity, as would be "Paris agglomeration" or "Paris urban area". The whole point here is to avoid any ambiguity or 'interpretation' - there's no need to use vague or suggestive terms where they are not needed, especially when they remain unexplained, or are rendered redundant in later explanations as is the case here. Again, much ado about a much ado about nothing situation - brought about by the same party. You don't see a pattern here? THEPROMENADER 09:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "city" in English is polysemous. I added the bit "within its administrative limits" to clarify the sentence, but Promenader insists on deleting this, yet he pretends (above) that he wants to avoid ambiguity. This is self-contradicting. Don't you have better things to do than remove the edits of fellow editors, Monsieur Promenader? Hardouin (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, can it with the bullshit premises; we're not buying it. The "City of Paris" is an entity with a very clear definition and limits - and it was actually you, dear Hardouin, who inisisted on the capitalisation of "City" for this very reason. The bit of text removed serves absolutely no informational purpose - instead, it even clouds the real demographical makeup of the region, as it instills doubt about the real extent of Paris' limits. For the time being, any territory we can call 'Paris' extends no further than its administrative limits, so can it with the suggestive rhetoric targeted to the ignorant. THEPROMENADER 06:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't we edit even one phrase without [[User:Hardouin]] reverting it? Or is it something personal? 

message: The coodinates given for the link at the top right of the page (50°N 2°W) are not the coordinates for Paris. I would suggest making them consistent with the coordinates given further down the right column under the map (48°52′N 2°20′E). The coordinates page that the link brings up should reflect the change as well. I would make the change myself but can't see how to do it - if someone can tell me how I'll take care of it.
Thank you,
F2q100 (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top coordinates link 

message: There was a minor mistake made in the economy section of the article. Paris, we are told, has Europe's largest GDP figures. However, the figures given, while actually correct, are considerably lower than London's figures. This would mean that London ranks higher than Paris.
I have already corrected this mistake, and kindly request that no-one attempts to alter it again.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.22.220 (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the only mistake there. All the same, this 'bigger than' tit for tat between London and Paris has been going on for years now, all because there is to date no feasable means to make an effective comparison between the two: each have differing (in both size and definition) jurisdictional limits within each government collects/presents their respective socio-economic data. Although many private organisations have tried to compare the two cities, each has their own method of 'estimation' (only 'interpreted' from the same differing government methods) - thus any 'city economy' can be proclaimed "first" depending on the sources 'chosen'. This game is childish and should stop. THEPROMENADER 18:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economy section - mistake 

message: This article is very poorly written and is insultingly written from an ANGLOCENTRIC point of view and URGENTLY requires cleanup!  The insulting and backwards spelling and phases of this article need to be re-written in CORRECT standard, clear American English (the international language + this is an American web site!)Rednath (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're correct about the need for American spellings (see above,) phrasing it this way is counterproductive at best and makes you sound like a British troll at worst. Please let's do try to be more civil with our friends across the Pond. I'd imagine they do go to Paris more often than we do, and there's no Britlish Wikipedia for them to use yet. -LlywelynII (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the language of this European article needs cleaning, but save the 'American' rhetoric - this is an international English website, not an American one. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: And for my part, I fail to see how this French article stands in any relation to British dialect English (by which presumably you mean the RP part, which is rapidly losing its native ground to Estuary.) International web English is American. Have a nice day. -LlywelynII (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bull. If *International English* is American then why are there so many variants listed even on computer installation software? Australian English, Canadian English, New Zealand English, etc. etc. Even US English doesn't have a consistent dialect. There is no standard International version of English that everyone agrees on. As for your spurious claim that American English is closer to Middle English and then somehow makes the leap to Norman French as some sort of justification for it being the preferred spelling of choice, care to cite some references for any of these claims? And what the hell is a British dialect? I think at last count there was around 20 varieties of *English* dialect, which of course doesn't include Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland - all of which are part of Britain. ~ Brother William (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text:  Ditto. Keeping it simple, any claim that 'international English' "is" anything remains just that - a bullying claim. Also, just because a majority of any given web pages use one language or another doesn't mean we all have to change. Trying to impose this on British English is just as silly as trying to get Indian-language web-pages to switch to English just because English is the majority. Get real! THEPROMENADER 09:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  "insulting and backwards spelling"? Boy, some people are easily offended indeed. Rama (talk) 07:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged for Clean-up / needed URGENTLY 

message: The figure for city proper population under statistics appears as 3.2 million inhabitants.  That contradicts what the intro states and to my knowledge Paris city-proper has had ~ 2 million for a while now.  The figure in the intro must match the statistics section and it seems to me that the 2.2 million figure in the intro is closer to the reality than the 3.2 figure in the statistics section.  If someone more knowledgable in this issue does not fix it within 2 weeks I will lower the fiture to match the more realistic intro.  Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eb1052 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone check the population figure of 3.2 million under statistics ASAP, please 

message: About El Greco cancellation : I responded to the to-do-list “Better, better placed photos”, and actually, I think this article deserves better illustrations. Maybe it’s not perfect, but it takes time to collect good, appropriate and authorized photographs. So if there is a problem with these - or some of these -, can you argue, we'll find a compromise. Thank you. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You added too many pictures. This is not a tourist guide. I'm removing those that aren't needed. El Greco(talk) 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new photographs 

message: The opening line of the second paragraph of this section - "Other authors consider that the name..." - is ambiguous in that no prior mention of authors suggesting the first etymology has been made.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason McConnell-Leech (talk • contribs) 06:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: IS SO COOL :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.255.162 (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alliferrr ? 

message: Since this page cannot be edited, I would like to ask the Wikipedia managers if they could change the land area of Paris from 87 km² to 105 km². This is because the Bois de Boulogne and the Bois de Vincennes have been part of the city since the 1930s !! Ages !
The land area of the purely urban area + the two Bois make it 105 km² instead of 87.
These 2 Bois ("Woods") are part of Paris, just like Hyde Park in London, or Central Park in NYC, and so should be counted in.
(Believe me, I am French, I know what I'm talking about)
Thank you  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.159.59 (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris' land area 

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.93.112 (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Headline text''hello me like paris 

message: The location on the map is bad, Paris is too in the West on the map. Compare with the good location on French Wikipédia. GabrieL (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: After having seen once on a CNN map the French city of *Toulouse* located in Poland... ce n'est pas très grave!  At least, it is shown on the Seine River, not on the Loire.  Frania W. (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: The coordinates that were on the page had Paris in the Eastern Pyrenees, which obviously it isn't. I'm removing them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.75.175 (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate are wrong 

message: Someone thinks that in the list displayed on the website linked to reference 4, Paris is not the largest metro area in the Eurozone. If you're trying to make the point that London is bigger, bare in mind Britain isn't in the Eurozone (meaning the countries that use the Euro). Please change this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.240.223 (talk) 03:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 4 - not in citation given? 

message: "Paris (pronounced /ˈpærɪs/ or /ˈpɛrəs/ in English;  [paʁi] (help·info) in French) is the capital of France and the country's largest city" =>
Paris is not the largest city in France : it is Arles.
: When we speak of largest it is population wise.
: Infact it geographic size Arles is not even the largest commune of France, it is Maripasoula.
: Minato ku (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  A simple change of ambiguous "largest" to "most populated" removes all room for confusion. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake 

message: In regards to Paris’ cultural history, Paris’ role in the emergence of haute couture and continuing influence in the fashion industry should not be overlooked. Paris has consistently been one of the cities at the forefront of the industry, and boasts a long list of elite, successful, and renowned fashion houses that continue to dominate the industry. Paris’ role in the fashion industry is further demonstrated by fashion week and the highly anticipated events surrounding it. The French fashion houses that are showcased during this time, raise the creative bar for the upcoming season and also set trends that are mirrored in the designs of less prestigious fashion houses.
	While Paris’ fashion industry may not be the top source of commerce in Paris, it is still a very important presence in Parisian society, culture, economy, and history. The continued popularity and success of fashion houses such as Hermes, Chanel, Lanvin, Louis Vuitton, and Christian Dior provide a strong indicator that the fashion industry is a subject that should not be neglected from Paris’ Wikipedia entry.
(knr)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireader789 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris' Role in the Fashion Industry 

message: In the article, it says that paris covers 35 square miles, but citation is needed. There are numerous websites corroborating that claim.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by V97 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is simple to measure it using google maps.. 89.88.54.84 (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place where citation is needed 

message: The statement "the Paris urban agglomeration ... is fifth in the world's list of cities by GDP" is not backed up by the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP) which appears to show it as sixth. Before I change the text, is anyone aware of an appropriate alternative source showing fifth to be correct?
Tim211010 (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (Holding head in hands) This is only the hundredth time this has come up. The text you are citing is based on a "study" by PricewaterHouseCoopers chosen for its "comparison" of world agglomorations, possibly even because it is favourable to Paris over other studies. I quotated "study" not only because it is a study and not a source, but because the document in question does not cite its sources, and does not contain any mention of how it came up with its numbers: Economical data in France is collected along its administrative boundries - communes, departements and regions - so I don't see how one can pull economic numbers from an "urban area" that is only a demographic statistic (that changes every year) in France. But make any changes you like. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I just visited your link and noticed that the entire article has been rewritten around the PriceWaterhouseCoopers study in question - this is misleading if it is not mentioned in the title. But that is a problem for there, not for here. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

text: not my link! Looking at this more carefully, the linked page shows Paris sixth but the citation (ie the PWC study) as fifth. Clearly ephemeral data and likely to change regularly, but presumably a sufficient source. If so, the answer would seem to me to remove the link to the relevant page, but leave the text and citation as is. Does that make sense? Tim211010 (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake or incorrect source 

message: Here's a nice image of the International Space Station flying over the city lights of Paris, if you guys fancy using it. :-) :File:ISS over Paris.jpg Colds7ream (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISS over Paris 

message: Too much importance is given to the 19th, 20th and 21rst centuries compared to the previous times... seems like all the interesting stuff only happened then... how can the 21rst century section be as long as the 20th, and longer than the "middle ages to 19th century" section? It just seems strange. Also, according to the article, nothing happened from 500 to 1348... True that other towns were chosen as capitals during that time, I guess not much happened, but off the top of my head I can think of the viking siege of Paris in the 9th century.Munin75 (talk) 07:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most articles have the opposite problem. Too much is said about the current events & not enough about the past. Paristowhere (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly what Munin75 said, a lot about Paris since the 19th century (recent history as far as Paris is concerned), but very little about its rich old history, i.e. there is a void between the 6th & 14th centuries. --Frania W. (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a section missing! I did a lot in that section around a year ago, I'll see if I can find it. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

text:  I added a section (revised) gleaned from an earlier version. Hope that helps. THEPROMENADER 09:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Paris 

message: there are an estimated 3 million north african arabs,400,000 chinese, 100,000 east asian  indians and 50,000 blacks in the paris region of ile de france.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.233.228 (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  demographics 

message: An important section missing is Crime. Where are the no-go areas? Where should a Tourist not go during night-time?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.53.44 (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crime 

message: I can find no references about this 'bi-anual' rainstorm. Can someone cite references? Else I'll remove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmind (talk • contribs) 17:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, I don't think it's very important for the main article, anyhow. THEPROMENADER 11:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  God's tears 

message: Paris#Climate says "cold waves brought repeated heavy snowfall (15 in 2010)". 15 what? 15 times? 15 days? 15 centimeters? Art LaPella (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 15 cm (in fact 15 cm in the field area around Paris and 5 to 10 cm in Paris)--IP 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  15 what? 

message: The Paris article, toward the top of the page, clearly states it is the most popular tourist destination in the world. However, the London article states that London is the most visited city in the world, again at the top of the page.
This needs to be changed - Paris can't be the most popular destination, if London is the most visited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.255.246 (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris V London 

message: English:
*"Enrolling in primary school." - Refers to information in English, French, Spanish, Russian, Turkish, Chinese, and Arabic
*"Protecting mother and child." - Refers to information in English, French, Spanish, Russian, Turkish, Chinese, and Arabic
Multi:
*"Directory of early childhood programs." - Has info in French, English, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese, and Turkish
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages of Paris school documents 

message: This section reads more like a political opinion than an presentation of facts. It needs neutral wording, at least one more independent reference, and some statistical data to back up the statements. It's an important topic in recent events. Thalassicus01 (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  After reading the section, I don't understand.  Long-undiscussed topic, but I would like to know more about what's wrong with it.  Particular sentences that are bad, that sort of thing.  i kan reed (talk) 02:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intercommunality 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests March 2011
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Par Arr.jpg Nominated for Deletion 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Stade de France 2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion 

message: I`d like to add the line
|population_demonym  = Parisian
in the infobox, but it doesn`t show up in the preview. Can anybody help me with that? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demonym 

message: Apologize, I didn't see your source (USA Today) for the 70 million visitors. This statistics seemed disproportionate according to official and detailed statistics, indeed : the article is not very clear but this number concerns only Paris attractions visitors (museums, monuments...) as we can see here : http://www.leparisien.fr/paris-75/70-4-millions-de-visiteurs-13-08-2008-141338.php. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of tourists 

message: The sentence With about 42 million tourists per year (28 intra-muros of which 17 million are foreign visitors), Paris is the most visited city in the world. is a contradiction.
42 million tourists per year or 28 million tourists per year ?
Paris and Paris intra-muros are the same city.
--Nnemo (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The administrative area constitutes a small part (2 million people) of the urban area (10 million people) and "Paris" often designates the megalopolis, like we could see in every international studies on global cities. When a businessman stays at a hotel in the district of La Défense, we generally say that he came in Paris, not in Nanterre. But to be precise and avoid any ambiguity, the term "intra-muros" (or previously "in city proper") is enough clear and specific to make the difference. If you still disagree, you could just change the syntax and avoid the contradiction tag, cause there's no contradiction here. Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Nnemo's comment makes it evident that the article's wording is not clear - and, again, the word 'Paris' alone does not designate the entire Paris urban/metropolitan area, even in the studies you mention. "Paris metropolitan area" would be a much clearer choice of phrasing when speaking of things extending beyond Paris' limits, and it would help readers understand exactly what is or isn't 'Paris'. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The new definition of Nnemo is faithful to the administrative definition, that's factual, so I'm OK with it. But to explain my point of view, if "Paris" and "Paris intra-muros" are the same thing, then the term "intra-muros" shouldn't exist. I thought the word - constantly used in the city - appropriate and absolutly not equivocal, we have to be precise, and that was the point of this formulation ; When we speak about economy or tourism statistics Paris-global-city is more relevant that Paris-administrative-city, half of the Parisian hotels are outside the administrative limits. There's no question of it with other major big cities where administrative area and urban area are quite the same (and, yes, "Paris" designates the entire urban area in all international studies on global cities : PwC, GaWC, Knight Frank, Global Power City Index...). Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  For brevity's sake, a study can use "Paris" to describe the entire metropolitan area only after it has been made clear to the reader that the study is indeed on the entire metropolitan area, and that is exactly what the studies you cite do. "Paris intra-muros" is used in the same way, when it is clear that the subject being discussed is the area in and around Paris. This article is not at all in either context. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 13:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: 105 sq km or 1050 sq km ?????? I think its 1050  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.163.202.37 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  land area of paris 

message: Please add the 'École Alsacienne' to the list of 'primary and secondary education' establishments, as it is one of the best known schools in Paris, and widely recognized as one of the best. Not mentioning it would be a great injustice to the city of Paris.
Elagomago (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 13 March 2012 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  File:Hotel de Ville Paris Wikimedia Commons.jpg Nominated for Deletion 

message: The text suggests Paris being the Merovingian capital, which is only an half truth, as the Merovingian Realm wasn't unified for most of the time. While Neustria was mostly governed from Paris, Austrasia had different capitals (Cologne, Metz) 
88.159.71.34 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Frankish king Clovis the Frank, the first king of the Merovingian dynasty, made the city his capital from 508. The late 8th century Carolingian dynasty displaced the Frankish capital to Aachen". I agree that the text could be ambiguous or incomplete, maybe you could modify it ? (With sources ideally). Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merovigian capital 

message: The article claims 42 million people visit Paris making it the most visited city in the world, but last year New York City had 50 million tourists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.237.172 (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not the same figures. In most cases American cities count the "visitors", whereas European or Asian cities count the "tourists" (i.e. overnight visitors). It brings huge differences, like for Orlando, the most visited city in America : it welcomes annually 55 million visitors but approximately 30 million tourists. In any case, the text refers to "tourists" whereas the link to "foreing tourists", it may be more relevant to mention only foreign tourists (or... international visitors in common language). Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most visited city 

message: I strongly doubt that Balzac ever used this "Paris Ouest" phrase. --Superzoulou (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that, I never heard this expression. "L'Ouest parisien" is more appropriate I think. Maybe you could modify the paragraph ? Cordially, En-bateau (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the first sentence of the "sociology" part, as it did not add anything, and replaced 'Paris Ouest" with "the Western part of Paris". I do not think that a French translation is very useful: 'ouest parisien' is often a neutral geographical term rather than an idiomatic expression used to evoke wealth (it can refer to Nanterre as well as to the 7th arrondissement, as a Google search results show). I would gladly trim the whole thing a bit more, as it is a rather lengthy and impressionistic, and of course we would like a sociological analysis of the whole Paris "Paris Nord" etc.. By the way there is a Paris Ouest article with some valid references, but be written in a somewhat sensasionalistic tone that does not fit Wikipedia. Should it be renamed too ? --Superzoulou (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the revision. Like you said, the expression "Paris Ouest" is purely geographical, maybe it would be better to change this article into an analysis of the whole sociology of the city, but it's a big job. En-bateau (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have nominated it for deletion. Yes, writing an article about the sociology of the city is a big job, and I do not think it would be very useful to start from Paris Ouest--Superzoulou (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Paris Ouest" ?