Talk:Paris/Archive 2

message: ThePromenader, I notice you removed my reference to the dominating position that Paris exerts over the rest over France.  I don't mind you tweaking/improving etc, but is there a particular reason for removing the information entirely?  It's one of the major reasons that Paris is Paris - because so much of France is centralised within it.  Compared to other countries, to have 1/6th of the population of the country in the capital city is huge.  The national French news on TF1 (as you are obviously aware) is very Paris-centric, and all the major art galleries etc are based in Paris.  Some mention of this fact seems to be appropriate, to differentiate it from capitals like Canberra in Australia (a tiny town of civil servants), Washington DC (a decent sized town with political influence but little business), Berlin (the largest city, but less than twice as big as the second) etc.  
I don't think we should be hamstrung by the fact that it's difficult to express some notions in terms of hard fact.  If something's true, and lots of people have said that it's true, it can be included.  It doesn't need to come down to hard facts and figures.
Stevage 13:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have posted my doubts before removing that. It again has to do with the "greater than" tone - I do understand what you meant, and the government has been actively enforcing since decades a "decentralisation" program (to a point that the île-de-France région is actuallly losing industry), but perhaps could you have stated it in a less "dominant" way? My removing that right away was a gut reaction to earlier events so again sorry for that. And yes, I do totally agree that "Paris is particular" and this was one of my main misgivings with this article - its being lumped together as one with its suburbs. ThePromenader 16:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paris vs Province

message: I have come across a strange article, Paris districts.  It has a lot of information on a few districts - notably the two Seine islands and the left/right banks.  Until I transferred some information to the islands, it actually had more information on all of these topics than the individual articles!  I suggest we rip up the whole page, transfer it to Left Bank etc, then turn the page itself into a brief overview.  The only trouble is that Left Bank currently services Barcelona too, so will need some sort of disambiguation page.  I have left word there and at Right Bank suggesting we split them up.  Incidentally, the right bank page has some weird random facts and links on it...any takers for cleaning up? Stevage 22:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL - that page is a creation of mine from some time ago that I completely forgot about! I see that Olivier has since modified it so best not "rip it up" right away - others have connected to it since as well which is even more surprising. It has nothing to do with this article anyways, so why discuss it here? Just asking. ThePromenader 23:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I know people read this talk page :)  By "rip it up", I meant, transfer its contents to other pages.  I didn't mean throwing anything out....Stevage 23:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes. What I meant was is that I started it because I thought it fulfilled a purpose - Paris does indeed have districts known to all and frequently referenced but not indicated on any administrative map - but if you want to do anything that constitutes a clarification or improvement go ahead. ThePromenader 02:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paris districts

message: This one's a real head-scratcher as the History of Paris page is already quite complete. Most of what's here has to go, but to where? ThePromenader 17:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To the bit bucket.  The result should be a shortish paragraph that summarises the most important events.  For Paris they might include its founding, when it became the capital, the storming of the Bastille, possibly 1968, and bombing during WWII.  Since I know nothing about history, these few events that I have at least heard of might be good candidates to keep :) Stevage 17:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, see the 'history' section of Melbourne, compared to the History of Melbourne page for a guide.Stevage 17:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know a lot about this city's history but I wouldn't even mention many (if any) political events - more a demographical growth record with reasons that the "boom began" - Roman occupation (garrison town), short description of time spent as a (largely symbolic) Merovingian territorial capital (and feudal county capital), then the first Capetian reign "boom" (begun by making their county fief capital capital of all France) that continued through to the "second boom" brought by travel technology and the Universal Exposition era... Hmmm, once sentence. Maybe I could just cut n' paste that. : ) ThePromenader 18:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I suppose I could see to this. The more political events should go as many of them are in fact the History of France and not the actual history of the City itself. I'm going to "keep it demographic" meaning to its periods and areas of growth and the reasons why things happened that way. I've other things to do first but when it shows I'd be much obliged if you could check up on it, Stevage.  Cheers! 
ADDED: Actually I don't think it merits a rewrite, just to be "lightened" of a few indirect political events. I may clarify the "early growth" part a bit though.
ThePromenader 08:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds good.  I tried to remove all non-Paris specific details.  It's probably worth keeping the moment when Paris became the capital, although from memory it lost and regained the title to Tours at a certain point, didn't it?  But yeah, come to think of it, stuff about Paris mayors being treated as kings is less than critical. Stevage 10:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no precise moment when Paris became the capital, and it would be wrong to give a date. Remember that the concept of capital as we know it today is modern. In old days, the kings moved from castle to castle, and from royal estate to royal estate. There was no capital in the modern sense. The only thing that we can say is that Paris became the seat of the royal administration in the 12th century (no precise year), alhtough the royal administration left Paris in the early 15th century (English occupation, Joan of Arc), and left again for Versailles between 1682-1715, 1722-1789, and again 1871-1879. Hardouin 12:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you will not find a date in any textbook but it is generally accepted that Paris became "a" Capital of France with the Capetian dynasty (with their other court and castle in Orléans), and definitely became capital through political reorganisation and edict by Louis VI. In reality mentioning all this is not really neccessary as it but indirectly concerns the growth of the city itself; it is quite enough to say "Paris' rise into its role as a Capital began with the Capetian dynasty." (added - But you are right to point out this controvertial item and your advice is duly taken) ThePromenader 17:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been pottering away at the history section over morning coffee for almost a week now. I re-molded a lot of it around a "city growth" theme that basically explains how the city got to have the shape it has today. I left out everything politico-war involvement because quite frankly such events only affected in-in-directly (if not at all) the form the city has today, and anyhow the history that happened in Paris is quite nicely outlined in detail in the history of Paris page. Thus a reader can skim through to the later more "today" parts without being bogged down in detail. The present text only mentions in passing Paris' most major renovations still visible today, those of Haussmann, so I added that (yet in passing at just a slightly slower pace) in there too. It's still too long (about the same as it is now) but let me know what you think - you can find it on a sub-page here. ThePromenader 17:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems that sub-pages are findable so I guess I screwed up by making one. (see also "transportation" below). I spent lunchtime going over the edits, info and links (narrowly avoiding linking one of the City's Counts to a Star Trek character : ) so all works well for now. I tried to stay as concise as possible but I'm sure there are still bits that can be cut or "de-worded". In all I re-arranged everthing into a "how the city became to be the city it is" theme understandable even to those with little knowledge of Paris or History. Hope it works for you all. ThePromenader 14:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I have reduced the side of this section by roughly half, but think it could stand to be trimmed still further. There is already a very complete article History of Paris, so all we really need here is a quick summary to the user to explain where Paris came from. This is a preliminary cut and could stand further tweaking - please feel free! I welcome your comments. Stevage 01:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I could see to this. The more political events should go as many of them are in fact the History of France and not the actual history of the City itself. I'm going to "keep it demographic" meaning to its periods and areas of growth and the reasons why things happened that way. I've other things to do first but when it shows I'd be much obliged if you could check up on it, Stevage.  Cheers! 
ADDED: Actually I don't think it merits a rewrite, just to be "lightened" of a few indirect political events. I may clarify the "early growth" part a bit though.
ThePromenader 08:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds good.  I tried to remove all non-Paris specific details.  It's probably worth keeping the moment when Paris became the capital, although from memory it lost and regained the title to Tours at a certain point, didn't it?  But yeah, come to think of it, stuff about Paris mayors being treated as kings is less than critical. Stevage 10:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no precise moment when Paris became the capital, and it would be wrong to give a date. Remember that the concept of capital as we know it today is modern. In old days, the kings moved from castle to castle, and from royal estate to royal estate. There was no capital in the modern sense. The only thing that we can say is that Paris became the seat of the royal administration in the 12th century (no precise year), alhtough the royal administration left Paris in the early 15th century (English occupation, Joan of Arc), and left again for Versailles between 1682-1715, 1722-1789, and again 1871-1879. Hardouin 12:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you will not find a date in any textbook but it is generally accepted that Paris became "a" Capital of France with the Capetian dynasty (with their other court and castle in Orléans), and definitely became capital through political reorganisation and edict by Louis VI. In reality mentioning all this is not really neccessary as it but indirectly concerns the growth of the city itself; it is quite enough to say "Paris' rise into its role as a Capital began with the Capetian dynasty." (added - But you are right to point out this controvertial item and your advice is duly taken) ThePromenader 17:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've been pottering away at the history section over morning coffee for almost a week now. I re-molded a lot of it around a "city growth" theme that basically explains how the city got to have the shape it has today. I left out everything politico-war involvement because quite frankly such events only affected in-in-directly (if not at all) the form the city has today, and anyhow the history that happened in Paris is quite nicely outlined in detail in the history of Paris page. Thus a reader can skim through to the later more "today" parts without being bogged down in detail. The present text only mentions in passing Paris' most major renovations still visible today, those of Haussmann, so I added that (yet in passing at just a slightly slower pace) in there too. It's still too long (about the same as it is now) but let me know what you think - you can find it on a sub-page here. ThePromenader 17:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems that sub-pages are findable so I guess I screwed up by making one. (see also "transportation" below). I spent lunchtime going over the edits, info and links (narrowly avoiding linking one of the City's Counts to a Star Trek character : ) so all works well for now. I tried to stay as concise as possible but I'm sure there are still bits that can be cut or "de-worded". In all I re-arranged everthing into a "how the city became to be the city it is" theme understandable even to those with little knowledge of Paris or History. Hope it works for you all. ThePromenader 14:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Son of History

message: I also threw together a newly-subdivided transportation section from former edits - still needs work and some "porting" from this and other articles. Have a go at it here. ThePromenader 21:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Last night somebody found the above and moved it to a page of its own and started correcting it. I'm inclined to leave it as it is... in any case it was much too elaborate for here I think. I was hoping that we'd get some "page structure" discussion in before deciding that, but what the hey. Perhaps we can organise the Paris page transportation into a simple "road, train and air" or something like that. ThePromenader 10:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you didn't want it to be "official", you should have put it in your personal namespace, i.e. with the following name: User:ThePromenader/Paris Transportation. Thbz 12:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Thbz - I did exactly this before but got the feeling that I was "hogging" edit propositions I wanted to be open to all. Lesson learned : p  ThePromenader 14:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Transportation

message: I wouldn't want to revert the change made without discussion.  I think personally it looks better having the Eiffel Tower up the top, from an aesthetics point of view - the Eiffel Tower *is* Paris after all.  And the Paris flag is just ugly, really. And I sort of think the infobox is less relevant for massive cities, where the info you're looking for is less likely to be "what department is Paris in" type stuff. But what do you all think? Stevage 02:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and revert it, he even said we could in his comment : ) Left it all the same to "try it out for a while" but the picuture is definitely much better up there where it was. I can see what ian13 meant though: many other "City" pages have the infobox up there in this way. Best that it be as it was for now, then we can find a "nicer" solution when the page restructuring is done. ThePromenader 07:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I put the picture back up again - we'll find a better solution later. Thanks for the essay though ian13 ; ) ThePromenader 07:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox at top of page

message: Would it be possible to make the recent editions less wordy? Concise as possible. Comparisons are out (unless it be in a hit-list) for the simple reason that very few readers know anything about the city Paris was being compared to; unknown compared to unknown = non sequitur. It would also be very nice to have an "île-de-France" photo instead of the "petite couronne" image in place now as a compliment to the arrondissement map - it will be confusing to someone not already familiar with the Paris region. Only references to administrative regions should be used here. In fact, in this article, I question the importance of explaining in such detail, in the Paris page, the administration of the île-de-France region: this subject has a page of its own. ThePromenader 10:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also suggest we limit this section's info to "jurisdiction" instead of bleeding into "what's decided for where" - the latter can be much better explained in an article of its own, but as it is (and written) it is a bit too elaborate for this article destined for a general-interest user. I will try to simplify but more must be done I'm sure. ThePromenader 22:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with reducing wordiness, and chop whenever possible.  ThePromenader, I'm not sure I like your recent rewrite of this section - it seems to have changed from being a "this is the state of Paris administration now" to being "here is the sequence of events over the last two centuries".  In an encyclopaedia, generally the focus should be, where are we now. How is Paris divided up, how does it govern? For particularly strange situations, history is interesting, but generally anything beyond ", a relic of the 18th century commune system, " is probably un-necessary. Or could be moved to History of Paris.  I'll have a closer look tomorrow, but at first glance, I'm not sure that this has improved this section...or maybe you could give us an idea of your thinking here, what the goal is? Stevage 01:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I to tell you the truth I don't like it much either. Hardouin's edit was correct in its information but, interlaced with Paris' other jurisdictional explanations, it was difficult to understand to the layman. My edit contains the same information "explained" chronologically, and yes it smacks more of history than Politics. All the same I managed through doing this to cut the Administration section down (namely by eliminating repetition) - I will try to "de-crypt" the present version, but I would much appreciate it if you could de-word it after. Needed for most all I write it seems : ) ThePromenader 08:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. Cut it down to a few sentences. I was getting bogged down in the details but a night's rest was enough to see through it all to the roots. I wish we could set up some sort of common work space where whe all could work on edits before publishing them. ThePromenader 09:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, done again. I made a nice little plan (right), but in the section as it is there is no room for it. Stevage, since it is you who added the photos there, can you find a place for this if it's worthy? I don't want to touch your very recent modifications without asking first. ThePromenader 21:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant image. I've incorporated it now and think it works extremely well. There are now three maps, corresponding to the three levels of the section - commune, department, region. I'm really happy with the way that looks now and the structure we have. Don't be too afraid of "touching" things, just go easy on the wholesale rewriting of sections, yeah? :) Stevage 00:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I will "correct" the plan today, but this is an exercise rather futile for the simple reason that this is a map 250px wide. This little factoid makes the above "accuracy" arguments seem quite silly - I think the real intent there is to have the "spots" removed altogether. No need to insinuate that I am "making up" data either. GDP be damned, roughly half the Île-de-France region is farmland. I don't see why we should hide this. ThePromenader 12:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Roughly 70% of the United States is farmland. That doesn't make the United States a rural country! Hardouin 14:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What exactly are you trying to say? Do you really think that comparison can apply here - what are you trying to insinuate by this vague argument? All I would like you to do is allow us to show Paris for what it is. I severely question your motives for wanting to modify that plan; your explanations to Stevage were overly-elaborate and unsound. I don't appreciate your accusations of POV and "intent to mislead" either. This is all indeed very "bad faith" and I would really like to know what your real intentions are. ThePromenader 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Thank you Stevage.  Hardouin, the image contains no precise information of any title outside of the departemental limits. I did not "flatly refuse" anything, I just wouldn't blindly follow "work orders" without knowing exactly what I was to represent. I'm sorry I didn't modify it to your liking, but if you would like me to, you could ask me - for example. That way you won't have to explain to other people how to do it. ThePromenader 18:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: To be honest I didn't see the built up bits. If they're original research, why not just remove them? They're not really crucial to an administration section, which is basically just about borders and names. Perhaps one of the other maps you (Hardouin) put would be relevant to the demographics section? Stevage 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually the administration section looks quite good although long - it's all about setting a level of "how deep we get into it." The "petite couronne" photo is a bit confusing at first glance as its place in the text (and reality) is minimal. Forget the accusation of "original research" (vague as it is) - those "built-up areas" are purely representative and taken from a 2003 rail map. Let's not split hairs. ThePromenader 11:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny that you consider it long, I was going to suggest that logically it needs another paragraph: Paris as the capital of France. I love the elegance of it: Paris as a commune, Paris as department, Paris as a prefecture, Paris as a national capital, slowly broadening the scope. I don't know what would need to be said in this last section other than that the parliament is there, the Elysee palace etc. But since I don't think those two facts are mentioned, that's probably an indication it deserves to be there? Stevage 23:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes I shouldn't fall into the trap of "it was better before". That suite is pleasing though, isn't it? I wish we could apply that "small to big" (or "start to end") order of explanation to other parts of the page, it would make things much easier to understand for everyone. ThePromenader 00:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Administration 

message: Hi ThePromenader, can you let us in on what you're trying to achieve with rewriting the history section? I had put a bit of work into trimming down the previous version to the bare essentials, and it looks like I may have to do it again...so I'd just like to know what the substantial improvements are here.
I notice wordiness is back:
*The Seine river wes a formidable barrier to the region’s first travellers, and the easiest means of crossing it was where it was at its narrowest: to each side of its largest island. This crossing eventually became a beaten path, and later river traffic would make the Parisian basin into a much-travelled crossroads. The island was settled from around 250 BC with the “oppodium” of the Celtic “Parisii”; these people, known as boatmen and traders, used their island location to control commerce all along the river even from their settlements' early years."
Is it not sufficient to write: "Paris was first settled by the Celtic Parisii people, on the Ile de la cité, which was a convenient crossing point."?  Let's keep it tight, yeah?Stevage 01:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevage, it is exactly because of the "trimming down" that I rewrote the section: Historically speaking it was very cut-and-paste! Sorry for all your work. I had put it to a sub-page to this one to rewrite a coherent join between everything (didn't you see it? See above), but the page, visible to all I guess, got nominated for "speedy elimination". I put it here as it was, and it has yet to be "de-greased". You are completely right in what you say, and by all means do what you will with it. Sorry that you have the same job twice, but with this new context I hope it will be really tight but in retaining some historical sense. : ) ThePromenader 08:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. The history section is exactly where it was a month ago - far too long and wordy.  Could we please set a definitive size limit, and just stick to it?  There is a whole History of Paris article for little details like whether archeologists dispute the exact locations of the beginnings of Paris etc.  This is just a quick summary. It's frustrating to trim it down to almost the right size (say, 4 paragraphs), only to see it balloon back out due to supposed "inaccuracies". Stevage 15:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Normally I don't have time for this. The latest change, on the pretense of an "innaccuracy" (that no doubt would have been chopped as a needless detail anyway), in much the same spirit as for the administration section, is a total revert that ignores the purpose of even having rewritten the section. I will deal with this later today. ThePromenader 15:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of history section

message: I have killed this section. It's just a poor way to group this material. If the info is relevant to Paris, it should appear in relevant sections, otherwise it should not be there at all. Grouping everything that's outside the borders of Paris is not very helpful to the reader. Stevage 00:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I primarily it moved here to avoid other people contributing to it, as has happened previously. Let's see, LA Defense and Grande Arche are already referred to. We don't have much on churches, but should create a section and move those there, with a note that they're in the suburbs. How close is the Arceuil Aqueduct to Paris? Is it important?  Parc Asterix and Disneyland could rate a brief mention under tourism, but they're already in the top 10 list anyway. Stevage 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about getting back to working on the overall structure the page should have? This way we would have a designated place to move things should we feel the need to move them. Perhaps we could start a new talk page for that. ThePromenader 11:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suburban Areas of Interest 

message: Let's work on this again, and ignore the history section's history. Reading it now, I see there is a major focus on population expansion and walls. Unfortunately, stating every time that the city grew a bit, or that the walls were moved/rebuilt becomes very wordy and not particularly relevant.  Could we not simply say "over 800 years, the continous growth of the population led to new sets of walls being built no less than six times" or whatever? We need to get this section down. Stevage 00:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ThePromenader added the wall thing. You may want to discuss this with him. About the walls, if I'm counting well, there were seven walls (1- Lower Roman Empire around the Île de la Cité, 2- 11th century around right bank only, 3- Philip Augustus around both banks, 4- Charles V around right bank only, 5- Louis XIII around a small part of the right bank only, 6- 1784 around both banks, for tax purposes, and 7- 1840s around both banks). There was also a 8th line of defense, built in the petite couronne in the middle of the 19th century, beyond the city limits, but this was not strictly speaking a wall, but a series of forts built above hills surrounding Paris on all sides (such as Mont Valérien, fort d'Issy, etc.). Hardouin 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: By the way, in the debate about creating a Greater Paris, architect Roland Castro is proposing to annex the petite couronne to the city of Paris and to set the new limits of the city on the line of the forts surrounding Paris. As you can see, the wall mentality is still alive in France. Lol. Hardouin 01:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the thing with Paris' history - there's over 2000 years of it.  I've done my best to "keep it demographic" and avoid centering attention on events that do not concern the growth of Paris - the history in Paris is not necessarily the history of Paris. It's true what I see today is a long dry read (and I also see that a few non sequiturs have magically reappeared) but it can stand much further cutting for sure. I can look to it later today.ThePromenader 10:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we want to "keep it demographic"? Any significant events that took place in Paris are relevant. The view "how did Paris expand and grow to become the shape it is now" is a fairly narrow one. Events such as wars, treaties being signed, immigration, significant laws etc are all relevant to a "History of Paris". Really, this section should not be so complicated - it should amount to simply taking the most significant highlights from the History of Paris article. Stevage 13:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I meant by "keep it demographic" was "keep it to the events that made the city what it is today" and leave the rest for the more detailed History of Paris page. As far as I'm concerned all the "significant highlights" are already in the article plus a few "extras". I see what you're getting at, but we're talking about a complete change of tone. I'll have a look again at the "old" version to see what you liked there. ThePromenader 19:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see now that some parts of the history article are not only overly long, they are just plain silly. We do not speak in an article of "historians rejecting POV's of other historians" just to spite the effaced writ of other contributors. Can we get around to making some improvements please? ThePromenader 20:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Excuse me, now that I look I see that almost every change I made last night has been reverted. With no explanation. Once again. I was just getting calmed down... ThePromenader 10:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do like that you've split it up between sub-headings. Perhaps that would be a good base on which to "brief things up" a bit. Later today. ThePromenader 08:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I won't be doing anything here today - It would be best that I be busy elsewhere to better get a grip again. Cheers. ThePromenader 20:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: This page is improving: Its structure is being cleaned up, redundant parts removed, all around a central "modern Paris" theme set into a language and context accessible to a wide variety of readers from all cultures.
The job is major so perhaps it would be a good idea to use talk sub-pages for major edits, that way we can keep this talk page clean and not worry about over-editing the original Paris page. To avoid all "revert" conflict I would like to suggest for any major changes, starting a topic titled with the topic needing editing: this way all proposed improvement ideas will be open to scrutiny and dialog. The same if we have any qualms with something recently changed or added: this way we can maintain dialog in eliminating any excuse for unruly reverting.
In light of the above, a revert of any previously discussed improvements without any prior warning or show of interest in the editing will be inacceptable. I ask all concerned to please allow this page to improve.
Cordially,
ThePromenader 02:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm a bit more of a fan of "change it, then see if people can see problems with it, let them improve it again".  Reverting any major good-faith change is pretty mean.  Discussing every change *before* implementing it is possibly a bit too bureaucratic for this task? Stevage 17:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree completely. Actually the "This is what I'm doing!" warning would serve more to avoid conflicting (voir simultaneous) edits. ThePromenader 22:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: <span style="font-size:24px;">'''No Fussing About'''</span><br>

message: Can we discuss the tweaks and qualms of each section under its own heading below? I hope this can sort discussion out nicely. Virgin territory, new tweaks, new title...
===Area===
I cleaned this one up a bit this morning, but I'm having problems with its second and third paragraphs - the latter is frankly incomprehensible. Do we really need to go to such comparitive lengths? Yet remove this and there's almost nothing left to the section. There's the "understandibility factor" as well. Plus I didn't find the "square area" statistics so couldn't source them - I will look later but if someone in the meantime...
I'd in fact re-title this to something like "Terrain" or "Geological Lay" so that, in addition to the city's actual spread, there could be a description of some of the city's geological features (rivers, islands, hills).
ThePromenader 09:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Land area and geology are two distinct things. Add a geology section if you wish, although some might consider it too detailed information for the article. Hardouin 12:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hardouin, your changes to my changes are fine but perhaps indicating Paris as a "commune" here is making unnecessary complications. Anyhow this is more or less explained further down in "Administration" so best add detail when timely. As for "too detailed", what of all the inaccessible comparisons? Also I think "some" would think it quite natural even to explain the lay of Paris in the same breath as its shape, let alone under the same heading. ThePromenader 15:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a geological/topographical section, can I suggest it be at the end of the article?  It's a bit odd that the altitudes of the various hills is right up the top, when this information is valuable to almost no one.  Otherwise, make a Paris topography article and get rid of it all together. Stevage 13:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do see the sense of putting a topography part up top - it allows us to imagine where the city is and its size, and how it occupies its land. It gives a reader a "zooming in" feeling as we move from its place in the earth to its land (river, island etc) and how much of this it covers: this gives a reader a base upon which to place all the detail he will find further into the article. Actually I'd even spend a passage in a bird's eye visual description of the city and its most visible landmarks in all this (Eiffel tower by river shore in western Left bank, Arc de Triomphe visible across the river at the western end of a west-east line that is the Champs-Elysées): This would not only be factually rich for a reader, it could be interesting. I think this would only take a passage or two to do as it would mention only the major landmarks. This could even be a summary combination for geographical location, altitude and area, so the more "exact" information could have its own page... what do you think? ThePromenader 19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've given this a bit of thought over the past few days (while taking clients up, down and between all parts of Paris) and am thinking that there should be two parts to this - A descriptive "area" section (visual "lay of the land") followed by a - I am very taken with this suggestion - "description" section that would describe where the major landmarks (parks and monuments) lie in the above - and I had even the "inkling" idea of, as perhaps a conclusion, describing what parts of the city are animated by day and by night. This section could have a "see districts" link under it... ThePromenader 14:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Work in Progress

message: I cleaned this one up a bit this morning, but I'm having problems with its second and third paragraphs - the latter is frankly incomprehensible. Do we really need to go to such comparitive lengths? Yet remove this and there's almost nothing left to the section. There's the "understandibility factor" as well. Plus I didn't find the "square area" statistics so couldn't source them - I will look later but if someone in the meantime...
I'd in fact re-title this to something like "Terrain" or "Geological Lay" so that, in addition to the city's actual spread, there could be a description of some of the city's geological features (rivers, islands, hills).
ThePromenader 09:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Land area and geology are two distinct things. Add a geology section if you wish, although some might consider it too detailed information for the article. Hardouin 12:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hardouin, your changes to my changes are fine but perhaps indicating Paris as a "commune" here is making unnecessary complications. Anyhow this is more or less explained further down in "Administration" so best add detail when timely. As for "too detailed", what of all the inaccessible comparisons? Also I think "some" would think it quite natural even to explain the lay of Paris in the same breath as its shape, let alone under the same heading. ThePromenader 15:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is a geological/topographical section, can I suggest it be at the end of the article?  It's a bit odd that the altitudes of the various hills is right up the top, when this information is valuable to almost no one.  Otherwise, make a Paris topography article and get rid of it all together. Stevage 13:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do see the sense of putting a topography part up top - it allows us to imagine where the city is and its size, and how it occupies its land. It gives a reader a "zooming in" feeling as we move from its place in the earth to its land (river, island etc) and how much of this it covers: this gives a reader a base upon which to place all the detail he will find further into the article. Actually I'd even spend a passage in a bird's eye visual description of the city and its most visible landmarks in all this (Eiffel tower by river shore in western Left bank, Arc de Triomphe visible across the river at the western end of a west-east line that is the Champs-Elysées): This would not only be factually rich for a reader, it could be interesting. I think this would only take a passage or two to do as it would mention only the major landmarks. This could even be a summary combination for geographical location, altitude and area, so the more "exact" information could have its own page... what do you think? ThePromenader 19:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've given this a bit of thought over the past few days (while taking clients up, down and between all parts of Paris) and am thinking that there should be two parts to this - A descriptive "area" section (visual "lay of the land") followed by a - I am very taken with this suggestion - "description" section that would describe where the major landmarks (parks and monuments) lie in the above - and I had even the "inkling" idea of, as perhaps a conclusion, describing what parts of the city are animated by day and by night. This section could have a "see districts" link under it... ThePromenader 14:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Area

message: If the admin section is going to stay this long it needs substructure. It may make Paris's multiple roles much clearer to have a City/Commune/Department/Region structure. Stevage 01:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL just an addendum - Paris is a City/Commune/Department - complicated, non? Thus now there are two administration sections - this one and "Region". Cheers : ) ThePromenader 09:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I thought to do that this very morning as an epilogue to my 2am edits. Done. ThePromenader 08:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Administration substructure

message: Um - I do understand why this was put there. After all our discussions about getting rid of lists, is it really a good idea to add another one? ThePromenader 17:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my first reaction too :) I think the information is relevant and interesting, but I'm not sure of the best way to present it. Maybe in a little table down one side? Stevage 23:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved it to a little table down the side - I think that works. Stevage 00:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I took the liberty of daintying up your table a bit and adding some space to its left ; ) ThePromenader 13:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourist Statistics 

message: Hardouin, I've restored the department map as I think it serves to visually explain to the user at what level Paris is being viewed. Most of the information in the map is, as you say, redundant due to the regional map, but it's more detailed, and shows clearly the shape of the Paris department and the three around it. Do you feel strongly that it should not be there, or just that it's not necessary? Stevage 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may, Stevage, that map has little importance today as it shows a jurisdiction belonging only to the Police Prefecture. Historically this region was more or less Paris' former "Département de Seine" (the jurisdiction of the all-powerful "Prefecture de Seine" administration that was later split up into two "Prefecture de Police" law-enforcement and "Prefecture de Paris" law-making administrations) but I think the administration section no longer goes into that depth of detail. ThePromenader 10:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where in my phrase did I say "1968"? Napoleon vested the power over the entire department de Seine to a single "Prefet" when he created the office in 1800, since then this office has been divided into two, and today only one remains to any extent. Please read what you intend to criticise before you criticise it. ThePromenader 13:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're wrong. Napoleon created TWO préfets: the Préfet de la Seine, and the Préfet de Police, both created in 1800. The first Préfet de Police in 1800 was Louis-Nicolas Dubois, whereas the first Préfet de la Seine in 1800 was Nicolas Frochot. Hardouin 13:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright then, I stand corrected. Apologies. But this does not at all discount my argument. ThePromenader 14:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  If you would like a simple answer, the administrative limits of the "département de Paris" are no bigger than the city itself. ThePromenader 19:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The Promenader was trying to say that the map (Paris + petite couronne) shows the jurisdiction belonging to the Préfecture de Police. As I have explained above, this is wrong. As for the département of Paris, it has significance for those public services administered by the département. For instance, if you have no income you receive RMI, the minimum income for poor people. RMI is administered by the département of Paris, not by the city, although in practice the département and city are ruled by the same Conseil de Paris. The département is also competent for control of legality. For instance, there was a funny example when I was in Law School, if you start building a nuclear plant in the département of Paris without having an administrative authorization, the Préfet de Paris (prefect of the département) will declare you have committed an infraction and fine you (as would happen in any other French département). On the other hand, the Préfet de Police, in charge of public order, will probably send the police to stop work on your nuclear plant (whereas in other French départements, the prefect of the département would be in charge of both public order and control of legality). These are examples where the département of Paris is competent, not the city. Hardouin 14:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excuse me, not explaining something down to 100% to-the-roots intricate detail is not being wrong. It seems that you're misunderstanding me on purpose - we are not speaking of the function of each jurisdiction but its reach. The Prefet de Paris' responsibilities include the administration of the police in all the petite couronne's departments and if I must prove this than look here. All I said this morning - and this began simply - is that if the map in place was to show anything it would be this jurisdiction. Other than that it would be a map of the petite couronne which by itself would be pretty pointless in a section labelled on "Paris as a departement" as the département of Paris is no bigger than itself.  Let's not even get into the intricacies of the Prefect of Paris being also the Prefect of the île-de-France - if you want to present Paris from that angle you must remodel the article. You cannot show administrative limits and speak of wider function and expect people to understand.  ThePromenader 19:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Of course that should read "Prefect of Police" if the page I went through all the trouble of indicating is that of the Prefet de Police. Yet my error. I also said "administration of the Police of all four departments" which means that, in other words, Prefet de Police is "da boss" over all this area. Please don't be so intent on finding error, you'll always miss the point of what's said. And, btw, why is that map still there? Through all this I thought we did agree that it no longer had any importance. ThePromenader 11:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Department map

message: I think everything I would like to say on this topic is covered at WP:Civility. Stevage 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is also an interesting page. Adrian Robson 12:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. Puts it in perspective doesn't it - do you call them 'closed captions' or 'subtitles'? I thought it was pretty simple actually. Subtitles are what you see on SBS, closed captions are what deaf people use. But, hey. :) Stevage 14:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's get along

message: Hardouin, I hope you don't mind what I've done to this section. I've tried to retain the comparisons with other cities, but do so in a more readable way, with slightly less precision. Footnotes give the dates of the censuses, which aren't hugely important as they're pretty close to each other.  Is there any support for Paris being one of the most multicultural? As I noted in the article, Melbourne is at 38%, so 19.5% doesn't strike me as particularly high. Stevage 02:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stevage, I have removed your mention of Melbourne and its 38% because this figure is ONLY for the City of Melbourne proper. What it says is that 38% of the 50,175 residents of the City of Melbourne in 2001 were born overseas. This says nothing of the metropolitan area of more than 3 million people. Typically, inner cities tend to have much more foreign-born than whole metropolitan areas, because "natives" tend to be in the majority in distant suburbs. For instance in the article it says that 27.5% of the inhabitants of the New York metropolitan area were born outside of the US, but inside New York City there were actually 40.5% of foreign-born. Australia being a country of immigration, I wouldn't be surprised if the metropolitan areas of Melbourne, and above all Sydney, had high percentages of foreign-born. If you can find the relevant statistics for the whole metropolitan areas at the Australian statistics office website, then put it in the article. Put we cannot put figures that are limited to inner cities only. Hardouin 12:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, thanks for correcting that. Stevage 14:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Heh, I did some research and managed to find figures for Eastern Melbourne, (around 20%), Victoria (somewhat higher, don't remember), Sydney (31% ), Australia (22%) and some other towns. The figure of 31% is not interesting enough to include IMHO. Interesting though to think that Paris is considered "multicultural", when the whole of Australia has a higher average of immigrants. Stevage 14:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, in Australia many of these foreign-born come from UK or Ireland, whereas in Paris they come from cultures very different from France. In any case, if London with 19.5% of foreign-born is considered "multicultural" (this was so flaunted during the Olympic bid in Singapore), then Paris with 19.4% can certainly be considered multicultural too. Hardouin 15:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, probably lots of the Paris "immigrants" are Algerians, Tunisians etc. Fwiw, I'm happy to consider Londoners a different culture. I did note somewhere in my brief researches that there were something like 200 countries represented in Melbourne. In other words, basically all of them. Stevage 20:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Immigration section