Talk:Paris/Archive 8

message: Demographics within the Paris Region(according to the official INSEE 1999 census)
                                                  	                                                 	                                                 	                                                 	
Areas                                             	Population                                       	Area(km2)                                        	Density(/km2)                                    	1990-1999growth
Administrative Limits(Ile-de-France départements) 	Administrative Limits(Ile-de-France départements)	Administrative Limits(Ile-de-France départements)	Administrative Limits(Ile-de-France départements)	Administrative Limits(Ile-de-France départements)
City of Paris (département 75)                    	2,125,246                                        	105                                              	20,240                                           	-1.26%
Inner ring (Petite Couronne) (92, 93, 94)    	4,038,992                                        	657                                              	6,148                                            	+1.27%
Outer ring (Grande Couronne) (77, 78, 91, 95)	4,787,773                                        	11,249                                           	426                                              	+5.93%
Ile-de-France(including Paris)                    	10,952,011                                       	12,011                                           	912                                              	+2.73%
Statistical Growth                                	Statistical Growth                               	Statistical Growth                               	Statistical Growth                               	Statistical Growth
Urban area(Paris agglomeration)                   	9,644,507                                        	2,723                                            	3,542                                            	+1.85%
Metro area(agglomeration,commuter belt)           	11,174,743                                       	14,518                                           	770                                              	+2.90%
The existing table takes up much too much page architecture for the information it contains. Also, its map being cut off in color and detail at the IDF borders is a roadblock to comprehension - we are speaking here of areas beyond this as well. Other changes I've tried to make are the text size/titles to shrink things down a bit, and moving more repetitive details in the data itself to the header. The box to the right is all this. THEPROMENADER 08:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been sitting here for a couple months now. I modified the graphic to comply with all misgivings about the existing version (mostly its breadth) in a way that, should the lower table content be reduced somewhat, would allow it to be displayed at a much smaller size. If there is no further comment I'll put it in place and see if there is any complaint about it that way. THEPROMENADER 15:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics Table proposition 

message: This discussion is continued on the template page itself. Note: presently underway is a discussion about a possible merger with a Wiki-unique Template:Infobox City. See talk page there. THEPROMENADER 10:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox discussion

message: Concerning this quote from the article:
"By the time of the Carolingian dynasty (9th century), it was little more than a feudal county stronghold. The Counts of Paris gradually rose to prominence and eventually wielded greater power than the Kings of France. Odo, Count of Paris was elected king in place of the incumbent Charles the Fat..."
From my relatively small historical knowledge, i think there were no king of France at the time of the Carolingian dynasty. For most historian, "France" is a defined country only after Hugues Capet. Previous kings were kings of "Francia occidentalis". Although self-reference as its limits for an encyclopedia, you can refer to the wiki article on "western francia".
I'll make the update, up to you to revert if you have any good ressources.
Kekel 17:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section - King of France ? 

message: Sorry for removing that Eiffel image, but it was downright ugly - the tower's head and foot was cut off, and overall, on an awkward angle. Generally, though, it would be nice for you to leave a word here about your changes after you make them - not only would this make their aim clearer, it would allow other contributors to comment them. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eiffel pic revert 

message: A couple notes here - first, temperatures should be expressed in both Celcius and Fahrenheit, and since the country on which this article is upon uses the metric system, Celcius should have priority. I think the 'record highs and lows' info you removed was not so uninformative, but for sure it could have been written in a shorter and clearer way. Lastly - would you mind if I brushed up the language a bit? To something with a little more 'encyclopedic' sound. THEPROMENADER 08:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I love Fahrenheit as much as anyone else, I use it in the US and UK, but in France, Celsius is the way forward. Indeed temperatures in France are measured in Celsius, this explains my recent swapping of temperature data. I have kept Fahrenheit temperatures, although irrelevant as data should only be presented in the same form as the source and only translated/converted when presented in a non-standard formt, which Celsius is not. Captain scarlet 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think a horizontal box is more approrpiate since the climate section is ohnly a very short one. If the box was vertical it would impose itself as much as infoboxes do and be a hindrance rather than a benefit. Keeping a horizontal box means that the box does not overlap on other sections. It is rather narrow and not very wide so it is not too big for the article as it is barely more than the 2/3 of the width (on my 1024px wide resolution at work) and less for 1280px and above. Captain scarlet 12:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I get you. I really wish it was flexible though - meaning that it could stretch with the page and not interfere with the box to its right.... there must be a %/margin way to do this. It would look much nicer and not create whitespace or interrupt the flow of the article - detail, mayhap, but I am a graphics geek. THEPROMENADER 12:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I managed to make the box fill the entire 'free space' width - but had to make an extra 'cheat' column of 'td's to do it. THEPROMENADER 14:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate Box 

message: Is it really necessary to keep all the bulky templates at the bottom of the article ?
* Communes in the metropolitan area of Paris can be moved to Paris metropolitan area (actually already in there), and linked to in the See Also section, and wherever relevant in the body of the article.
* World Heritage Sites in France. The heritage site is Banks of the Seine, which would make a neat encyclopedic article, and the template could be moved there. Links in See Also and the body of the article where relevant. Equendil 20:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulky Templates 

message: ===Economy===
What do you think needs expanding in the Economy section? THEPROMENADER 09:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should list some of the world-wide compaies which have a HQ or a office there, expand the manufacturing and services statement there, ect. -- Je suis 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps mention a few in a 'such as' statement... but listing too many would be pointless, simply because we can't list them all! The biggest by category then, and cite them a such - this would be both informative and NPOV. No lists though, please. THEPROMENADER 19:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: For right now, Iam not going to to the companies and offices, ect. stuff, but I am going to add some information about the economy, if I can find anything. -- Je suis t\c 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the information you need is most probably in Economy of Paris - that article is quite complete (although it contains some fiction), and all the sources you need are there. I think the Economy section is fine the way it is though! If people want to know more about the economy, they have only to go to Economy - I think the outline here is already quite complete. THEPROMENADER 23:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Only two sentences are but I think it should stay since it is part of the oragnization of Paris' economy, if you do not agree; I do not mind if you change it. -- Je suis t\c 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do agree that it is part of the 'city' economy (the economy of 'city function' without reflexion on what's traded through the city), but the office information is not presented like this, the paragraph is on the entire region's production and trade, and office costs have little or nothing to do with this. I hope you see what I'm getting at. THEPROMENADER 07:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: ... Tourists expect to see something "Paris" here, non? Usually they should be doing everything above 'Tourism', but some there are a few 'extras' such as les Bateaux Mouches and the Eiffel Tower - but isn't this, although tailored for tourists, a part of the 'Paris culture'? THEPROMENADER 23:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's kind of what I was proposing: 'What there is' already explained in other parts of the article (Eiffel tower -> History, Louvre -> Museums/History, etc), the 'Tourism' section could briefly describe which of these is most frequented by tourists and perhaps why. The tourism section could end with a (brief) description about cruft like Eurodisney that uses all of the above as tourist bait (everything in its order) and places such as the Moulin Rouge that today are but a parody of what dancehalls were before (already outlined in 'Entertainment'). All in positive terms of course : ) THEPROMENADER 07:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I realise that, butin the politics you could mention about how the arrondissements have mayors and arrondissements section you can name the mayor, and give some information, like what tourist's attracts and ect. are located there. -- Je suis t\c 15:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would be in the interest of this article's (already long) lenght to keep it as "generalist" Paris as possible, and save the individual arrondissement info for arrondissement articles. Also please be reminded that Paris' arrondissements are politics and nothing but; they are divistions that reflect next to nothing on what they contain, nor for the history of the land they encompass. Tourist attractions by arrondissement? I think this would be a good idea for a guide, but not for a general article : ) THEPROMENADER 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay but section needs somewhere the name of the mayors, not it a full list, but something like: The mayors of the arrondissements are... and then link somewhere an article that would have more detail on it. -- Je suis t\c 15:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do Discussion 

message: What do you think needs expanding in the Economy section? THEPROMENADER 09:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should list some of the world-wide compaies which have a HQ or a office there, expand the manufacturing and services statement there, ect. -- Je suis 17:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps mention a few in a 'such as' statement... but listing too many would be pointless, simply because we can't list them all! The biggest by category then, and cite them a such - this would be both informative and NPOV. No lists though, please. THEPROMENADER 19:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: For right now, Iam not going to to the companies and offices, ect. stuff, but I am going to add some information about the economy, if I can find anything. -- Je suis t\c 15:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the information you need is most probably in Economy of Paris - that article is quite complete (although it contains some fiction), and all the sources you need are there. I think the Economy section is fine the way it is though! If people want to know more about the economy, they have only to go to Economy - I think the outline here is already quite complete. THEPROMENADER 23:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Only two sentences are but I think it should stay since it is part of the oragnization of Paris' economy, if you do not agree; I do not mind if you change it. -- Je suis t\c 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do agree that it is part of the 'city' economy (the economy of 'city function' without reflexion on what's traded through the city), but the office information is not presented like this, the paragraph is on the entire region's production and trade, and office costs have little or nothing to do with this. I hope you see what I'm getting at. THEPROMENADER 07:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economy

message: The most recent confirmed Census numbers date from 1999, but 2004 estimates will be confirmed any day now. There has been a census every year since a few years ago, so from this point on INSEE numbers will always be recent and we will no longer have to worry about compensating possibly outdated numbers with both official and estimate counts. This for sure will save some space. THEPROMENADER 11:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics

message: I think 'tourism' should be but a sub-heading of the 'Culture' section, as Paris' 'tourist attractions', save a few more garish amusement parks (not even in Paris), are pretty well integrated into the Capital's existing Entertainment industry (albeit sometimes a parody of this) and Museum network. A good summary would be to speak of gastronomy (restaurants, cafés and bistros), museums, entertainment (theatre, nightclubs), fairs, and in a last 'tourism' section perhaps indicate a few of the above examples that are 'oriented to' tourism. THEPROMENADER 20:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Tourists expect to see something "Paris" here, non? Usually they should be doing everything above 'Tourism', but some there are a few 'extras' such as les Bateaux Mouches and the Eiffel Tower - but isn't this, although tailored for tourists, a part of the 'Paris culture'? THEPROMENADER 23:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's kind of what I was proposing: 'What there is' already explained in other parts of the article (Eiffel tower -> History, Louvre -> Museums/History, etc), the 'Tourism' section could briefly describe which of these is most frequented by tourists and perhaps why. The tourism section could end with a (brief) description about cruft like Eurodisney that uses all of the above as tourist bait (everything in its order) and places such as the Moulin Rouge that today are but a parody of what dancehalls were before (already outlined in 'Entertainment'). All in positive terms of course : ) THEPROMENADER 07:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourism Section 

message: Je suis, can you explain what you mean by 'split Administration into Arrondissements and Politics' ? I don't see the logic in this: Arrondissments are inseperable from politics - they are almost --Je suis t\c 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise that, butin the politics you could mention about how the arrondissements have mayors and arrondissements section you can name the mayor, and give some information, like what tourist's attracts and ect. are located there. -- Je suis t\c 15:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would be in the interest of this article's (already long) lenght to keep it as "generalist" Paris as possible, and save the individual arrondissement info for arrondissement articles. Also please be reminded that Paris' arrondissements are politics and nothing but; they are divistions that reflect next to nothing on what they contain, nor for the history of the land they encompass. Tourist attractions by arrondissement? I think this would be a good idea for a guide, but not for a general article : ) THEPROMENADER 14:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay but section needs somewhere the name of the mayors, not it a full list, but something like: The mayors of the arrondissements are... and then link somewhere an article that would have more detail on it. -- Je suis t\c 15:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Administration

message: Districts defiantly needs de-listing and more text, it has bare facts but it needs a little more then just its barest information. -- Je suis t\c 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Districts 

message: Just thought I'd point out that section headings (including subheadings) should be in lower case: "Sectors of the economy" not "Sectors of the Economy". See the MoS. Stevage 11:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to see you here again : ) Do you want to do the above cleanup, or are you just leaving a note on it? THEPROMENADER 12:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections should be decapsed 

message: Has anyone noticed than when you do a search for "mudville" you end up directly on this page?
:Fixed. - Thank you for mentioning it.-Andeh 14:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem, but is it doing it again?  I'd fix it, but I am just learning how Wikipedia works...
Heh, can't believe I'm writing on this talk page. Some people never learn. Anyway, I have added to this page's navigational box nightmares by adding . Enjoy! Stevage 13:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, goody. At least with all the bottom-ballast we can be sure this article will stand upright : ) THEPROMENADER 13:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure we can add some more. How's about one for the  ? You know you want to... Captain scarlet 13:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Beg pardon? THEPROMENADER 11:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was being sarcastic... Please remove some of those templates, we're getting to the point where the height of the navigational templates will exceed the height of the article ! Captain scarlet 11:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's really hard to know which ones to remove though. The point of the templates is to be complete - to put the template on every page that meets the criteria for inclusion. However, some of them are obviously redundant, or add little information at best - Paris as commune, department, préfecture of département of Ile-de-France, and préfecture of région. Then there are the ones where the category is getting fairly obscure - Summer games host cities, world heritage sites in France and European city of culture. On the other hand, all those boxes are down at the very bottom of the article, and don't really "get in the way" of anything more important. Stevage 09:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To tell you the truth I don't really care one way or another - my criticism stops at the ugliness. In my opinion most of those templates could be replaced by a simple category. Templates shout and are (sometimes) fun to make; that's probably why there's so many. I opted to remove the at once largest and incomplete template. True that they are not so 'bothersome' where they are. I think the Paris article is nearing peer-review quality - we could very well leave this issue until then. But we're already a few wanting to remove it.THEPROMENADER 10:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've said it before, but, ther eis a need ofr articles on each of Paris' status, one for departement, one for city. The rest is treated in MA and IdF. then the templates can feature in these articles, with a See also section on the Paris article leading to Paris' other meanings. Captain scarlet 11:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello!

message: :::: Well, the TOC makes a big hole if kept in its normal position, if on the left of the "name" section, it makes that section look badly squeezed by the infobox on the right in addition to the TOC on the left, I find it looks terrible if on the left of the introduction, and I'm not terribly happy with it on the right side either, though I thought it was the lesser of several evils. Of course, it may look worse on your web browser like it looks on mine. Can't say I like the idea of having it even bigger and too far down the article. Basically, I hate the TOC. I wish these things were hidden by default for everyone, wouldn't have to deal with them then. Anyway, what about cheating: see User:Equendil/Paris temp ? Sub sections are just bold headers so they don't appear in the TOC (and let's be frank, who clicks on sub sections ?), and an image to fill the space instead of squeezing text in there ? Equendil Talk 04:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On second thought, I don't think that works either *sigh*. Equendil Talk 06:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay. Back to the left we go... THEPROMENADER 07:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC trouble

message: Thbz - The www.paris.fr website is under maintenance, but I found this... should be complete. If you can't trust the Mairie de Paris website, who can you trust for info like this? Still... there's the 'uninformed webmaster factor' to consider. THEPROMENADER 00:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Sisters

message: I've been adding like crazy these last two days, but if there's anything to add, remove or be improved, please, break a leg. THEPROMENADER 09:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the thanks; it's my pleasure to share. Concerning the 'separation' though: I don't think it would be a good idea to cut anything in Administration until we've had a chance to talk this out, simply because for now I don't see the reason in what you want to do - and I actually think it's a bad idea as I've said above. Let's keep this conversation up there though. THEPROMENADER 14:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: PS: Thanks goes to you, too! THEPROMENADER 14:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I updated the To-Do list, one big update was created. -- Je suis t\c 15:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New sections 

message: London#Economy London is the world's most popular city destination for tourists, attracting 27m overnight-stay visitors every year.[10]
Paris is the most visited city in the world,[1] with more than 30 million visitors per year.
I suppose 30 million is higher than 27 million. Skinnyweed 00:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you can edit London has the second most. -- Je suis t\c 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tourist visits little problem 

message: Je suis, just want to note that some of what you put in the 'to do' list you can just go ahead and do if it's nothing major - like adding Eurodisney? It will just be a blurb added. Immigration too. Metro is important, but keeping things as general as possible in this article is already a chore - for now I've made the unique heading 'mass transit' to avoid singling out 'metro', as if you do that the bus system is very developed too... can we leave this sort of detail for the sub-articles? The Paris metro articles are very complete thanks to a few contributors to this page.
I think after the citations are fixed (and phrases needing found and appended) peer review time shouldn't be too far away. THEPROMENADER 22:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! Don't forget that for anything language you're covered, so we can concentrate on getting the proper info in first and touch up later. Just leave word if you want something looked at. Stevage?  THEPROMENADER 06:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, great work on the 'Districts' section. THEPROMENADER 06:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Son of "to do" list 

message: Hey, don't worry about the districts being "stacked" - they won't seem 'listed' if each heading has a good amount of descriptive text. As it stands there is no seeming logic in the grouping - limit was Concorde/Vendome - or something like Champs-Élysées/Avenue Montaigne - but putting "Les Halles" in the same paragraph as "Quartier Latin" is a bit nonsensical. The content is great, but this section has to either be separated (headings) or restructured. THEPROMENADER 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so for the reader to get that correlation, your explanation must be in the phrase: "Two of Paris' most liveliest quarters are..." - otherwise he won't get how they are connected (as they are in the same paragraph). As for the contrast part, I don't get you. THEPROMENADER 18:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Districts 

message: I had asked around for someone better-informed than I to look at/create this, but after more than a week, no takers. I am doing it myself for now, but I'm sure the result could use improvement. I'll try to have it up later today. THEPROMENADER 08:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm overbooked. If anyone wants to have a go at this, or thinks any part of it complete enough to include, please find it here. Thanks! THEPROMENADER 06:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education section 

message: I've added Climate as sub section in "Geography", because that is where climate info of a city goes on Wikipedia. Jackp 11:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ - there is no Wikipedia standard as far as I know. It's best to do what reads best and most coherently. THEPROMENADER 12:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Point of fact is: there is no standard, and surtout not a written one. What is best is what best works for the article. This one has its own TOC so it can safely have as many categories as it needs without excess space - and it takes full advantage of this fact, and your removing the category actually disrupts this setup. Unless you manage to overturn concensus on this, leave the categories be please. THEPROMENADER 08:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jackp, would you mind leaving the climate section alone? I am not alone in contesting your changes and I have provided ample explanation and even reason why this modification is disturbing to the page layout and TOC above. Please desist. THEPROMENADER 05:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Climate should actually be apart of geography 

message: How did Paris dubbed as the City of Lights???
: Several reasons! It all began with the 18th-century "Siècle des lumières" (century of lights, or enlightenment period) with many of the philosophers residing in Paris during this time - Paris as "Ville des lumières" could be better translated to "City of ideas". The ideas weren't only philisophical ones, they were also based on the many inventions of the time concerning insdustry, living comfort and hygene (water pumps, sewers, etc), and the beginnings of an architectural utopist movment (Claude-Nicolas Ledoux).
:From there Paris "city of Lights" appellation was re-used for: being one of the world's first cities to completely light a main avenue in gas light; becoming known for brilliantly lighting all its boulevards with electric light; perhaps once again when the car-maker Citroën lit up the Eiffel tower with thousands of electric lights.
:Hope that answers your question : )
:THEPROMENADER 06:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris.... 

message: New Morning club link was linked to Bob Dylan's New Morning album, changed to a new blank New Morning (Club) page
: That was my dumb : P - Thanks. THEPROMENADER 06:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed New Morning link 

message: "Paris is a leading global cultural, business and political center and is renowned for its defining neo-classical architecture as well as its role as a major international influence in fashion, gastronomy and the arts.[1]" The link to the site proving that sentence dosen't work, if you can fix it or find another link also proving it, then I will remove the citation needed. Jackp 08:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it myself. Link fixed. THEPROMENADER 08:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paris is a leading? 

message: I notice that there's no references at all in the article to the locations of the principal institutions of the French national government in the city - the Elysée Palace, Hôtel Matignon, Palais Bourbon, and Palais de Justice are not mentioned at all, and the Palais Royal and Palais du Luxembourg are mentioned only for their gardens (am I missing any of the big ones?).  This should surely be rectified, but I'm not sure where in the article would be the best place. john k 01:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The administration section would be perfect I think, as it is the building's function that you wish to outline, and not their secondary status as monuments - perhaps integrated into the text? Anyhow, please do! THEPROMENADER 06:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That wasn't "shaky", that was fine, and needed! Great : ) THEPROMENADER 17:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Just added a new title, and changed the title of another section to give the new one relevence and tie everything together. This addition was one of the last before peer review - great insight, I don't know how it was missed until now! THEPROMENADER 18:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  national government 

message: Hardouin, thanks for the edits, but the "many factual errors" you spoke of were nothing of the sort and I resent you attempting to belittle other editors by presenting them as such. You simply added, in my opinion, unneeded detail ("Paris region" before Ile-de-France) and effaced the date indicating the creation of France's régions with the date of the renaming of the "district de la région parisienne" into its present-day Île-de-France appellation. Again this is a question you taking another option on "what and how much are we going to say" and calling what you chose to replace "error".
If you're complaining about the language, everything after that has become a rather garbled rehash of what was there before, with "of the" and "lot of" added. I'm not criticising you personally for your linguistic abilities, but you would be doing this article a service by leaving language edits to those better able, and no I don't mean only myself. Peer review should set this problem straight.
As for the Education section, I've never hidden the fact, and in fact made it very clear to all, that this is not at all in my domain of expertise, and we both know that I've done the rounds trying to get someone to do it in my place. Your insults as comments aside, even published as it is, it goes without saying that this action served for something: proof of the matter is, now that it's there, it's already begun to improve. Only the best should take the first step? Hardly, otherwise little would ever get done.
Editing with you would be much more fun and educational would you use your knowledge in a way that wasn't so damn unsociable. THEPROMENADER 12:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Factual errors" and edit comments 

message: "Exodus" was a pretty funny choice of a word, wasn't it? Glad you corrected it. The thing is, you only mentioned only this and nothing about re-inserting the very text I was trying to improve. Please stop following me around, and please stop trying to make me angry by inserting "metroplitan area" everywhere. First off, this is an article on Paris, so Paris has priority, and secondly, if the numbers cited don't come from the metropolitan area you can't use "metropolitan area" - you didn't even take the time to verify, otherwise you would have posted the source that was quite explicitly asked for. THEPROMENADER 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see that you've gone and found the AU 99 numbers. Sorry for jumping the gun. THEPROMENADER 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no excuse for your behavior. You are always hot-tempered and war-like. You should reflect on your attitude... Hardouin 19:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: (glancing up) Didn't I just apologize? You are quite rude. So, the sum of your edits are that you have replaced IDF numbers with AU numbers. That's fine, but what of the cultural disparity between Paris and its suburbs? it is quite evident, and this is mentioned in most every encyclopedia. I'm sure it is possible to mention this without re-re bloating any text. THEPROMENADER 19:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't "replaced" any number with other numbers. If you would pay more attention, you would notice that the numbers are the same. This is just another of your umpteen accusations. Hardouin 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually couldn't "notice" anything because there are no percentages in the reference you give. Is this permissible, and are we expected to do the maths ourselves? I did, and indeed you did not replace anything. Consider this an apology as well then. THEPROMENADER 20:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immigration Exodus 

message: The infobox is fine up top, but while doing some site testing at smaller screen resolutions I opened up the Paris page and see that the "Name" section is rather squeezed between the infobox and the image to the left. Let's put the image down below the infobox and air things out once again, shall we? THEPROMENADER 08:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean let's put the image back up the infobox? Hardouin 22:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That wasn't quite, English - but I meant rearrange things so that the infobox fits properly up top, and the photo below (instead of to the left), without disturbing the rest of the layout or squeezing the text. I think I was quite clear. THEPROMENADER 23:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox "squish" 

message: "(Promenader, it's not because you don't know about something that it doesn't exist. Stop removing edits from other users (this time User:86.71.38.247's edit).)" 
... as it was lacking a reference, I did a search - I could find little on the "Club de Paris", nor what importance it could have to the city to merit a place in the introduction. Hardouin, thank you for not insinuating that I often remove other contributor's edits - nothing could be farther from the truth. Even then your "correction" was not made in the aim of our better information, as you did not say what importance this club does have even after you reinstated the phrase. THEPROMENADER 00:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Club de Paris" 

message: After a revert war the night before that stopped just short of the 3RR rule, I see this morning that anonymous editor 66.159.221.97 had made one final revert. Since this IP's unique and uncommented edit was to re-insert ad litteram Hardouin's erronous text/irrelevent references, I concluded that this was either another case of sock-puppetry, or some drive-by user gratuitously seeking to give unfair advantage, so I set things back the way they were the night before. Still, when one considers the odds of a) a single user, making a single edit to a single page in all of Wiki and b) that edit being a to-the-letter repeat of the exact same reverts made the night before, one tends to doubt the latter scenario.
Instead of wasting time in filing an WP:RfC for what should be a trifling and obvious affair, or to write long letters to administrators unaware of the above situation, I thought it best to set the record straight this way. I am of course willing to accept the concequences of my action should it be deemed unjustified. THEPROMENADER 06:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Promenader, you have no excuse, and your lame justification here is very weak. I note that even other users are tired of your page appropriation now. It's not by accusing them of sock-puppetry or vandalism that you will get out of this. This time I filed a complaint against you. Hardouin 11:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was alerted and have left not on the corresponding page. Thank you for not insinuating the disgruntlement of an insinuated many "other editors" who do not exist, but thank you for your warning. THEPROMENADER 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert by [[User:66.159.221.97]] 

message: While concerned with names and namespaces elsewhere, it was recently suggested to me that I look at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28places%29, namely the Follow local conventions section. Very enlightening, and seems a simple way to make things quite clear and referencable. All those concerned or interested, have a look please.
It's been noted in this article's peer review that much of the text (almost half!) has to go, but where to start? To begin with, needless detail can go, as well as many of the "of the of the" phrases recurrent in this article. If anyone sees one, please shoot it on sight. The history section can get much lighter for sure. Also the section I've just added; not all that detail is needed in this supposedly 'general city' article. This is where I'll be working over the next little while. THEPROMENADER 23:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local naming conventions, language 

message: I was looking for somthing on Paris, 1968, what happened and why. Maybe it's not of enough significance in an article on the city, but perhaps a link to May 1968 could be here somewhere. – Morganfitzp 01:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right! To date there's only a vague reference (educational reform) in the Education section. If you don't have the time to add a line to the history section yourself, be sure that someone will do it later now that it's been brought up. ThePromenader 07:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 1968?

message: Today's insert takes a lot of space without providing much information. The phrase replaced stated that the crown had the last say in all things concerning the ruling of Paris, a fact confirmed in the replacement phrase citing the lieutenant general of police (in a quite wrong secondary position). The Provost ruling Paris' trade did not rule Paris itself - commerce and politics were not one and the same, and this section is not about Paris' trade or trademsmen.
As for the rest, adding additional information is not "correcting error" - and "City proper" != "Paris proper" - 'city' can be bigger, but Paris is Paris. This article already has a long list of things that could stand improvement, so thanks for not adding to it. What about all those phrases that need references? ThePromenader 14:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual, you don't like whatever I edit. You really have a problem you know. This article is not yours and other editors have as much a right to edit the article as you do. As for the provost of the merchants, please stop arguing about things that you obviously know very little about. The provost of the merchants, despite his name, was not just in charge of Paris trade. He was the head of a full fledged municipality, responsible for building new streets or levying taxes at the octroi bareer for example. And the crown certainly did not have (quote) "the last say in all things concerning the ruling of Paris". It is statements like this, contrary to historical facts, and your constant desire to appropriate this page, that makes your attitude detrimental to this article and to the editing atmosphere. I suggest you pay a visit to the musée Carnavalet and to the bibliothèque historique de la Ville de Paris to learn more about the history of the municipality of Paris and stop writing stupid things. Hardouin 15:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I don't like that you replaced something simple that was for something long and complicated off the mark. The 'streets' law you refer to is one dating from Philippe-Auguste where merchants were responsible for the cleanliness of the street in front of their doorway... this is hardly what one would call maintaining Paris under crown control. Crown control, if anything, is a "last say". This is why a Paris revolt against the power in place, such as that led by Etienne Marcel, were such an extraordinary event - whoever controlled Paris controlled France, and it was for this that Paris was always under Crown control. This is quite simple. This information is now gone. ThePromenader 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite simple. Too simple. You have this tendency to oversimplify history. If you believe that ancient France was some sort of Stalinist regime where the king controled everything, then you understand nothing about ancient France. It's better you leave this to people more knowledgeable than you. Hardouin 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a rather 'facile' and unfounded critique. No need to put words in another contributor's mouth - the precedent version was simple and to the point. It is no longer. that's it. ThePromenader 20:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Municipality - or trade? 

message: I see no mention of Whitwell on this page, but I found out this week it's twinned with Paris. I'm not sure how much Paris knows about it but it's true. Look [] [] Jimmmmmmmmm 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question of partner cities came up not so long ago - many are uncertain a) how many there are b) what being a partner means and c) if all of these are 'official' partners or declared partners, etc... Is there a comprehensive list of any sort anyplace? Myself I haven't been able to find one - mind you, I haven't spent too much time looking, either. I like your name - I assume "Jim" and "Jimm" and "Jimmm" (etc) were taken - how about Jim8? Anyhoo, cheers. thepromenader 17:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimmmmm, it is of course a joke. Very british, and quite funny. They unilaterally decided they were twinned with Paris (which should have had enough sense of humour to give an answer). It reminds me of The Mouse That Roared (the movie)... I hereby declare that I am twinned with New York City. Thbz 18:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course it's not a true twin city but I've never heard of this kind of thing happening anywhere else and it quite funny and interesting. There are actually signs as you go through Whitwell so joke as it may be it's a pretty perminant one. Jimmmmmmmmm 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It deserves to be mentioned on the page of Whitwell, Rutland (I created the article on the French Wikipedia thanks to your information). I don't think it deserves to be mentioned on the Paris page, because there are probably many jokes about Paris in the world... Thbz 06:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitwell, Rutland, UK 

message: Well, I've compared Melbourne and Paris' size and populations before, but this was interesting:
:At 3.6 million, Melbourne's population is just half that of Paris, but the Victorian capital is twice the geographic size of France's and now occupies double the space it did when Daddy Cool recorded Eagle Rock in 1971. 
Maybe you guys can make sense of that one :) They've apparently come up with a figure of 7 million for Paris' population (vs the 10 million or 2 million that usually get argued here), and roughly 3,800 square kilometres for its area, bigger than the stated "Urban area" of Paris, but far smaller than its "Metro area". Time to rewrite the article? Stevage 13:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, no. We should rewrite this article on the offhand and approximative comparison by a single news article - on Melbourne - that, according to all the official statistics we have here, is wrong? You must be rooting for some more fun : ) thepromenader 15:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I had a look at the Melbourne side of things, but I left my message on Stevage's talk page. Those numbers are puzzling - and most likely an allusion to the Urban Area if the journalist is indeed talking of city spread. Get this guy a Google button. thepromenader 16:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Food for thought 

message: ...I have a big problem...I delete the end of this article...
: Problem seems to be solved now, thanks to the vigilance of some. No worries. THEPROMENADER 08:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROBLEM 

message: There is a Paris Stock Exchange, but perhaps it would be better to intgrate/link this little factoid into the text somewhere instead of leaving it hanging out all on its own. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a [[Paris Stock Exchange]] 

message: Sigh - another pointless revert. Hardouin, "Central Paris" is the I-XI arrondissements. Since you're focused on the issue I trust you'll fix this error yourself. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 23:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do not fix this then I will be rolling back your revert later today. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 14:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually I did nothing of the kind - I changed "central paris (within its périphérique)" to "Paris within its périphérique" - this retains a borderline insinuation where there was only blatant misinformation before. Again a compromise with fact - because of nothing fact. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 19:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, Hardouin has reverted back into misinformation once again. Now it would seem that there is a City of Paris outside the périphérique. Unless of course he's referring explicitly to a heliport and a couple of forests. Rather pointless, mon cher. THEPROMENADER 23:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're never ever satisfied with my edits. Simply put, there's always something wrong in what I edit. If Stevage had written the exact same thing, would you be complaining the same? Your perpetual criticism is what contributes negatively to the editing atmosphere here. Hardouin 23:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Paris