Talk:Paris/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

About poverty and homelessness

One editor has suggested that the short text on poverty and homelessness in Paris is irrelevant, unimportant, "unfamiliar to readers" and, as he puts it, "a joke." Poverty has been a familiar part of Paris life since the Middle Ages (see Victor Hugo). There are enormous income disparities between Paris neighborhoods, well documented, and the City of Paris runs a large network of homeless shelters. Anyone who has been out on the streets, even in the 6th and 7th arrondissements, sees it, it's a major social problem in Paris. I don't think that stating official statistics on poverty and homelessness is irrelevant or unfamiliar to readers. They should be included in the article.SiefkinDR (talk) 06:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I would definitely tend to second that motion. This should be included in the article. Coldcreation (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Being the one who suggested it at someone's talk page, I do support the idea... because it is a fact & something quite visible. And it is not necessary to balance it out with "neighborhoods of rich people", as those are quite obviously mentioned throughout the article.

Curiously, I just fell upon this article in today's German newspaper Handelsblatt online, nothing to do with homelessness, but another fact of Paris that could be mentioned in climate? health? tourism? cemeteries?

http://www.handelsblatt.com/panorama/aus-aller-welt/luftverschmutzung-paris-riechen-und-sterben/11035144.html

--Blue Indigo (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And Coldcreation had a great suggestion (when we met earlier today ; ) - crime! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Poverty exists in all the cities of the world, and yet only Paris has a section dedicated to poverty now. Go figure! Besides, there is already an "Incomes" section where this information belongs. As usual, you guys forget the larger picture and turn anything you write into a case of ownership, as if your sacred edits were untouchable. You think you're the only ones putting hard work in this article (as Blue Indigo wrote on Coldcreation's talk page)? I see only inflated egos and uncompromising editors here. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

'Go Figure' for what? Uncompromising with what? What 'ownership'? What 'egos'? (looking at talk pages filled with discussion) What 'uncompromising'? Whither the accusations... based on what? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: Accusations like that are a valid reason to go running to Future Perfect at Sunrise ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker, please stop the personal attacks and insults to other editors. It has no place in Wikipedia. How many times do we have to tell you that?SiefkinDR (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

May you please refrain from calling other editors as if they're your dog - --Askedonty (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Who are you addressing, Askedonty? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I was only reacting to that last sentence by SiefkinDR because it makes me ill reading over-patronizing phrases( particularly in a context of dealing with poverty in Paris, where aristocracies-and-caste struggles are very much under reciprocal matters of patronizing ), then as Blue Indigo puts it below you are all doing good work on that article so I let the opportunity for your question, my intention is not of being disruptive. --Askedonty (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, if even SiefkinDR feels the need to take a tone like that, you can be sure that there's a damn good reason for it. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Der Statistiker, a couple of days ago, I wrote on this very page: "I also believe that when a point in the article is lacking source, "source missing" or "citation needed" could be added instead of reverting the day's work of an editor. A source 'lacking' does not mean the information is not correct, so just point at it & contact the editor, do not remove/revert the work. Editors such as SiefkinDR and THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ are not vandals or second-class editors, no more than Der Statistiker. They may not see eye to eye, but their work is as valuable. When source is lacking, anyone of us here, in the spirit of teamwork, can look it up & add it." No idea if you read this, but shorty after you went thru several paragraphs that either SiefkinDR of THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ had done in which the sources were missing or wrong and, instead of removing these portions, you put "citations needed". Then Coldcreation found the sources & put them there. Siefkin thanked Coldcreation on his/her talkpage & I also left a note of thanks for that courteous gesture that avoided someone's hard work being reverted. Anything wroong doing this? As for people "putting hard work in this article", may I point out to you that you were among the three I named?

And about not only poverty in Paris as given by scale of salaries, cost of rents & the number of people who cram into a one square meter apartment, but about homelessness & people living in tents, I think it is important to have a mention of it somewhere because most foreigners have an idea of France, and Paris in particular, that is fed thru advertisement & Hollywood movies. Why not in this article show the gap between the rich & the poor, the wealth brought by multinationals & the people left behind, whatever the reason is, but who do not live in luxurious apartments in the seizième or in Neuilly, with the proximity of the Bois de Boulogne, but on the quay of the Seine in tents furnished by some charitable organization?

Last: my bringing earlier today's Handelsblatt article is because, an every day common fact about Paris that should not be ignored is its unbeathable pollution - one of the reasons the various maires have been pushing the use of bicycles!

--Blue Indigo (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Homelessness and pollution are common features in all the cities of the world, and Paris is certainly not worse than most other cities on these two metrics, in fact it is much better. Pollution levels in Paris are infinitely lower than in most Asian cities, also better than in German industrial areas, eastern Europe, and many North American cities. As for the use of bicycles, it's a gimmick by the Paris city hall, not a serious policy. So what's the point of singling out two aspects of the city that are nothing really special, and usually not mentioned in other city articles? As usual I see a tendency among some editors here to look at Paris 'par le petit bout de la lorgnette'. What's needed is the big picture, not the 'petit bout de la lorgnette'.

Also, Monsieur Blue Indigo, instead of lecturing other people on this talk page, why don't you actually spend your time and energy improving the culture section, which is currently laughingly outdated and cliché? Such a connoisseur of Paris as you cannot but be shocked to see the Parisian culture reduced to a sort of pre-WW2 theme park in this article. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sehr geehrter Herr Statistiker! Keine Zeite. Keine Lust. A lot of work of mine here was "disappeared". According to the opinion of experts, my ideas about culture are probably 'de l'autre côté de la plaque', as is, according to you, every idea or suggestion I bring to this page. For one to dare to open his/her mouth is a sure way of becoming your next target. Beside, since musette & rap are not strong points of my cultural background, that leaves me out of the culture department. But, with or without your permission, I will contribute to the discussion on this page where what I write can be criticized, but not reverted.

Warum Monsieur Blue Indigo? Nur guys allowed hier?

Viele Grüße --Blue Indigo (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

As I've said a thousand times before, I frankly don't give a rat's ass what 'other wikipedia articles' do... Wikipedia 'big city' articles seem to be plagued by "mine's bigger than yours" POV-PUSH campaigners wanting to show only the biggest, tallest and best of 'their' city (and exclude anything negative in the process). Crime and poverty are both real problems here (with their 'problem areas'), and excluding this gives a disingenuous image of the city. Disingenuousity is a fault, not a rule.

And, speaking of, how about editing in a way that's not a 'protective reaction' to some other contributor's just-made contribution? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for FINALLY stating your POV in the most clear way. You want this article to highlight the "negative" sides of Paris. At least the other editors now know what's your goal here. Problem is, an encyclopedic article is not about highlighting the good of bad (subjective judgment, hence POV) aspects of its subject. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(cough) Wwwwwhat? Why the disingenuous effort to build false opposition - to what? Neither contribution was mine. Those accusations don't even make sense. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This is just POINT editing. The above 'complaint' wasn't even answered (understandable because its disruptive and personal attack nature), and what happened to "The fact that you've mentioned them "many times" doesn't mean they are accepted by other editors"? Wikipedia is not a GAME. By the way, I've already mentioned many times that I'm working on an 'urban sociology' section here that covers both rich and poor issues, and an actual discussion would have allowed that to come up again. But no chance for that... as usual. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Lock the talk page

In all honesty I think it would be better in the long term if central discussion was avoided here. It causes more conflict and trouble than it's worth. I think the best solution would be to lock the talk page and encourage discussion/collaboration between individual contributors, at least until everybody can learn to work together and assume good faith. I'm sick of seeing the ill feeling here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Those who share ill feelings have to work that out between themselves. If they cannot, Wikipedia has ways to 'lock' them out. Besides, if they want to argue, they will do it on any page being worked on. But locking the talk page? I don't think it is a good idea. This would lock out anyone wanting to participate in the discussion & bring valuable new ideas.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Blue Indigo. We need a place to hear all opinions, even it some people are yelling at each other, and some people abuse the space.SiefkinDR (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of locking a talk page before. And if it did happen, guess where all the talk would be: in the Edit summaries. I don't even want to imagine. Coldcreation (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly where it's currently at! When was the last time exactly something constructive was said here with good results? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

New section: Security and safety in Paris

I've just added an important new section on Security and safety in Paris. It is placed within the Tourism section, as tourists are most often targeted for robberies and related activity. Coldcreation (talk) 09:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this article supposed to be a tourist guide? This is getting more and more ridiculous by the day. What's next? A section about the best air fares to Paris? Der Statistiker (talk) 11:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty anti-tourist if anything. Perhaps another name would be better, but 'ridiculous', really? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's beyond ridiculous to add 6 paragraphs to an already very long article that simply copy warnings from the US State Department to tentative tourists to France. This subsection does not discuss crime in Paris (tourist crime is only a very minor aspect of crime in Paris), it gives no context about criminality in Paris (if this is even needed in a general article such as this), it's only some warnings and advice to tentative tourists. You guys are now going to such extremes here that I am in no doubt this will all boomerang back. But then feel free to add more tourism stuff! The more this article becomes extremist in its 'tourist guide' orientation, the more it is bound to eventually attract the attention of other editors concerned with the encyclopedic quality of it. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

'Extremist'? Is it even possible to you to state your views in a talk page without reverting, accusing, insulting, or belittling? When one 'states' points in that way, people tend not to listen. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That's why there is no consensus and progressive discussion possible in this talk page, ThePromenader, if you don't even listen to points where you don't agree.

Any section about crime in Paris has no reason to be put in tourism section and this section should not be a copy of tourist advice from the US or it just proves that this article is more and more written with the tourist point of view, it is not giving an overview of the Paris of today and its function but giving something based on stereotypes and what tourist may see. Nothing about the banking and financial industries but a lot about the hotels. Minato ku (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Your problem guys is that beginning the article with History starts the reading of it with a blank and semi-void which remains long the only and dusty path with ancient and faded pictures before starting arriving to the real thing. There seem to miss a direction. The fat rich modern piece of urbanity exposed in the lede arrives only after crossing the desert and that's a bit perplexing. You'd need one flashy and bright spot of paragraph before starting with history. About direction: in Government, we read that the city has a Mayor, starting with Jacques Chirac. There is something unreal in that image (although it's fact). I think it should be shortly reminded that an equivalent function was held by the Provost of Merchants until 1789. --Askedonty (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I would actually agree that the history should go further down after we understand what the city's all about... but I'm not the only one here. By the way, what brought you to the article talk-page? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That was, I had an eye on a few of the big cities articles, my watch on evolution, and I'm curious about what will become of the Parisian struggle between glass towers and the Eiffel Tower. There is also the Tour Triangle affair. I noted the struggle seemed to be also in the talk-page, this sometimes can lead to some easy conversation - voilà. --Askedonty (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if the Le Monde article was still bringing attention, or the campaign on French wikipedia inspired by the same article. Okay, cool! I left a longer message below. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@ Askedonty: regarding the last question by ThePromenader, to let you know what sort of charming place you've entered, he's probably implying, as he often does, that I have contacted you off Wikipedia, or canvassed with you, or something like that. That's basically the meaning of what would otherwise be a rather odd question to ask in any other talk page. Various other editors have also been accused by him of being either my meatpuppets, or some people I had "recruited" (sic!) off Wikipedia. That's the sort of constant accusations one is faced with here.
Regarding the history section: yes indeed, there is no rule that says a city article should start with the history section, but as you must have noticed by now, there is a clear push to turn this article into a mostly historical article, as if Paris was a mummified city. The "Culture" section is a very good example of this: it reads mostly as a history of Parisian culture before 1960. Long paragraphs about ancient artists and cultural trends (with a clear preference for the 19th century, don't know why), and almost nothing about today's Parisian culture. Paris must be some sort of Pompeii buried under the ashes of a volcano in 1960.
The other major flaw in this article is its tourist orientation. This has been already criticized on this talk page, but again: 1- the current tourist photomontage in the infobox which was forced in this article without prior consensus in replacement of this more modern picture of Paris, 2- a strong focus on heritage, as if a city was just a collection of heritage sites (several sections are little more than long lists of monuments; and it used to be even worse a few weeks ago before User:Metropolitan removed a very long list of "landmarks" from the article), 3- a new "tourism" section that is less than a week old and already twice longer than the "education" section (complete with travel warnings by the US State Department added today).
My advice: do not let insinuations and daily vitriol destabilize/discourage you. We need new non-involved editors to express themselves here, because the "discussion" between the currently involved editors is frankly leading nowhere, with one camp firmly entrenched in their historical/heritage view of Paris, and another camp trying to defend a more modern and functional view of the city, but with little success so far as you can see from the current state of the article. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Der Statistiker: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paris article. Coldcreation (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually wondered what brought Askedonty here - this article has seen so few contributors over the years. But the person making all the accusations does indeed canvass and use (at the least) knowingly meat-puppet contributors[1] to impose edits or overturn consensus - that does tend to further (in addition to all the disingenuous accusations) disrupt the editing atmostphere. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And I seem to detect in the 'flaws' (aka: dislike) outlined that the word 'historic' and 'touristic' are seemingly synonymous. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh well - I'm surprised, I'd thought that a subject like Paris would be of course attracting a number of contributors. I do not think I'm interested getting involved into writing for the article, that's not the kind of subject I know myself to be very easy with, I thought however I could give my view if it could help.

Indeed a kind of subject I'm more at ease with being history, I've noted that history can be a difficult merge where ancient classical cities are concerned. Particularly so concerning Paris probably, with all the different periods almost all intermingled in the contemporary exploitation of them, and a prosaic life going on around it. That's where a touristic oriented aesthetics is a temptation because easier. See how the history subjects are often grey and blank, coloured only by action in the narrative, or by the exposure of aristocracies and protocols. In some Italian cities one may emphasize on the gold and the purple. In our Rome article there is the exposure of some very spectacular excavations. The history of Paris is much of action, but this is not the place for spectacular narratives - perhaps the history part could be focusing more on urbanism and geographical deployment. @Der Statistiker: the photomontage seems to be a de facto standard, where big cities articles are concerned, otherwise bright colored panorama like with Hong Kong. I would certainly support a request for a different photomontage, the Eiffel Tower view in the present is was probably intended for a standalone picture. --Askedonty (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Askedonty! Bienvenue! Please stick around. You sound as if you could help détendre l'atmosphère. C'est souvent orageux ici. The problem is that there is not one Paris, but a different Paris for everyone & each one of us sees it with different eyes.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 21:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Askedonty: I proposed this photomontage, but it was rejected by the historical/heritage camp here. Too modern, not representative of the city I was told. So it's not a question of single photo vs photomontage, it's really a question of modernity vs fantasy 'Woody Allenesque' Paris. That's where we are. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I just have to add that I'm again dismayed at the level of disingenuousity in the aggressive diatribes against other contributors - most all of us are just trying to improve the article (it just lost its GA status, btw), but there's always been one here doing everything possible to resist it. There wasn't much opposition over the past seven years or so, so the article remained (in its sorry state) relatively unchanged, but Dr. Blofeld's efforts to improve it, plus a battle over the lede image led to a canvassing of a skyscrapercity.com website to garner like-minded meatpuppet votes... and exactly the same thing happened one year later. This time though, I'm glad to say, the involved contributors have been more dedicated, tenacious and numerous, and we're at present working out what the final article should be. Some are history-oriented, some are culture-oriented, Dr. Blofeld is our 'wikiperfection' guide, I'd like to see more urbanism (the city as a city), and the skyscraper-denizens would like a 'huge, rich and skyscraper-filled' with hardly any mention of history or tourism at all. That's about the sum of it. So... welcome? ; ) You're obviously knowledgable (your prévôt des Marchands comment), so if you don't mind the noise, please stick around and pitch in! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Again repeating your false accusations? Let's inform Askedonty that you filed 4 (four!) complaints against me in the Administrators' Noticeboard to get me banned (whereas I never filed any complaint against you), and all of them failed, and in the end an administrator even told you to shut up and "comment on content, not contributors". Perhaps you believe if a falsehood is repeated often enough it will end up being taken for the truth. I am NOT a member of that stupid skyscraper forum, and the fact that your repeating that falsehood over and over again won't change that fact.

Oh, and giving a pat on Dr. Blofeld's back here while at the same time criticizing him on other editors' talk pages is slightly hypocritical. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Where did he criticise me?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Polemics aside, I have to agree that the current "security and safety" seems more suitable to en:wikivoyage:Paris than to encyclopedia article about Paris. A section about crime may be relevant here, perhaps about residential break-ins, drug-trafficking, whatever, but not an how-to guide about tourism safety. --Superzoulou (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No offense but I'm always suspicious of somebody who edits only a couple of times a year and turns up to support something and never place any weight on their opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

No offense but I fail to see the point of this vacuous ad hominem comment. Besides, it is pretty clear that the issue with this article is that people are too emotional about it, not that they show up too infrequently. --Superzoulou (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Crime could also be mentioned in the near vicinity or even under the header of the Police duties. It's not a traditional trade ( Cour des miracles#Clearance) related with an image of the City of Lights. It could be mentioned again associated with "newspaper and media headlines" under the assumption that pursuits between police and members of the underworld find there one of their spectacular grounds. Interested readers will then all by themselves start looking for the accurate paragraph, "Police". --Askedonty (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You all have brought up some excellent points. Please feel free to improve or move the section of safety and security as best you see fit. I will see what I can do to ameliorate is well. Coldcreation (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The only possible improvement really is to shred it and rewrite it entirely, and place it somewhere else. As Askedonty said, it would make more sense under the "Police" section. In the NYC article, they have a "Police and law enforcement" subsection inside the "Human resources" section, and that's where crime is mentioned. In the SF article, they have a "Crime and public safety" subsection inside the "Law and government" section. This is a very North American thing however. Neither the London nor the Berlin articles have anything about crime in these cities. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Lede

"About 2.7 million of this total were born outside Metropolitan France and represent a multitude of different countries and territories from around the world."

• Is this information necessary in the lede? And not only in the lede, but in its very first paragraph? Why as an opener have mention of number of foreigners or French nationals born outside metropolitan France & living now in Paris? Does not that sentence belong in section Demographics/Migration?

"Disneyland Paris, the most visited tourist attraction in France, welcomed 32.3 million visitors."

• This in from lede's 3rd paragraph, which is about Paris Region. That paragraph is stuck between the 2nd paragraph (beginning with Paris in the 3rd century BC) and 4th paragraph (Paris in 2013 with mention of some museums & landmarks).

• Is this article on Paris or on the Paris Region?
• If necessary to mention the Paris Region in article - which is done - why have that mention in lede between two paragraphs on Paris itself? Why not the last paragraph of lede?

It seems to me that in lede, anything that touches Paris itself should have the priority over the Paris Region which is not Paris.

This, for instance, should be before the paragraph on Paris Region & Disneyland:

• "Paris is known for its fashion designers, high-end boutiques, and the twice-yearly Paris Fashion Week. It is world-renowned for its haute cuisine, and celebrated three-star restaurants. Most of France's major universities and Grandes Écoles are in Paris or its suburbs, and most of France's major newspapers, including Le Monde, Le Figaro, and Libération, are based in the city, while Le Parisien in the suburb Saint-Ouen."

Then the paragraph on sport.

Then the Paris Region.

Best regards, --Blue Indigo (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the 2.7 million born outside Metropolitan France, it deserves to be mentioned in the lede in my opinion, since the lede is precisely about summarizing the various sections of the article, and the multiculturalism/ethnic diversity of Paris is a key characteristic of the city.

Regarding Disneyland Paris, I agree that this information is not really needed in the lede. Paris is not Orlando, and Disneyland plays a very minor role for Paris as a whole.

As for trying to make a rank order between the City of Paris and the Paris Region, I think it's a bit futile (and impossible), because the two are inextricably interwoven. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to mention the multiculturalism/ethnic diversity of Paris, then there are many other subjects that should be mentioned in the lede... Then it will not be a lede, but an essay, or a long summary.

My remark on the Paris Region, was not to remove its mention from the lede, but to have it as last paragraph: Paris first, region after.

A casual reader wanting to know about Paris does not want to be faced immediately with the economics, dollars amounts, GDPs usw. Having such detail so early in the lede might in fact turn a few away.

My thoughts - that's all I wanted to express.

And welcome back to those who were absent for a couple of days. Sincerely,

--Blue Indigo (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"many other subjects that should be mentioned in the lede". Such as?

"to have it as last paragraph". Paragraphs have to be arranged thematically, not by administrative units mentioned in the paragraph.

This is an encyclopedia, hence figures, statistics, ainsi de suite. I cannot count the number of city articles that start with data and figures in their ledes. So why should this article be any different? Der Statistiker (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Other subjects mentioned in the lede? Let the conversation go on & everyone will think of one!

Seriously, now RE the paragraph on Paris region, try, please just try taking out that paragraph & put it last. Then read the lede.

To me, read that way, the Paris region paragraph finishes perfectly the lede: everything has been exposed on Paris itself, then you have that end which opens up to the modern future of Paris: past, present, future... It is so logical to me.

OK, I'll even offer another example: put that paragraph one before last & finish with the one on sports.

I have said all I wanted to say on the subject. Fini!

--Blue Indigo (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the number of people born outside Metropolitan France is necessary here:

• this is a statistics about the Paris Region, not Paris;
• multicultural diversity is important, but other facts are just as important: the number of Parisian who were born in other régions, the number of high salaries, the inequalities, all of which are specific characteristics of Paris compared to other French cities. Multicultural diversity is a common feature of most major cities in France (Lyon, Marseilles...).
• you should not, anyway, consider that the number of people born outside Metropolitan France is an adequate measure of multicultural or ethnical diversity. Because many people were born in France and have (or dream about) multiple cultures. And because of a little known fact: 43% of immigrants in France are European or American [2].

Therefore either you create a paragraph about demography and human statistics, or you let them go inside the article. Seudo (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong, many cities indicate that their population is diverse in the lede. I have used a common sentence and the stats from the demographic section. The fact that XX% come from Europe or America does not reduce any diversity. The ratio of western immigrants in France is not higher than in most other western countries, infact it is lower than many other countries.

About the regional figure, many immigrants you see in the street are living in suburbs, a regional data is more representative of Paris diversity. As I notified earlier Paris region is not a region like many others with several completely independent cities. The whole Paris Region (except the small town of Provins) is part of Paris metropolitan area. Metropolitan area which is statistically calculated by INSEE, this is not a guesstimate. Minato ku (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"As for trying to make a rank order between the City of Paris and the Paris Region, I think it's a bit futile (and impossible), because the two are inextricably interwoven."
Few share this opinion, and no reference that I've ever seen, either. And hardly all aspects of the city are intertwined with its surrounding region - and that, only in the IDF's inmost departments - and that disconnect is the very problem they are trying to solve with the Greater Paris Metropole! This article is about Paris, so it is only normal that Paris be mentioned first. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Are we really living in the same urban space? The urban Paris is not limited to the City of Paris and the inner suburban departements. "Ile de France" is not called "Paris Region" or "Region parisienne" in French or "District de Paris" (in the past) for no reason. The whole regional area is linked to Paris. The metropolitan area of Paris (Aire urbaine) is covering almost the whole Ile de France, not just the inner departements but the whole region.

In 2011 only 19,331 people out the 11,852,851 inhabitants of Paris Region lived outside the metropolitan area of Paris. This means that only 0.16% of Paris Region's population were living outside Paris metropolitan area or that 99.8% of Paris Region's population were living inside the metropolitan area of Paris. Minato ku (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess I am kind of simple-minded, but to me Paris is Paris, the department with number 75. Period.

And when we are including everything in a radius of way over 55 km in department 78, for instance, then we are not talking about Paris (75) anymore, but about the Île de France, ot the Paris Region, or the great Metropolis, call it what you want, but we are not talking about Paris (75).

So, I agree, we may not be talking about the same urban space. Your urban space & mine are not covered by the same metro ticket.

Fini! --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually the Métro ticket extends way beyond the administrative borders of the City of Paris (see [3]). So it looks like a very bad example for your point of view, Monsieur Blue Indigo. ;) Der Statistiker (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Metro tickets are valid for any bus in the Paris Region (except for some express lines) and for the whole metro network. Note that public transportation is controled by the Regional autority STIF. Paris metro, RER, suburban trains, trams and buses are controlled at the regional level, it is hard to argue that the City of Paris and Paris Region are not inextricably interwoven on many issues. Minato ku (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies to Der Statistiker & Minato ku for not being more precise about the urban space covered by 'my' metro ticket: I meant Zone 1, which is Paris intra muros [[4]].

--Blue Indigo (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it's possible to buy a zone1-only ticket... they should really update that antiquated system. But it doesn't really matter, as the argument (for...?) isn't very clear anyway... what of it if a metro extends past city limits? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Le ticket t+ est valable pour un trajet continu, here: http://www.transilien.com/static/tarifs/billet-unite

- en métro

- en RER dans Paris (zone 1)

- en bus (sauf tarification spéciale)

- en tramway

There is actually a metro ticket for only Paris intra muros=Zone 1.

Pas moi qui l'invente! --Blue Indigo (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Mille pardons! I wasn't aware that t+ tickets were only RER-valid within Paris - and they quite clearly make that specification here[5], too. The INSEE, the RATP, the French government... bande d'imbeciles, complètement à côté de la plaque. Of course wikipedia knows better than they, and should educate them! ; )

But seriously, thanks for the heads-up - that is going to be one hell of a tourist trap (they won't discover that they've gone beyond the RER 'validity' until they try to get out of the RER!). And going to La Défense and Château de Vincennes is two different prices depending on mode of transport. Hm. And it p*sses me off to no end that we can't transfer between bus/metro/tramway with the same ticket. There's ma part de la monopole bureaucracy for you. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: Is there anything about all this in the article? It is pertinant information, and would only take a couple lines. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Although it is only metres away and in the New York Metropolitan area, there is but one 'ferries' mention of Hoboken in the New York City article (nor do I see Hoboken towers as the city backdrop ; ), yet this Paris article goes to enormous lengths to mention its entire suburbs and urban tissue. Anything bigger than the very well-defined commune and department (and when you're outside of one, you're in another) has another name - and this is not the Paris Region/Île-de-France (an administrative entity in itself) or Paris metropolitan area article, it's the Paris article, so of course Paris has priority. Please put this to rest. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Paris is not New York City, the city limits of New York City covers a much larger area. This means the city proper includes most of its main key sectors (i.e airports). Paris (because the city limits have not been extended) has many of its key sectors outside the City limits and a lot of the activities inside the city are dominated by people living outside the City proper (i.e: approx 60% of the people working in the City of Paris live outside the City of Paris). You can't make an encyclopedic article about Paris with adequate informations about the functioning of Paris if you don't take account of the suburbs. Minato ku (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

But the article does take the suburbs into account, and very much so. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Disneyland Paris

Could be time to edit mention of Mickey Mouse in Lede & Economy: [[6]] --Blue Indigo (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Um. Oops... I don't really think it's worthy of mention in the Lede, though. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I should have put :) at end of comment as I cannot see the reason for even mentioning 'Disneyland Paris', aka 'Euro Disney' in the lede, an opinion I had expressed earlier in above section.

We have removed a lot on Paris itself so that the article will not be too touristy, yet we mention in the lede the most touristy place, which is not even in Paris. I see that as a contradiction.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree- I would keep the mention in the tourism section, but drop it from the lead.SiefkinDR (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive discussion page

Hello,

Anyone to archive the current page, only presenting a short synthesis of not yet solved points (Oh.... of course, the definition of the short synthesis should not generate new discussions to be recursively archived... ) v_atekor (talk) 08:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I activated a bot that should archive discussions older than six months automatically... should I step it up to six months? Three? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I set it to archive monthly. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Climate

Hello, I have corrected the weatherbox because the 1971-2000 averages in the climate section of Paris are wrong and mixed with 1981-2010 summer seasons averages. The 1981-2010 averages that I have added are correct, please do not change them because these averages came from meteo france official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:39AF:800:F921:CB83:64B2:AA68 (talk) 10:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo shooting

Perhaps this should be mentioned at the bottom of the history?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back DB. Perhaps the Security and crime section need to be re-injected into the article. I don't think specific cases should be discussed however. Leave that to news networks. Coldcreation (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, guys - hope you're all fine. And glad to see that editing has returned to normal ; )

I think this info about this is best suited to a side article - I would be surprised if there isn't one already - and just a link to it here at the top next to the disambiguation link... a temporary link, mind you, just for people that may come here looking for info like that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Charlie Hebdo shooting.

Proposed deletion of map of parks and gardens

I would propose deleting the map of parks and gardens that was recently added to the article; it's much larger than any other image in the article, and, because it has no text or labels, it provides no other information about Paris parks, other than to show that Paris does in fact have them. This is a small section, and I think that the image that is already there, showing people in one of the parks, is more appropriate. Unless someone comes up with a good reason for retaining it, I think it should be taken out. Anyone have comments on this? SiefkinDR (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I would have to agree; it is overly large for what it is, and many of the other maps include this information. Is there a main article on this? It could go there. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SiefkinDR and ThePromenader, it should go somewhere else. Or, just a link to it would suffice. Coldcreation (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

New population figures in lead are confusing, questionable

The new population figures and rankings just added to the lead, "2015 estimates" for the "urban area", are confusing and not from an official source,. I don't believe they're necessary. Before this edit, the lead gave the official population of the city within the city limits, and its ranking with other EU cities (fifth). It also gave the official population for the Paris metropolitan area, from Eurostat, with its ranking with other EU metropolitan areas (second after London)..

The new figures for "urban areas" are "2015 estimates" and according to the citation come from a private source, Demographia. It's not at all clear what the difference is between the metropolitan area and the urban area, and it certainly shouldn't require an explanation in the lead. The "urban area", and these statistics, are not mentioned at all in the section on demographics.

I think the lead should give only the official population figure, and ranking of Paris with other EU cities; and the official metropolitan area population from Eurostat, with ranking with other EU cities. A discussion of the "urban area", and any unofficial ranking with other cities outside EU probably belongs in the demographics section, not in the lead.

What do other editors think? SiefkinDR (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should compare the city proper population as different countries deal differently with splitting urban areas into smaller municipalities and therefore straightforward comparison is not possible across countries.

The figure for urban area population is from the Population Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, not Demographia. I don't understand the problem with including the urban population of Paris? Urban area is more representative than metropolitan area as metropolitan area includes satellite settlements that no one would ever consider part of Paris. Whereas, most people do consider Paris' suburbs as part of Paris. For example sources describe La Defence as "Paris' business district", even though it is outside of the City of Paris; whereas, I don't think anybody would consider Meaux to be Paris, even though it is within the metropolitan area.

This article covers Paris and its suburbs. It does not cover satellite settlements.

Rob984 (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful comments. I think it is possible to rank the population of EU cities within their city limits; it's done in the articles on London, Berlin and Rome, and the statistics are readily available from Eurostat; I think we should do it in the Paris article, as it was done until the most recent edits.

Ranking by the urban area is also possible, but as you correctly note it's more complicated, and depends upon what area you include. The Wikipedia article on London puts London first, as does the Eurostat ranking of Larger Urban Zones in the Wikipedia article on that subject. I tried to find the source of the UN statistics recently added, but ran into some dead links and links I couldn't load. What data did the UN Population Division use, that from INSEE? What area did they include? Is the number cited for the Paris Urban Area an estimate, or a census figure, and from what year? If it's an estimate, I don't really think we should use it, when we have recent census figures.

I think a detailed discussion of the population probably belongs not in the lead, which is just a summary of main points, but in the section on demographics.

Since there seems to be little agreement between different sources about whether Paris or London has the larger urban area population, it might be better simply to say in the lead, "Depending on the area included, the Paris urban area is the first or second most populous in the European Union." a more detailed explanation can be given in the demographics section. ::SiefkinDR (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that compares city-limit populations across the EU? For example, how have you defined London's city-limit? City of London? Greater London?

The article currently cites here the World Urbanization Prospects. If you then click on "Urban Agglomerations", you should see a number of links to spreadsheets which contain the data. There are some details on the data here.

According to the INSEE, Paris's 'unité urbaine' had a population of 10,516,110 in 2010

According to the ONS, London's 'built-up area' had a population of 9,787,426 in 2011.

The definitions differ slightly:

The notion of urban unit is based on the continuity of built up land mass and the number of inhabitants. We call urban unity a municipality or a group of municipalities which includes a continuously built up zone (no cut of more than 200 meters between two constructions) and at least 2,000 inhabitants.

–INSEE

...the definition follows a ‘bricks and mortar’ approach, with areas defined as built-up land with a minimum area of 20 hectares (200,000 m2), while settlements within 200 metres of each other are linked. Built-up area sub-divisions are also identified to provide greater detail in the data, especially in the larger conurbations.

–ONS

If we rely on census figures, they will be 9 years out of date by 2019.

The Larger Urban Zone concept "represents an attempt at a harmonised definition of the metropolitan area", not urban area. London's article doesn't claim its urban area is larger than Paris'. Can you provide a reliable source that claims London's urban area is larger than Paris'?

Rob984 (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, clarifications and questions. For comparing city limit populations, I used INSEE figures for the city of Paris, and the ONS figure for Greater London. For the larger Paris area, I think the best number to use is the population of the Paris region (Ile-de-France), for which there are current population figures, it has a government and fixed borders, and the area doesn’t change. Also, Paris region figures are used in the section on economics, since there are no economic figures for the urban units and urban areas.

I think there should be a discussion of the urban area, but since it’s purely a statistical abstract, without fixed borders, and since the definition is different in France and other countries, this should be in the section on demographics. All the lead needs to contain is the official population of the city and of the region. I also think it’s preferable to use census figures and official figures when available rather than estimates; France is having a census right now, and the figures are regularly updated by INSEE. SiefkinDR (talk) 09:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the purpose of including statistics for the Paris region?

I disagree that the urban area is a purely statistical abstract. A city is not defined by fixed borders. There is no strict definition of Paris, and urban area is one, of various measures of the city's true extent.

A census figure is preferable to a estimate. However data more than a few years out of date is no longer representative.

Rob984 (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate your argument, but I respectfully disagree. There is a strict definition of Paris; the city within its administrative borders, the twenty arrondissements. There is a wealth of demographic, economic, social and historical data on the city going back to the beginning of the 19th century. There is also a very clear definition of the Paris region, the Ile-de-France, and a wealth of data about the region. Statistics for the Paris region are included because it's mentioned frequently in the article, particularly in the sections on economics, government and tourism. It has a budget, leaders, elections, an economy, a transport system, and historical statistics. It's a real place.

The urban area and metropolitan area are useful concepts, but they are both recent creations of INSEE. They're defined differently in other countries, and their borders change with time. There are no economic figures for either the urban area or the metropolitan area. They are both discussed in the demographic section of the article, I think it would be even more useful if there were a better explanation there of what these are, and what the difference is between them.

As for the population figures, I believe both the city and regional numbers are regularly updated with new estimates by INSEE, and they're both pretty current. Since the areas of the city and region haven't changed, they can be studied historically, economic data is available, and its relatively easy to compare them with other cities and regions in the EU. For these reasons, In the lead of the article I think we should stick with the most widely-recognized and commonly-used statistics for population of the city and region. SiefkinDR (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Urban area is a relatively universal concept. All countries define continuous urban area as urban settlements within 200 metres of each-other. What constitutes as an "urban settlement" may vary though. Overall however, urban area is relatively comparable across countries, and many sources including the UN use this measure. They do not use administrative boundaries.

The suburbs of French cities are rarely annexed by there adjacent city, but instead administered as separate departments. Conversely, English cities often expand there jurisdiction outwards to encompass suburbs. Does this make French cities smaller than English cities? Furthurmore, English cities administrative boundaries often include rural areas and separate distinct towns. For example, the metropolitan borough of the City of Sunderland, includes the city, Sunderland, and Washington, an entirely separate town with a distinct identity. French cities rarely annex neighbouring towns like this.

The administrative limits are designated for administrative convenience, not to define a city. Furthermore, London specifically does not have a "city limit". It has an administrative region. That is not a "city limit" as your change currently implies. Please provide a reliable source that compares cities across countries based on there administrative limits.

The Paris region's area is four times the size of the city's urban area. There are parts of it that are not even regarded by the INSEE as within Paris' metropolitan area. I can't understand how this is relevant here? Yes, the figures are available and updated, but it's still not relevant. There are a a number of small towns in the Paris region, that is beyond Paris' metropolitan area. For example Provins, or Nemours. Why is the population of those towns relevant to Paris?

Please can you remove the sentence about the Paris region's population from the lead until there is consensus to include it? Rob984 (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The sentence which considers Paris as the fifth largest European city is ludicrous. 2 millions inhabitants is for Paris intra-muros (the historic centre, inside the walls) and 12 millions is for the Paris Metropolitan Area. It is similar to the distinction between the City of London and Greater London. Administrative areas are very different from one country to an other, if we consider that Paris has 2 millions inhabitants because its administrative limits say so, then we should consider that London is only 7,375 inhabitants, because it's the actual population of the city of London. Blaue Max (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion of population has been going on for many months now, perhaps years, with the same arguments repeated, and always seems to come back to the same questions, whether Paris is the city or the region or the metropolitan area or the urban area. Of course it’s all of those numbers.

The population of 2.2 million for the city of Paris is not exactly “ludicrous”; as one editor says. it’s the number given on the home page of the City of Paris, and on the French Wikipedia. The ranking of the top cities is also found in the articles on London, Berlin and Rome. The population of the Paris region is also widely used by many sources. The Paris region is the area used for almost all of the economic statistics in the article, and it’s discussed in most of the sections of the article, particularly on the economy. The figures for the metropolitan region and the urban area are also included in the article, in the section on demographics. In the past the numbers for the urban area and metropolitan area have sometimes been used as if they were interchangeable with the Paris region, but of course they’re not; there is no GDP, for instance, for the metropolitan area. These numbers are used by INSEE for statistical purposes, they don't have any legal existence or status.

I think we need to have the official population of the city (that is, the Commune of Paris) in the article; we need to have the population of the region, since it’s the basis of all the economic statistics, and is discussed in nearly every section of the article; and, if other editors would like to have them, the population of the urban area and of the metropolitan area, as long these numbers are clearly explained. I think this is the basis of a reasonable compromise. Is there anyone who doesn't agree with this? SiefkinDR (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Blaue Max never said that. They said that it is ludicrous to claim Paris is the fifth largest European city, based on the city-limit population. I agree for the reasons I stated in my earlier comment. Just because other articles compare cities by their administrative boundaries does not mean we should. BTW, London does not do this. What it says is "The region had an official population of 8,416,535 in 2013, the largest of any municipality in the European Union". It states "region", then "municipality", not "city". It does not claim to be the largest city in the European Union.

I agree the population of the city should be stated in the lead, however I do not agree it should be compared with other cities outside of France.

The region is not the "basis of all the economic statistics" and is not "discussed in nearly every section". The economic statistics, discussed in the lead and the Economy section, are about a range of different areas. Some refer to the region, some to the metropolitan area, some to the urban area, and some to the administrative city.

The figures for the majority of these should be available for both the administrative city and the region; so we should look into including both, and if possible, those of the urban area and metropolitan area.

I think the metropolitan area should not be included in the introduction as it is not that important, however I think the urban area should, as it can be used as a basis to compare Paris with other Europe cities.

Currently, a lot of the figures are for the Paris region, so I accept that considering, it is helpful to include that in the introduction, however I think it would be better moved into the paragraph in introduction about the Paris region, rather than the lead paragraph. Possibly the urban area population with European comparisons could be included in that paragraph also.

Rob984 (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: Making edits which further validate your argument can be problematic. I do realise you're only trying to improve the article, but I'd appreciate if you could wait until we have established consensus first. Rob984 (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful and constructive comments. I think we do have the basis for a reasonable compromise here. I would suggest that the lead should have the population of the municipality (the Commune of Paris), rather than saying “city”; the Paris region (Ile de France), and the unité urbaine (explaining briefly what that is). We can leave out the metropolitan area. We could leave out the ranking of Paris with other municipalities and urban areas, since there seems to be disagreement on this, or we could put both the rankings by municipality and by urban area, which would be my preference. A more detailed description of demographics can be in the demographics section Would you agree with this?

As to your specific questions and comments:

I don’t agree with using "ludicrous", as Blaue Max did, to describe the population ranking of municipalities in this and other articles. I don’t think It’s a term that should be used to describe the work of other editors.

As you correctly state, the Paris Region does play an important part in the article; it's discussed in the sections on administration, urbanism, transportation, education, tourism, monuments and attractions.

Concerning the economic stats, all the INSEE figures I’ve seen refer to the Commune of Paris the Departments, or the Ile-de-France region. I couldn’t I find any that referred to the unité urbane. I do agree with you that the regional figures should be included when relevant.

Do you know the source of the statement that 4.2 percent of the residents of the ‘'unite urbaine’' in 1999 were recent immigrants? I couldn't find it on the INSEE site, and I think it needs a citation.

You stated that the towns of Nemours and Provins have nothing to do with Paris, but I disagree. I passed through Nemours on the train the other day, and the train was filled with people who live there and work in Paris; the same with Fontainebleau, Melun and the other towns on route. They’re definitely connected with Paris.

I look forward to your comments, and those of other editors. SiefkinDR (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I'm fine with including the municipality ranking, along with the urban area ranking. What exactly do you mean by "explaining briefly" what the urban area is? I don't think it should be described as a "statistical area created by the French statistical agency INSEE". Urban area is a widespread and relatively standardised measure, and I wouldn't say it was "created" by the INSEE. I think "designated" would be better, but even then, I don't think it's that important.

I don't know where that statement is from. Statistics like that need a citation, so I recommend removing it promptly.

In response to your last point, I think you'll find large numbers of people commuting into Paris from well beyond its region or metropolitan area, and there's a limit to the scope of this article.

Rob984 (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable with having Paris Region data in the Demographics section. It would be better to put the data for the Paris proper population within the aforementioned Thiers wall in the Demographics. Paris Region a.k.a. Île-de-France is a different article and there's risk of straying into WP:OFFTOPIC, I think. Brandmeister^talk 19:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

English/Burgundian control of Paris during the Hundred Years War.

My objection relates to this sentence:

'The English and Burgundians occupied Paris in 1356 during the Hundred Years' War, not leaving until 1436.'

The present text simply makes it look as if Paris was 'occupied' for 80 years. This is not correct as far as my knowledge goes.

It appears someone took 1356 (in which the Battle of Poitiers took place) as a starting date of some sort of 'occupation'. Although the French king did get captured in this battle, starting a gloomy period of French affairs which would last for a decade at least, the English did not press their advantage and did not advance on Paris. Also, unless my memory deceives me, the English as such have never had control of Paris. All sieges attempted by the English during the war were unsuccessful.

The Burgundians, however, -did- have control of Paris.

However, for the sake of clarity I would recommend to make sure to mention in the text that these were not the 'tribe' of Burgundians, or in fact a separate political entity (a 'Nation' if you will), but rather adherents of a junior branch of the royal Valois dynasty , which was at (a civil) war with the ruling branch.The name 'Burgundians' refers to the title of the leader of the junior branch - Duke of Burgundy.

Also, the Burgundian faction did not control the city at all at any point in the 14th century, since the faction did not exist. It only came to be around 1408 if I remember well.

I am not a professional historian, or anything of the sort, but I hope someone more erudite could shed some light on the matter just so we don't make the French look as if their capital had been policed by other peoples for 80 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:83A6:3102:EA2A:EAFF:FEB5:50EA (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight - historian or not, your input is more precise than the article. I'll look it all up (references) and make the needed changes, but if anyone can add anything or provide additional context, please do. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for your sharp eyes and historical memory. I fixed the dates and added a citation, and noted that they were not random Burgundians, but the army of the Duke of Burgundy. Also noted the failed attack by Joan of Arc.SiefkinDR (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Housing map, etc.

I replaced the unannotated "Paris housing 2012" map with a .png version of the earlier .jpg I made... sorry to whoever made the .svg version (and why this replacement - 'because' .svg? Just ask!), but the earlier version was at-a-glance informative - we can't expect readers to click to know what they're looking at (red means...?) when it can be readily presented. I'll see about making an SVG version, too.

FTR, I'm working on a 'paris walls (over the centuries)' map, too, and will be finishing it on my next break (soon). Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What you looking for about Paris; from the 5th volume of the work "Ogygia or Archaiologia", by prof. Athanasios Stageirites, Vienna, 1815: "...When Paris was about to be born, his mother Hecabe, dreamed that she gave birth to a flaming torch and the whole city caught fire from it. When Aisakos explained the dream, he said that this child will be responsible for the collapse of Troy. So when he was born, Priamos, following Aisakos advice, gave the newborn baby to his shepherd, Agelaos, to throw the baby in the desert. The same misfortune was fortold by Kassandra and also the oracle Herofile. So Agelaos threw the baby to Ide, but going back to the mountain after five days, he saw the baby being breastfed by a bear. So he took the baby to his fields and raised it like it was his own child and then called the baby Paris, from parienai; because he escaped the danger... ... and Paris became handsome and brave, therefore they also called him Alexander..." (Appol.E'. Ib'. 5, Didum. Il. M.93., Dikt. G' ks'., Paus. Fokik. Ib'., Eurip. Andromache 297.) So Paris, from 'parienai', means 'to pass', 'go by', 'expire', 'escape from', 'get away'.

Paris is definitely an ancient Greek name, not only used in Ilion region but also in other parts of Greece, such as: The Aegean islands, Cyprus, Cyrenaica, Attica, Peloponnese, Western Greece, Sicily, Magna Graecia, Central Greece, Macedonia, Thrace, northern shores of Black Sea.

For further information see also: "Homeric Lexicon", I. Pantazides, Athens, 1880 "Homeric Onomatologion", N. Papadopoulos, Kyromanos ed. "Lexicon of mythological, historical and geographical personal names", N. Lorentes, Vienna, 1837 "Lexicon of the Ancient World, Greece-Rome" Y. Lampsas. Dome ed.58.165.242.248 (talk) 02:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Clarify population of Paris urban area

Can someone please clarify the population of the Paris urban area (unite urbaine)?

The lead points to a table of largest cities in the EU with the figure 10.85 million, but with no citation.

The info box gives the number 12,005,077, saying this is a 2014 figure, but the citation points to the INSEE 2011 figure of 10,516,000.

the section on demographics says 10,815,000, citing 2015 INSEE figures, but the citation shows figures from 2011.

the Unite urbaine de Paris article, in French, gives 10,516,110, citing INSEE 2011 figures.

the French article on Paris also gives 10.516,000.

It seem to me that the correct figure to use is the 2011 INSEE figure of 10,516,000, since it's official and verified. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? SiefkinDR (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The lede doesn't need citations, but for sure the source (a broken link in the linked article) needs to be fixed.

No, the number 12,005,077 is in the lede, and it is a number for the Paris Region, not Paris itself, and it is indeed a 2014 figure.

I couldn't find the 10,815,000 number. I suppose that would be the 'urban unit' (american 'urban area') figure. Has this been fixed?

For the rest... of course, if it's an INSEE publication (not an estimation or projection), that means it's 'confirmed and final'.

Hope you are well, Cheers ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Media section

TF1, M6 and Le Parisien are not based in Paris. They are based in the Paris suburb : TF1 at Boulogne-Billancourt, M6 at Neuilly-sur-Seine and Le Parisien at Saint-Ouen. Clio64 (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this article tends to be pretty 'large' with the 'Paris' description. 'Paris area', etc, should be used for precision... I'll see if that can be changed without making it too wordy, thanks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

How are you all keeping up?

Things have been more than a little software-development-intensive for me over the past months, but I've got a bit of (August 'imposed vacation') time on my hands for the coming weeks... how are things going here, any thoughts, any change ideas? Hope you all are well, take care, best, THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140131044735/http://www.metronews.fr:80/paris/des-quartiers-de-paris-compteraient-plus-de-40-de-pauvres/mnaB!OVs3O27zkRe6 to http://www.metronews.fr/paris/des-quartiers-de-paris-compteraient-plus-de-40-de-pauvres/mnaB!OVs3O27zkRe6/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Demographics

Dear Statistiker, You have reverted text by other editors in this section twice now, without any explanation. Frankly, I don't think your changes were improvements. Can you please explain why you're making these changes? Thanks- SiefkinDR (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Not improvements? You put some outdated 2011 statistics; I updated with 2012 statistics (latest census released). You confused British/US citizens and immigrants: apparently you looked at a table of immigrants in the French census and yet wrote about British "citizens" and U.S. "citizens", mixing up the notions of immigrant and foreign national, and on top of it you forgot to even give the url of that immigrant table in your edit: [7]. I've given the correct figures (about British and US nationals, since that's what your sentence was about) and provided the url of the correct 2012 table (nationality table, not immigrant table). Der Statistiker (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

And the British/U.S. statistics 'correction' wasn't in the proper context for this article (you actually replaced Siefkin's proper context with an IDF one); all I did was correct that by simply changing the order (all the numbers are still there); there was no WP:POINT to revert that at all (which is why it is not mentioned in the above reply). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It would be gesture of civility if you reverted your revert yourself, Der Statistiker THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:16, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A gesture of civility would be not to revert the edit of an editor who hasn't edited this article in almost a year, and who when he comes back after a year is within HOURS assaulted by you and accused of "POV creep" (!), despite the fact that this article is under a strict "comment on content, not contributors" rule. Can you not see how antagonizing and aggressive this attitude is? Der Statistiker (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Accusing me of reverting is disingenuous to the extreme, because my correction was in -no way- a revert. It also demonstrates that the revert to my correction was out of pure spite (and that that is important to the reverter than article content).

My edit comment is both obvious, justified and unimportant to any unconcerned editor; the WP:POINT reverting only demonstrates that a correction to those statistics was expected by whoever replaced the old ones with them, and there is thought and premeditation in replacing "There are X in Paris" (in a Paris article) with "There are X in the IDF (and, by the way, there are X in Paris)"... this is obvious to anyone. This behaviour demonstrates a desire to impose a POV, and to cause trouble if that doesn't succeed.

Which is further demonstrated by the continued refusal to make reparations, and, in addition to all the above disingenuousity as an 'answer' to that, further edits targeting a known past point of contention... that I can't see any problem with at all, by the way, because the context is correct (unlike before).

In all, your negative behaviour by far overshadows any contribution you bring to Paris-topic articles, Der Statistiker. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with that. I'm surprised he's not topic banned from this. Every time I see him edit there's a problem.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure now we're going to hear about 'who' the 'real' problem is. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Editors above, please change the tone of this discussion, and stop the insults and accusations, which are completely out of place in Wikipedia. Thank you. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Demographics II

Perhaps we can start this discussion again in a calmer voice. Der Statistiker, you're correct that I confused the number of U.S. citizens in Paris with the number of those born in the U.S. living in Paris. In the US you're a automatically a citizen if you're born in the US. so I thought they were same, but I see that they're not; there's a difference of about six hundred, who I suppose are naturalized US citizens. Thanks for catching that. I also apologize that the URL was missing the second time from the citation, when I replaced it after you deleted it the first time without any explanation. I believe the numbers we are using are all from the same source, the 2011 census.

On the question of which numbers go first, those from Paris or those from the Ile-de-France (Paris region), you never explained why you changed the order. I put the Paris numbers first when I added this information to the article. In other sections of the article, and in the lead, information about the city is given first, and about the region second. The same is done in other articles on major cities and their regions. I would like to put it back the way it was.

I welcome your comments and suggestions and your contributions, but I hope you won't make any more changes to other editors' texts without discussing them here first. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The numbers we're using now are from the 2012 census (note that there's a census every year in France). No edit should contain figures or references to the outdated 2011 census anymore. Next year we'll be using the 2013 census, and so on.

Regarding citizens vs immigrants, citizenship is not just a question of being born in the US. Children of US citizens born in France are also US citizens and appear as such in French statistics (they wouldn't appear as US immigrants, since they are born in France). So the US citizenship figures include the children born in France. On the other hand, those who acquire French citizenship disappear from the foreign citizenship figures, but they always remain in the immigrant figures, because the immigrant status is based on place of birth and is for life. That's the reason why in this section we're using immigrant figures and not foreign citizenship figures, because in France the French citizenship is quite generously granted to immigrants, so that the foreign citizenship figures are rather meaningless in France (this would be different in Germany of course, where German citizenship is much harder to acquire). In the case of US and British people, there is not much difference between the citizenship and immigrant figures, because these people in general do not intend to remain all their life in France and become French citizens, that's why I left your choice of citizenship figures for this category instead of immigrant figures.

Regarding the Paris Region, in your edit you gave figures only for the City of Paris, so I technically inverted nothing. What I did is I added the Paris Region figures, because the figures for the City of Paris proper are rather misleading: based on these figures, one is led to believe that there are more US citizens than British citizens in Paris. This is of course not true. There are more British citizens than US citizens who live in Greater Paris, but it's just that the US citizens tend to sleep more predominantly in the central territory of 87 km² of the City of Paris. This is a very good example why figures referring only to the City of Paris proper can be misleading. And before some people here start to write reams and reams of messages denouncing the evil intentions supposedly lying in other editors' edits, let me remind you all that the terrorists who attacked us last week paid strictly no attention to the administrative borders of the City of Paris. Paris as a morphological and functional city is far larger than the administrative entity called City of Paris. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your useful comments, and for clarifying the dates of the census data and the definition of citizenship. As I mentioned above, I will put the figures as they were originally placed, with the figures for the city of Paris (Ville de Paris) first, so it matches the lead of the article, along with the figures for the Paris Region (Ile-de-France), and make it clear which is which. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Too much detail about events

Look at how long is the part about November 2015 terror attacks.

"On 13 November 2015, there were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris and Saint-Denis claimed by the 'Islamic state' organisation ISIL ('Daesh', ISIS). These included shootings at three sidewalk cafes; a suicide-bomb attack outside the Stade de France stadium where a France-Germany football match, attended by French President François Hollande, was taking place; and an attack on the Bataclan theatre/concert-hall, where Kalashnikov-armed terrorists opened fire on rock-concert spectators before triggering their suicide vests. In all, there were 130 people killed and more than 350 injured. Seven of the attackers killed themselves and others by setting off their explosive vests, while at least two others were still being sought by police. On the morning of November 18 three suspected terrorists, including Abdelhamid Abaaoud, the alleged mastermind of the attacks, were killed in a shootout with police in the Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. President Hollande declared France to be in a three-month state of emergency,"

We don't need to have all these detail on the Wikipedia article about Paris. A relatively short single sentence is enough, we don't need to learn how and where Abdelhamid Abaaoud and some of his accomplice were killed, we don't need to have detail on the guns used by terrorists.
If people want to learn more about these attacks, there is an article about it. November 2015 Paris attacks. Minato ku (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, but the consultation of this article has spiked since the events you want to remove because of those events. Yes, of course that part will be reduced eventually. It's a bit odd to be targeting that specifically, now? It's only been two weeks, man! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't target this event specifically, it was just an example of what I find wrong in the history section. I don't think that Paris article has spiked because people want information about these events but because people want information about Paris. Minato ku (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The history section is way too long and disproportionate in this article. This has been said before, but instead of being shortened it seems to have been lengthened in the past year. Go figure. Der Statistiker (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Lol. I'm just discovering the article Economy of Paris is now also being turned into an article about the HISTORY of the Paris economy, with a totally disproportionate history section compared to the rest of the article. It seems we have a trend here. Paris as a city of the past, an object of history, not a city of the present day. That's a major bias, to say the least. Der Statistiker (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see what is LOL or 'go figure' about content, and what of accusing people of 'bias', and what does the Economy of Paris article have to do with here? All that demonstrates is a targeting of contributors over content. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The recent spike in activity isn't because of the attacks? Are you serious? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me rephrase, indeed the recent spike in activity is because of the attacks but it is not because people want information about the attacks. They want information about Paris. Minato ku (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Not only is it not possible to know (let alone declare) that, coming to this article after the attacks for Information about what: Paris' history? Its economy? You can't be serious. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I am very serious. It would wrong to go in Paris article to have information about the attack because you would have more accurate information on new website or on November 2015 Paris attacks article. Yes they want information about Paris, its structure, its economy, its population, its history and etc. I do the same when something big happen in a city, I try to learn more about the city. I went to Charleston article after the Charleston church massacre, it was not to learn about the shooting but to learn about the city. Minato ku (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The traffic is still higher than usual, and, like I said, that description will have less value when traffic becomes normal again. Many visitors visiting a city article just after a shooting there, do so not because they want to learn about the shooting... sorry, that defies reason and reality. By the way, the Charleston article still has an extensive paragraph about the shooting there. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Jmabel has reduced the size of the part about the november 2015 attack, He wrote "reduce near-anecdotal "presentism". Just because it's been in the news lately doesn't make it that major in an article about a city. Possibly could be edited down even further: we have a large, separate article about the attack"
I fully agree with this, it is not because something is a "current" event that more should be said about it and then reduced later when the heat will be down. Wikipedia is not a news site.
Informations about when, how and where Abdelhamid was killed are unecessary, it does not give us more information about the modern history of Paris. Minato ku (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem with reducing it; my question was about your claim that the spike in activity wasn't people coming to the article to find out about the events.

I think the going would have been easier had you opined here on the talk page instead of removing the entire paragraph that SiefkinDR had just edited, and I'm sure he would have agreed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Minato ku, this may not be a news site, but seventy thousand people looked at the page on November 13 to see what was happening. The article was updated regularly throughout the day the most current statistics.

The problem I have with your edits is not so much the content, but that you delete other editors work and add your own without discussing it first on the talk page. I wish you wouldn't do that. SiefkinDR (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

You forget something, this is Wikipedia, nobody own this article. Editors don't need the agreement of other editors to make an edit. When I have seen that this change was "problematic", (when SiefkinDR reverted) I did not revert to the version I made (this was just a shortening of the part about the terrors) instead I opened this section in Paris talkpage.

No, SiefkinDR, it is not because the traffic increased that a long section about the terror attack should be write. Wikipedia is not a news site, the length of the different parts of Paris' article should not be dependent of the current events. This is my point and the point of Jmabel. Minato ku (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

You should have opened a discussion before you reduced that still-new (and frequently updated) section to two sentences. No, nobody 'owns' anything, but wikipedia is a collaborative effort, so respect (or at least acknowledgement) of other-contributor work is important when one wants to make major changes (like reverting an entire section, or the extreme reduction here), and opening a discussion shows a modicum of this. Not doing this sends a message to other contributors that they, and their contributions, don't matter, or were 'wrong' somehow, and that merits at least an explanation. In a highly-edited article such as this one, the only exception I can think of is if the major change is to a contribution that you know is only your own... but even then, others may like what was there before. Again, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Transportation Section

Why was this reverted to the state it was in... a year ago? On the very day (since almost a year) I made minor modifications to that section (which means my work was reverted as well)? This is odd, to say the least. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after checking, this is a revert of quite a few people's work, indeed a rollback to a year ago (down to the ugly unneeded chart, former titles and wonky image placement)! This is quite the opposite of an improvement. What is the rationale for this? If there is no good one forthcoming, it will go back to its pre-revert state. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The transportation section was full of errors (incorrect and outdated informations) as if people did not care of what was written. (Paris metro with 9 million passengers instead of 5 million, same number of stations as seven years ago, outdated number of tram lines etc...)

The wonky image placement is one thing but the information is a much more important issue. I did take an old version but I updated it and I did not use the same adjectment.

Note that the previous version was also the result of a reversion made more than one year ago that put back this section to a very old version. Almost nothing changed since then, leading to many wrong information.

Feel free to update what you want and change the image placement but do not say that this is the opposite of an improvement. Minato ku (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Minato ku for your help in correcting outdated information (this article unfortunately contains a lot of it). I've started to update some data too, and will update some more if the same admin noticeboard shenanigans and threats as last year do not happen again. I particularly liked this sentence of yours: "The wonky image placement is one thing but the information is a much more important issue." Indeed. This article unfortunately contains lots of factual errors, outdated information, and trivia obscuring important issues, so things like image sizes and placement should be the LAST of our worries. We are an encyclopedia, not a graphic design studio. Let's keep that in mind. Der Statistiker (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit) Apparently only the table source (but not the table data) were updated, and a couple tram lines added, but aside from that, it's a revert. That aside, what's this talk of admin intervention even before outlining what all of the 'factual errors' and 'trivia obscuring (what?) important issues' are, all in a tag-team condescending tone targeted at other contributors? That is a demonstration of the very sort of behaviour and attitude worth complaining about. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't distract from the issue: the section was put back in its exact same state from almost a year ago (a deplorable state that was the origin of an improvement drive involving many contributors, and many contributors since), and I haven't even checked what was updated or not; if there were some updated numbers, that seems purely symbolic in that action. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

(after checking) Confirmed: User:Minato ku simply more or less reverted to User:Der Statistiker's October 2014 version [8], without changing anything at all (down to the references (now showing errors); even though the chart references were updated, the chart numbers themselves are exactly the same as last year's version) [9]. User:Der Statistiker simply updated the in-text citations Minato ku had neglected [10]. Those reverting talk about content, but not much attention being paid to it, and again, what little attention is paid to it seems purely symbolic, here. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I choose this version because it give much more accurate detail about Paris' transportation but I did change things and I updated the reference (for not publishing dead links). I did not change the air traffic because I did not know where to find exactly the newer data.

Remember how it was before my edit "In more recent years, Paris and the Paris region are served by four tramway lines...". Four tramway lines ? Let me count T1, T2, T3a, T3b, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, it is more like nine lines isn't it? How such error could have been left unchecked for a such long time? The last time Paris region had four tram line was before december 2012. It is because this text was the result of a revert made on 20 December 2014‎ and almost nothing did change since then. Minato ku (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There are dead links (with error, anyway). If you don't know how to update things (or can't be arsed to), please don't. And why replace a table containing outdated data, yet go to the effort to make it seem as though it's been updated by updating the reference?

Granted that the trams needed updating, but you could have just updated the existing text. The tables, images, everything now is the same as my October 2014 diff. Again, symbolism. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This text came infact for an much older version than October 2014. I had already corrected the Paris metro daily ridership error in March 2014. How an error I corrected in March 2014 could be still be here in a November 2015? March 2014 version. I took this October 2014 version because it has air traffic figures, more pictures of public transportation and more informations. There is no symbolism about it, only the will to have the most comprehensible article as possible.

Dead links? I verified that every links were working. Minato ku (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You obviously did not check those links, as even now they're showing 'ref error' (multiple references) errors. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Then correct those details. There was no call to revert the whole thing to its pre-GA-drive state, you reverted the work of many contributors. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll update the air traffic table soon. Didn't have time yesterday. I have a life besides Wikipedia you know. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
And ThePromenader, can you point out exactly what important and non-outdated information Minato ku removed from the section? If there is any, it should be added back in the article of course. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, don't distract (and can't Minato ku answer for themselves?) : Minato ku reverted to a version from over a year ago without providing any reasonable explanation why. The burden of justification is on the person who did that, and 'outdated numbers' is an explanation for an update, but not a total revert, let alone a revert to that version in particular (and its outdated numbers!). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

My explanation is the more accurate information of this version. Note that no information was lost, on the contrary the transportation section is more complete now.

It does not matter to have two years old air traffic passengers figures, the date is written so people understand that it is the data of 2013 (the most recent figures would be of 2014 anyway). The issue is more about the wrong number of lines, fanciful metro ridership... Minato ku (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That explation is... ambiguity at best. "Just because I want to" isn't a reason to revert other people's work, of course it 'matters' (and especially when the reverted-to version is even worse and has errors). We all know what went on here, I just decided to give you a chance to explain, all the same. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

That said, I'll be putting this section back into its pre-revert state later today, of course adding the new tram line information (and any other numbers that have been updated since the revert). From here on, if there is anything more than a few phrases you'd like to change or remove, you talk about it here, first. That, too, I'll be outlining later today. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 04:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I preserved the Minato Ku - Hardouin version text (with my sentence corrections with updated numbers), but put the layout to the pre-reverted version. I hope this is a compromise we can work from. In the future, no more WP:POINT edits/reverts, please. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You have deleted the air traffic table, it was an interesting information to know the major airline destinations from Paris. As Der Statistiker said we should work to correct errors rather than deleting interesting information that balances out history and culture sections which have a disportionate size. In this article there is too little information about Paris the working city. Minato ku (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It has been removed several times, its information was outdated, and the consensus reason for removing it was 'more noise than value' (and I support this). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If there was a version that stood vertically (not breaking the page flow/sections to bits as it did), and better still, collapsable (the second section?), I might support re-inserting it. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

is there a compelling need for an airline destination table? There are no comparable tables in the articles on London, New York and Berlin. Are the destinations from Paris any different from those of any large European city? I would suggest leaving it out.SiefkinDR (talk) 13:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, destinations are different. Paris air traffic is focused more on North Africa, the Caribbean, and the Indian Ocean than any other European city. I've put the table back in the article and updated it with 2014 figures, since that was ThePromenader's main complaint. If this table is deleted once more I will notify User:Future Perfect at Sunrise as this would breach the rule he/she set for this article: be civil and friendly with other editors, and do not delete content added by other editors without discussing it with them before as a civil gesture. Thank you. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That table was removed from the article long ago, with reason, and it is on the person who wants to replace it to open discussion before replacing it. Two people have voiced opposition to that in just the last few comments, yet still you replace it... that is a perfect demonstration of incivility and disregard for other contributors. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: I would invite anyone to this talk page to examine it for a source of incivility and disruption, a quick glance would be enough... the logic behind that threat, is, at best, puzzling. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

PPS: Please don't think that I'm not not removing the table because of your threat, but because, no matter what, we all know it will just be reverted again anyway. Der Statistiker completely ignored SiefkinDR's opposition to the table (before he inserted it all the same), so let's see if SiefkinDR has anything to say about all this. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I don't think the table belongs here; it's not about Paris, but about places you can get to from Paris. i don't see any value to that here at all; maybe it can go in the article on CDG airport. I think it should be removed. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This table is not about CDG Airport, so it cannot go into the CDG Airport article. Thanks for not seeing any value to that table here. Personally I see no value to most of the super long culture section which is pretty outdated (ancient culture of Paris, not the contemporary one) and much too detailed for this general article about Paris. Does that mean I can cut that section same as you wish to cut that table? Der Statistiker (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Stastiker: What I'm asking is simply that you not cut or add information to this article without discussion first and without a consensus of other editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a battlefield, SiefkinDR (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

A collaborative project means first of all that the rule WP:OWN be respected by everybody. Asking editors to submit any edit beforehand in the talk page to a committee made up essentially of you and ThePromenader looks like a violation of WP:OWN to me: "It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it." Der Statistiker (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That's quite an extraordinary tu quoque accusation/attempt to distract from the obvious above. SiefkinDR has been working on the article regularly, and is one of the most diplomatic and compromising people I know. Myself, I've been mostly gone since around a year, and announced that I would have time to edit around a month ago, and began editing on the 11th of November [11]. The logs also show that, after a total absence of a year (almost to the day), Der Statistiker showed up a week later [12]. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And tu quoque accusations are not an answer for Siefkin and my demands for rationale for inexplicable, undiscussed reverts and removals (and requests that you stop doing this) and a modicum of politesse. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Distraction aside, both SiefkinDR and I have expressed our disapproval over this (many-times-removed-over-the-years-with-consensus-and-rationale) table, yet Der Statistiker totally ignored this to re-insert it.

A resumé of the situation until present:

1) ThePromenader makes a relatively minor edit to a paragraph in the 'Transportation' section [13]

2) the same day, Minato ku[14] reverts the entire section to an over-year-old version by Der Statistiker with a 'reorganisation' summary without rationale or talk-page comment [15]

3) When asked for rationale, Minato ku is unable to provide any coherent one, even after it is noted that the reverted-to version contains outdated numbers (that are made to seem updated by an updated reference) and broken references, and still no indication of what all the 'factual errors' were.

4) Der Statistiker updates some of the numbers Minato ku said were 'corrected' and up-to-date, but not the table[16]

5) ThePromenader announces that he will revert to the reverted-from version (with updated numbers), but instead just reinstates the images and map placement the reverted-from version as a compromise[17]

6) Minato ku protests the table being removed; ThePromenader suggests edits that might make it acceptable

7) SiefkinDR also voices his disapproval of the table

8) Der Statistiker ignores all this to re-insert the table [18], and leaves accusatory and threatening remarks as a 'rationale'

9) ThePromenader and SiefkinDR voice their opposition to this

10) SiefkinDR asks Der Statistiker to refrain from such behaviour and to maintain a minimum of respect for other contributors

11) Der Statistiker responds in accusing ThePromenader and SiefkinDR of WP:OWN

I think this speaks pretty well for itself. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the table with air traffic. So there is no consensus for removing it. And ThePromenader can you bring evidence (diffs) that this table was "many-times-removed-over-the-years-with-consensus-and-rationale"? Thank you. Minato ku (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that I've removed it in the past (no doubt that was reverted), but it's been gone for over a year of without-me editing, so that pretty well speaks for itself. And the burden of evidence and justification is on the person reverting an entire section to a version (specifically) dating from over a year ago; the WP:POINT of it is quite obvious. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 05:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Minato ku, if two editors say the table should be removed, and two want to keep it, that isn't consensus, that's a reason for discussion. Why do you think it's important that this table be there? No other large city article has such a table. It doesn't seem important for understanding how Paris works, since it's almost the same as every other large city in Europe. Why not just say in the article that Paris serves major cities, including many cities in North Africa? SiefkinDR (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, SiefkinDR. I think yours is the most sensible suggestion. I watch the Paris article, because I lived in the city 50 years ago and love it very much, but I am too old and weary to get involved in these arguments. Time and time again you bring a breath of fresh air to the discussions. LynwoodF (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

For the 2nd time SiefkinDR, no it's not the same as every other large city in Europe. To pretend so is preposterous. And your insistence on having this table removed is suspect. I see this as a case of WP:OWN. Your interest is mainly in history and antiquated culture of Paris, I think we all understand that, but that's no reason to wish to suppress from this article information that isn't related to your penchants. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Statistiker, I think the table would be great in the article on Airports of Paris, but I don't really see the need for it here. The person who put the table into the article, Minato ku, hasn't spoken up to explain why he thinks its essential to have it in this article. I've suggested a compromise; describe the unique aspect of Paris destinations in a sentence or two, but put the the table elsewhere, such the as the article on airports of Paris, which in fact has very little information. Discussion is how your reach a consensus. "Preposterous"? "Suspect"? "Suppress"? Is that how you talk to other editors? I really wish you would leave out the personal attacks and insults, it's not helpful and not acceptable.SiefkinDR (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Your "compromise" is not really a compromise. It's just a way to evacuate that table from the article, and for what reason? You ask Minato ku to explain why the table should be in this article, but you're not explaining why it shouldn't be there. What's the problem in having other tables in the article but not this one?? At first the excuse for removing the table from the article was that it was "oudated" (one year old figures! when there are other figures in this article that are many years old and way more outdated). Now that I've updated it with the latest figures, you two still insist on removing it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, as the saying goes. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Statistiker: All right, if you reject that idea, how about this? A table that shows the international arrivals in Paris by country of traveler? I think that would be more interesting for an international audience than knowing how many people fly each year from Paris to Toulouse, Bordeaux or to Lyon. What do you think? SiefkinDR (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I... take it that was tongue-in cheek, SiefkinDR. There's already been compromise made here, in leaving the reverted-to text as-is; a revert was uncalled for, because, numbers and added trams aside, I don't see any improvement at all (quite the contrary), and I don't even know how many other-contributor edits were reverted. The WP:POINT here is: there was no WP:POINT in reverting to 'Statistiker's' edit from over a year ago, and until that is explained (which I think I just did), there is nothing to compromise with. And the table, which apparently must at all costs be replaced after a year's absence... this is more WP:POINT and bullying, as far as I'm concerned, just like the repeated WP:OWN accusations that couldn't be directed at a least likely target. And that can't stand.

And I agree with SiefkinDR: the information therein may be useful (as text), just not all of it, just not here. The issue has become, yet once again, Der Statistiker's (and his 'help') bullying behaviour, and that is unacceptable. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, just back since a week after Paris Attack, and i just read your discussion about these table, in my opinion i think they may be better in this article than in Aéroports de Paris's one, as they are just talking about the top 10 destinations.. and thus image on how airports are used. As in ADP's page we may have even more detailed table?Clouchicloucha (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(facepalm) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

SiefkinDR want to know why I am in favor the table for air passengers traffic. It is because a table is much better and clearer than a badly explained text. It is the same about the immigrants population, I understand much better the diversity of the immigrants population by looking the table than with the text. It's all about the clarity of information. Minato ku (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Minato ku, Of course I agree with you that a table is better than statistics in the text. it's the content that concerns me; I think it would be more interesting for English-language Wikipedia readers to have a table showing the number of people arriving at Paris airports from London, New York, Rome, Sydney and other departure points, rather than the number who fly from Paris to Toulouse or Nice. Would you agree to this compromise? SiefkinDR (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Busiest destinations from Paris airports (CDG, ORY, BVA) in 2014
Domestic destinations	Passengers
Toulouse	3,158,331
Nice	2,865,602
Bordeaux	1,539,478
Marseille	1,502,196
Pointe-à-Pitre	1,191,437
Saint-Denis (Réunion)	1,108,964
Fort-de-France	1,055,770
Other domestic destinations Montpellier 807,482 Biarritz 684,578 Lyon 613,395
International destinations	Passengers
Italy	7,881,497
Spain	7,193,481
United States	6,495,677
Germany	4,685,313
United Kingdom	4,177,519
Morocco	3,148,479
Portugal	3,018,446
Algeria	2,351,402
China	2,141,527
Other international destinations Switzerland 1,727,169

SiefkinDR, I've been tinkering with the table to address some of the issues here, and I came up with this (to the right). I think it solves most of the problems perceived by some, as the table is now reduced to a side table not interrupting the text, and is also reduced in width. I've made it collapsible to show only domestic destinations with more than 1 million passengers and international destinations with more than 2 million. That way the specifics of Paris air traffic are visible at a glance (more predominance of Caribbean, Indian Ocean, and Maghreban destinations than in other European cities), and the collapsible nature of the table also allows to add more destinations than the 20 ones that were originally in the table.

For once I would appreciate some, well, appreciative comments for the two hours (two hours!) that I've spent trying to find a way to make this fit, instead of the usual criticism and negative comments from TP. Thanks. And let me know what you think, but I don't think this can possibly be reduced further. Der Statistiker (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If we want a chart like this, I do think you are headed the right way. I'm still not sold on its importance to this article: wouldn't it make more sense in Transport in Paris#National and international air connections? Still, I don't have a big problem with it. Collapsible is definitely good. A few thoughts: uncollapsed could just be top 5 in each group, so as not to give this excessive space. Also: do we have international data by city? If so, I would think that would be of equal interest to the two lists here; possibly lump international & domestic cities in a single list. - Jmabel | Talk 06:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Surely if your reasoning is that the super long history section of the Economy of Paris article should stay there and not be moved to a sub-article on the ground that it would make it "harder to find" ([19]), the same can apply to this table that is way way way smaller than the said history section. ;) Frankly I don't understand the insistence of these two editors to have this table removed from the article, when other things in the article don't seem to trouble them too much (culture section?). It's precisely attitudes like that which don't lead to a good editing ambiance in this article, and has pushed away all the French editors (they can see that an editor who hasn't edited this article in a year is immediately challenged, attacked, asked to be banned for such a trivial matter as this fucking little table in the article, do you think that it makes them wish to come back and edit the article again?).

About your other points: no unfortunately there are no data for foreign cities (Paris-New York, Paris Rome, etc.), otherwise I would of course have replaced the countries with cities. As for listing only the top 5 in each group, indeed I thought about it, but if the goal of the table is to show at a glance the specifics of air traffic in Paris compared to other European cities (i.e. the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, Maghreb), especially if an accompanying sentence about those specifics is written in the article next to table, then collapsing after 5 destinations wouldn't do the job (Réunion, Martinique, Morocco, and Algeria wouldn't show if we collapse after 5 destinations). Der Statistiker (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear Statistiker, I never objected to the format of the table; I questioned whether it was needed, and also your way of making changes without discussion or compromise, and your attacks on other editors. It looks better, but I agree with Jmabel that it could be shorter. I also agree that it should mention international rankings; SiefkinDR (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

When you decided single-handedly to enlarge the culture section of this article to the point it's now disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article, I don't think you discussed this major change here before or tried to reach a compromise on this issue with other editors when it was pointed out to you. Why should I submit all my edits on the talk page when you guys don't? The demographics section was also severely cut down without ever trying to reach a compromise about that. What I see is editors who favor certain aspects of Paris and push them in the article, while cutting other aspects that they find "uninteresting" (this air traffic table that you two wish to remove is a good example), without caring much for the contributions and efforts of the editors who fleshed out those sections uninteresting to you. As for the rest, I've already answered those points in my response to Jmabel above. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I did suggest the more wiki-friendly vertical/collapsable format, but that wasn't an 'objection' per se; my question, too, was about its value to the article vs. the space it takes. I wish there was some sort of wiki-link that would open a chart/map on hover (like the mini-preview)... is there? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Holy (expletive), that Transport in Paris article is outdated. It has links to several sub-articles that have been maintained, though, so that should make updating it easier... I'll get to work there, and include the table there already, that way there's no 'all for naught'. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I added the table to the Transport in Paris article, so thanks for all that work. Perhaps it would be easier to manage (and find wider usage) if you transformed it into a template (maybe for other modes of transport, too). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Grand Paris

Dear fellow editors, I have updated the information on Grand Paris, which comes into existence at the end of the month - it will need to be updated again in January to put it into the present tense. Comments and suggestions welcome. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the thoroughgoing translation 'The Metropolis of Greater Paris'. This falls easily on the ear of an Englishman. Here in England we already have top-tier local authorities called 'Greater London' and 'Greater Manchester' and so such expressions are familiar to us. Again, I think Paris is a metropolis (a chief city), rather than a metropole (the parent state of a colony). What do the regulars think about this? LynwoodF (talk) 18:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It certainly sounds nicer, but I think we should check to see how the people who came up with the term (the government!) want it translated (for referencability). BTW, I wasn't aware of that definition of metropole, thanks ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right, LynwoodF, and the Grand Paris article has it that way already.

I'm sure that it will end up being simply 'Greater Paris' for anglophones (lazy familiarity), but that's neither here nor there for now, as the translations are all over the place for the time being. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There are several errors. The population figure is wrong. If you take all the 131 communes which comprise the Metropole du Grand Paris, there were 6,945,306 inhabitants in 2012. The 6.7 million figure can't describe a future. 6.7 million is the population of the City of Paris and the inner ring departements but Metropole du Grand will include several outer ring municipalities.

• City of Paris: 2,240,621
• Hauts de Seine: 1,586,434
• Seine Saint Denis: 1,538,726
• Val de Marne: 1,341,831
• Argenteuil: 104,962
• Athis-Mons: 29,482
• Juvisy-sur-Orge: 15,188
• Morangis: 12,476
• Paray-Vieille-Poste: 7,230
• Savigny-sur-Orge: 37,135
• Viry-Châtillon: 31,221
• Total population in 2012 : 6,945,306

The land size is also wrong, the size of Metropole du Grand Paris will be 814 km², as for the population, the surface you posted (762 km²) only includes the City of Paris and the inner Ring departments.

• City of Paris: 105.40 km²
• Hauts de Seine: 175.61 km²
• Seine Saint Denis: 236.20 km²
• Val de Marne: 245.03 km²
• Argenteuil: 17.22 km²
• Athis-Mons: 8.56 km²
• Juvisy-sur-Orge: 2.24 km²
• Morangis: 4.80 km²
• Paray-Vieille-Poste: 6.14 km²
• Savigny-sur-Orge: 6.97 km²
• Viry-Châtillon: 6.07 km²
• Total: 814.24 km²

Minato ku (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

SiefkinDR can answer for himself, but since I'm here, I can say that we can't just add up numbers ourselves, they have to correspond and link to the same in sources. I'm sure you're right, so find a source corresponding to those numbers and all's good, otherwise we have to make do with those in the sources we have. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors should verify the sources they are using or they will write wrong things at one time or another. Some reflections and researches are needed from the editors, they should not take the first source they found without verifying if this is correct.

The quality should be the priority. Minato ku (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I will fix those errors. Please let me know if there are other things that need fixing. SiefkinDR (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

SiefkinDR, you didn't just delete some text from the section. You rewrote it entirely ([20]) despite the fact that I had written and added this section only 3 days ago ([21]) and that it contained accurate information and was sourced. What's more, in rewriting it you introduced lots of errors and factual inaccuracies that I've detailed on the talk page of Future Perfect at Sunrise: Usertalk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Your opinion on this.

But ok, let's take you at your words. This is what I propose: if you're sincere and genuine about what you just wrote, can you kindly revert this section to how it was today before your first edit at 15:20 ([22]) and then work from there if things need to be added? A negative response would make your apology and offer of good behavior above look rather hypocritical. I hope you can see it. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, since it was more than making corrections, SiefkinDR should have left a note before editing, especially if it was a recent contribution. If that happened my contribution, my first reaction to that would be "what did I do wrong?", but I don't see you even asking about the reason for the rewrite, only pointing on the fact that it was "your" contribution and that you "want it back". It is that sort of 'contributor, not content' attitude that disrupts the editing atmosphere, and the emotional-blackmail "do my bidding A or you're B" doesn't help much, either.

Why did you rewrite it, SiefkinDR? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

(after reading complaint) By the complaint, one would swear that an entire section and months of work had been effaced, not a few sentences, and many, many contributors to this article have had to endure much worse than that. But, in order: the Grand Paris underway (unfortunately) little resembles Sarkozy's plan, so it was not 'wrong' to remove this; 'MGP' is a French terminology (among many, the majority of politicians and media are using "Grand Paris" (out of what motive is not for us to determine)), Statistiker was of course right about the number of communes and grande couronne participants; no, unsourced wikipedian-calculated numbers are 'wrong' (and WP:OR) as well, and I adressed the numbers issue below, so find a better source matching any calculated numbers to make them 'right'; Statistiker is again (of course, it is sourced) right about the yet-(but soon)-to-be-determined number of territories and council members; the council 'selection' critique could be 'lack of clarity' at best (not wrong); and again, Statistiker is right about housing and economic development; the original text didn't have any info about other MGP authority, either, so I don't see how this can be presented as 'being wrong'; the rest is speculation: although the IDF is the sole comptable for now, there are plans to levy taxes in that way to finance the MGP, but it is far from a fait accompli, so it is not 'wrong', either.

I really don't understand the motive for making a pointed 'how wrong they are' and WP:OWN-accusation complaint against another contributor on a specific admin's page; isn't that a clear demonstration of WP:OWN in itself, and what was the admin in question expected to do 'about' the targeted contributor? This seems a silly waste of time. But I assume that all these errors have been corrected by now. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful comments and corrections, Promenader. I added additional text on the project as it was described in Le Moniteur, the publication of the French construction industry, which I thought was authoritative, but apparently it wasn't the most recent version. Now Der Statistiker accuses me of hypocrisy, being not sincere and not genuine. He continues to abuse and attack me and other editors, just as he did last year. Please, Der Statistiker, once again, no more insults, no more attacks, no more sarcasm. Please try to be civil to other editors. i don't want to open the article each day wondering who you're going to attack next. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. SiefkinDR (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

No need to thank me. But please do explain your rationale for rewriting. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, I don't see those numbers in any of the references provided, and I just outlined this issue above. Wikipedia is not a source, it is a collection of sourced data, so if there is a number indicated in an article here, the source it links to must have it as well. I'm sure there's a reliable source out there that has 'done the math'... if there isn't, the article will have to make do with the best sources it can find. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked up on those numbers: SiefkinDR or Der Statistiker, please remove them from here (and the Grand Paris article), as they are 'personal work' from someone here, calculated on 2012 population figures. SiefkinDR, I don't know where those journal numbers come from, but they seem to be the best source we have to date... if they're estimated projections, and should be indicated as such. I'm sure 'real' numbers will come out soon, especially when the INSEE gets into swing on this. I'd do it myself, but... hm. But for now, Wikipedia is one out of two places on the web where those numbers can be found, and the other place is not a credible source. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I added text to the section about Grand Paris created by Der Statistiker, because I didn't think it gave enough information; it lacked specifics about the area, population, and competences of the Metropole. His text also attributed the plan entirely to President Sarkozy, though the present plan has little in common with that of Sarkozy, and it didn't give any figures or describe precisely what the Metropole would do. I looked at the source that Der Statistiker used, the legal act, but thought it was too technical and decided to use instead the description of Grand Paris in Le Moniteur, the journal of the construction trades. That article was from July, and since then the territory of the Metrpole has changed slightly, and there are also changes in the means of financing and in the competencies, so what I put up was out of date. I wanted to put up something before the end of the year, when the Metropole comes into effect. Der Statistiker pointed out the differences, and I fixed them. I regret that I didn't announce first that I was going to make the changes, but I put up the best information I could find.SiefkinDR (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

My edit contained the land area and population of the Greater Paris Metropolis: [23]. How can you claim that this section that I created lacked this information when the diffs prove the opposite??? This is getting more and more bizarre... Also, the bit about Sarkozy wasn't written by me but by previous editors (as the diff shows), and I left it in the article because otherwise you would accuse me of deleting things from the article without discussing on the talk page and bla bla bla. It's quite rich to then say that *my* text attributed the plan entirely to president Sarkozy when it's actually something that was already there in the article! Der Statistiker (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, those numbers are fictitious (again, Wikipedia is a collection of sourced material, not a source in itself; we can't publish numbers that have no source). And all I think Siefkin meant by 'his text' was 'the text Statistiker wants to revert to', and that has nothing to do with his Sarkozy-inclusion critique; it doesn't matter 'who' wrote it, anyway; it only matters that it's accurate. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal that editors give notice before making major changes

I deleted text from the section on Grand Paris without first saying why and what I was going to do, and I realize now that was a mistake. Given the recent arguments on this page, I would propose that editors who want to make any major change (changing anything over one sentence) should announce it here first, for discussion, before making the change. I think that might calm things here down a bit. Would other editors agree to that? Cordiallly, SiefkinDR (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If it was a major change, yes, you should have left a note about it (well) before you rewrote it, and even if it wasn't, checked if it had just been submitted, as, as I guess it's obvious to you now, editing just-contributed content beyond correcting errors tends to ruffle feathers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course I would agree to that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

(note: this, in response to SiefkinDR, was bizarrely moved away by ThePromenader; I'm putting it back, and still waiting for a response from SiefkinDR demonstrating a genuine desire to stand up to his words)
SiefkinDR, you didn't just delete some text from the section. You rewrote it entirely ([24]) despite the fact that I had written and added this section only 3 days ago ([25]) and that it contained accurate information and was sourced. What's more, in rewriting it you introduced lots of errors and factual inaccuracies that I've detailed on the talk page of Future Perfect at Sunrise: Usertalk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Your opinion on this.
But ok, let's take you at your words. This is what I propose: if you're sincere and genuine about what you just wrote, can you kindly revert this section to how it was today before your first edit at 15:20 ([26]) and then work from there if things need to be added? A negative response would make your apology and offer of good behavior above look rather hypocritical. I hope you can see it. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

An editor recruiting people to come to this article to attack other editors and push his point of view

I've just seen the posts made by Der Statistiker on the Skyscrapercity web site, asking readers to come to this article on Wikipedia and to push his point of view. The post, in the link below, makes personal attacks on me by name and on two other editors. (The link to the post is below, in English and French). This is really a new low, Der Statistiker, asking people on other sites to come here to make attacks on me because I don't agree with you, and targeting Wikipedia editors by name with personal attacks.

Here are the links. The attacks on me and two other editors were disguised by putting our names into images. so they wouldn't appear in search engines.

English link: [27] - Original French: [28]

Der Statistiker, I hope you have a good explanation, . SiefkinDR (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Er, you didn't have to post that here? But sorry for the mess. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikiquette Minimum

There seem to be a few here unfamiliar with 'Wikiquette'. If you land on a much frequented page that's been heavily edited over time, there's a minimum of politeness that one can afford fellow Wikipedians (there, and anywhere).

a) an edit commentary is enough to explain the rationale for changing or removing a few phrases, or updating existing ones.

b) any proposed modifications beyond that to existing content should be announced on the talk page. For example, if you want to rewrite a section, let others know what you intend to do, and see what others have to say about it.

c) anyone can add content, but if that is contested, again, talk about it on the talk page (and wait for an answer!) before removing or rewriting it. There's no better way to ruffle the feathers of a contributor than to remove or rewrite their just-contributed work.

d) If something of yours has been removed several times over, there's probably already a good reason for it on the talk page; it should be discussed there (if it hasn't already, it should have been) before inserting it again. The same goes for a repeated removal of content. The same goes for reverting to old content.

These demonstrate a modicum of poiteness and constructive editing technique, and they apply to all of Wikipedia, but perhaps a reminder would be useful here. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite errors

In the Paris#References Notes section I am getting multiple Cite errors. It appears several refs have different definitions for the same names. I don't want to mess around with the reference tags myself as I am not great at them so I just thought I would point it out. HighInBC 15:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the Lichfield reference. Someone else will have to fix the Lawrence Gondrand reference. I can't figure those out. Thanks for pointing this out. Coldcreation (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Clear anti-Muslim bias in the article in the history and religion sections

20th-21st under history: There were many problems with that paragraph's narration about Charlie Hebdo attack: the mentioning of "Muslim extremists" is unnecessary and the writer definitely has a sinister motive behind it, do we label other terrorists attacks in Europe carried by non-Muslims like that? Was the picture necessary? what's the point of mentioning that the attackers " were born and raised in Paris"? Why the writer wrote just "Muhammad" and not prophet Muhammad when referring to the cartoons? Who is Muhammad? there are hundreds of millions of Muhammads in the Muslim World!! Prophet Muhammad must have been mentioned to inform readers what the writer is talking about, that practice is used by western media when talking about the cartoons. Religion section: Religions of Paris after Christianity it says " other religions" when Islam is the notable second religion in that city and in France in general! and even in that segment of " other religions" the write talked too much about Jews who are just few hundreds in that city ignoring the clear second religion in Paris, Islam, with it's old history in the city and the region and ignoring the fact that Muslims make up to 15% in metro Paris with a population exceeding 200k! Even when talking about Islam , just small two lines were written mainly talking about the Grande mosque of Paris and not even mentioning Islam or Muslims by name. I request changes to these two sections to protect the neutrality of wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alforu88 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, but I don't entirely agree with you. I don't know any other way to characterize the attackers at Charlie Hebdo as other than "Muslim extremists", since religion was, according to all the cited sources, the motivation of the attacks. As for using the term Muhammad rather than Prophet Muhammad, this is the standard practice in Wikipedia; see the article on Muhammad.

The section on religion was largely organized by chronology, not number of believers, and the Jewish community has a long and well-documented history in Paris. (It's larger than a few hundred). There's less information about the Muslim community, and no official statistics that I know of. What is the source of the fifteen percent statistic? We can include more statistics if you can provide a good source. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest to call him prophet Muhammad in the article, of course that would be wrong, I meant to suggest adding the word prophet to let readers know what the article is talking about, like cartoons ridiculing prophet of Muslims Muhammad, etc, but that's not the main issue with the article, I think the main issue is the religion of the attackers and their background ( born and raised in France, sounds irrelevant), the word Muslims extremists was unnecessary because many terrorist attacks were carried by right wing Christians in Europe and the religion of the attackers was never mentioned in any of them even though the motive was clearly religious hatred. As for religion, there are hundreds of sources about that even on another Wikipedia articles, websites like pew research center, muslimspopulation.com all put Muslims population around 10% ( 9.6% to be precise) amount to 6 and half millions compared to less than half of million of Jews. As for history it goes back to the battle of tours, the subsequent Muslim expeditions, Ottoman naval bases, etc, etc, rich history and much more historical events than Jews presence in France , it goes back till 7th and 8th century, please read Islam in France.

I didn't want to bring this up earlier, but I'd like to suggest removing the religion section entirely (making it an article of its own), and giving religion a reference in the 'demography' section... and that should clear all this up nicely. Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps making it a subsection in the 'Culture' section, reduced to a paragraph about the city's predominant religions and an indication of some of their major shrines therein. Do let me know what you think. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Very sensible suggestions. I'd suggest that we divide the religion section, leaving the description of major places of worship where they are, and moving the estimates of the size of religious communities to the demographic section, clearly indicating that there are only estimates, no official numbers. Would that work? SiefkinDR (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes! And what about moving the religion section to the 'culture' section, instead of being one of its own? I think that, with the reduced size, that should happen anyway. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There are two sections on religion

Can somebody merge them into an appropriate place without compensating the information? '''tAD''' (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the two sections you are referring to... are you talking about the religion section (now 'Churches, Mosques and Temples'), plus the mention in the 'demographics' section? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

(Slapping forehead) Yes, you are, sorry. We're discussing this at present (right, Siefkin? ; ). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and fix this, then. Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:22, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I was going to do this this morning, but I think it better to present a rationale here, first.

Basically I think it best to move the entire religion section to an article of its own (it is already an article as it is, and there is much more information that can be added, as it is a subject all on its own), create a 'religion' sub-section in the 'culture' section, and move the demography info (that has no place there, anyway, as there is no real (let alone official) statistical data on religion (French law forbids it)), and use some of the moved info to concoct a paragraph describing the city's most prominent temples (and the quarter/culture around them). This would simplify the article greatly, as well as remove the 'who's on top' aspect of the present section (that, as we can see above, will always invite objection and 'different points of view'). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Changes to the Lead

I see that an editor has deleted the population of the Paris Region from the lead, without any discussion, and also deleted it from the information box. Since the Region is mentioned frequently in the article, and since many of the statistics given are for the region, I would like to restore that to the lead and the information box. I ask once again that editor who did this discuss first here before they delete important text from the lead. Thank you. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed the IDF population from the lede, since there is already information about the 'Paris metropolitan area' there, and the entire IDF population is hardly Paris' own. But add it back, if you will. I wasn't aware that it was even present in the infobox. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I added back the lede part, but I have no idea about the inbox. Was IDF data ever there? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Employment (sector) map - any other additions?

Île-de-France 2012 INSEE employment, population and unemployment statistics, organised by arrondissement (national) and department

Employment by economic sector in the Paris area (pétite couronne), with population and unemployment figures (2012)

Employment situation in Paris, 2012. Employment by economy sector; unemployment and population; INSEE 2012 numbers published Jan. 2015.

I'm working on a Paris-region 'Employment by sector' map that shows the percentage of people working in each job sector in each arrondissement; the inner departments are easy enough, but I found that just listing one value for the entire department is overly-simplistic, so I'm arranging it by arrondissement of each department, to give a more even Paris-to-suburb transition over smaller areas. It's a bit of a chore.

The data part of it is easy, though, as the statistics come straight from the INSEE: basically every arrondissment is going to have a pie chart showing the percentage of jobs in each sector (which should give a pretty good indication of what each quarter does), and I'm considering accompanying each with a number indicating the unemployment percentage in that quarter, as well as the percentage of fonctionnaires (as they are a large share of the labour market) in every given quarter, too. Would that be overkill? If anyone would like any other data (while I'm there), do let me know, too. Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, though it will need regular updating. It would be a single map where you click on different areas and see the numbers? SiefkinDR (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

LOL I don't even know if that is possible here... I wish it was. And I wish we could link directly to the latest data (no updating)... I'm dreaming. I'll see what I can do, though. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

SiefkinDR, do you know something about clicking/number showing that I don't? All I can see is an option to show tooltips over an image... sure, that could be used, but the code will be extensive ; P THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Test version up (to see how Wiki renders the finer details) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 21:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That's about how it's going to look - now that I have all the data up, I've two other versions to do: zoom in on future 'Grand Paris' (and Paris' arrondissements, detailed), then just Paris herself. If there's any comments or suggestions, now's the time... cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

All three versions (mostly) done. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Article improvements?

Any suggestions as to what can be improved in the article? @Tim riley and Dr. Blofeld:, your input would be especially welcome. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Fix refs 222-3 and avoid formatting the dates like 2015-11-28.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the proper format? There are several 'accepted' on Wikipedia... THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep the formatting consistent. Which ever is used most in the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Why not format all existing, then... noted. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A lot of thing should be improved in this article. A far too long history section, with a lot anecdotal events that don't give a lot of information about the history of Paris as a city. A cultural section that is more based on outdated stereotypes than on the real aspects of Paris' cultural life.

Paris article should become a real encyclopedia article rather that a tourist brochure. There is a lot of work to do. Editors should forget the all preconceived ideas they have on Paris. If something confirms a stereotypes, this is most likely a wrong information or a minor information that does not have its place on Paris article. Do not use tourist guides as source, half of the things there are either wrong, biased or outdated. Minato ku (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

While I would agree that the culture section should differentiate between 'historical culture' and present culture, it is not wrong, and I'll skip the bit about accusing contributors of using tourist books to edit the article (for my present edits, the idea of sending tourists to the INSEE is a fun one ; ), as the 'bias' accusation. And I don't agree with your (unmentioned) revert yesterday, by the way, as the contributor presented a very valid rationale for their correction. Let's see what they have to say about it, though. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

-Wikipedia is not a tourist guide, WP:NOTTRAVEL what vistors want to see or hear do not matter . My mention to not use tourists guide as source was not an accusation, it was an advice. There are numerous source that come from tourists guide in this article. Do you know what is Lawrence & Gondrand 2010? It is the Insight Guides of Paris. And yes, guides do often have inaccurate information.

-Do you agree that most of what is written in the cultural section does not have its place in the main Paris article? What should be seen in this article is the current culture, not the history of the culture in Paris.

-About my revert, this contributor edit was also unmentioned. Why did only my edit bother you? Almost every city articles on wikipedia use the metropolitan area population in the lede. New York City, London, Tokyo, Rome, Madrid, Milan, Los Angeles, Toronto... I don't understand why this editor has deleted the mention of metropolitan area in the introduction of Paris. Why did this contributor only do that in Paris' article and why not in every other cities articles if he does not agree with the concept of metropolitan area? Minato ku (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverting a just-contributed edit without providing a talk-page rationale ('others do it' is not this) bothers contributors. And a talk-page rationale would have gotten an answer to a question only asked now... that is what the talk page is for.

I partly agree with your 'cultural' point, and I'm sure other contributors might, too, but I don't think many will sympathise with a tone like that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Links fixed, will have to go over the entire page source for the date formatting, though. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to move the history section down with the Culture section, and perhaps merge these somehow (as most of the culture discussed is 'heritage' culture, anyway), but before that happens, there should be something about 'modern' culture... it won't be very long, methinks. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree about moving the history section down. It's the first section in the articles on London, New York, Tokyo and other major cities, and seems to be the standard format. What's gained? I do agree that we can improve the cultural section by adding more on on culture today, but a little historical context in each section is also helpful. We should be looking at having separate articles on each aspect of Paris culture, as there are now separate articles on each period of history, and several other topics. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've never used other articles as a reference... every city seems to have its own 'method', and 'appeal to popularity' is not really an argument... 'what works best' should trump all, and it is that that should be tested (and copied ; )

I'm just mulling over the role of this article: most of its sections are a 'gateway' to other more detailed articles, so I'm wondering what the most-consulted 'go no further' sections in this regard would be, and I would think it would be basic info about the city, although I'm sure Paris' history gets a lot of hits... in other words, I would think that people wanting just basic info would stop at this article, and those wanting history would move on to the more detailed one. Trying to think from a reader point of view here, and throwing out some thoughts about that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225090448/http://www.paris.fr:80/en/city_government/international/special_partners.asp to http://www.paris.fr/en/city_government/international/special_partners.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090306220509/http://www.paris.fr:80/portail/english/Portal.lut?page_id=8125&document_type_id=5&document_id=29918&portlet_id=18748 to http://www.paris.fr/portail/english/Portal.lut?page_id=8125&document_type_id=5&document_id=29918&portlet_id=18748
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061003225432/http://www.paris.fr/portail/accueil/Portal.lut?page_id=4946&document_type_id=5&document_id=3076&portlet_id=10579 to http://www.paris.fr/portail/accueil/Portal.lut?page_id=4946&document_type_id=5&document_id=3076&portlet_id=10579
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141220194454/http://www.paris.fr/english/english/anne-hidalgo-paris-s-new-mayor/rub_8118_actu_142533_port_19237 to http://www.paris.fr/english/english/anne-hidalgo-paris-s-new-mayor/rub_8118_actu_142533_port_19237
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130410103133/http://www.conseil-etat.fr:80/fr/histoire-patrimoine-1 to http://www.conseil-etat.fr/fr/histoire-patrimoine-1/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130530043643/http://www.france.fr/en/paris-capital-region/la-defense-europes-largest-business-district to http://www.france.fr/en/paris-capital-region/la-defense-europes-largest-business-district
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121029054701/http://www.academiecine.tv/acces_public/Histoire.pdf to http://www.academiecine.tv/acces_public/Histoire.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090202070012/http://www.bnf.fr:80/pages/zNavigat/frame/version_anglaise.htm?ancre=english.htm to http://www.bnf.fr/pages/zNavigat/frame/version_anglaise.htm?ancre=english.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141110144134/http://www.acparis.org/welcome/architecture-history-tours to http://www.acparis.org/welcome/architecture-history-tours
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061003225317/http://www.paris.fr/portail/Environnement/Portal.lut?page_id=1313&document_type_id=5&document_id=2158&portlet_id=3139 to http://www.paris.fr/portail/Environnement/Portal.lut?page_id=1313&document_type_id=5&document_id=2158&portlet_id=3139
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071011162140/http://paris.fr:80/portail/accueil/Portal.lut?page_id=6587&document_type_id=5&document_id=16468&portlet_id=14974 to http://www.paris.fr/portail/accueil/Portal.lut?page_id=6587&document_type_id=5&document_id=16468&portlet_id=14974

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

These need to be updated to 'proper' links to the updated website, so I'll live this here as a 'to do' list, and will archive it when it's done. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Doh! I'd misunderstood the point of 'archiving' links... it's a link to the page at the time it was cited. These will go when the citations are updated (newer data), but will remain in the page history... got it. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)