Jump to content

Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Improving the table

Okay, just quick comments. First, I would like to thanks Jared/JP06035 not simply for the nomination, but also for his work on the page (making it looks cleaner). As for the picture of La Défense skyline, if there's any copyright problem, I could upload another one. I've only used this one because it was already on Wikipedia. And finally, about the red links, actually this page has been created in order to improve Wikipedia's contents on Paris' skyscrapers. All towers above 150m/500feet will have very soon an article (translation from French Wikipedia articles). Metropolitan 03:09, 17 March 2006 (CET).

Separating structures from buildings ?

On the French version of this page, structures, the Eiffel Tower and the Tour TDF from Romainville have been moved to a specific category. The main list is called "tallest buildings in Paris" and the other list is called "other structures". It includes three other radidiffusion towers and an industrial chimney which are currently not listed. I think it's better organized this way but in the same time I like to have the Eiffel Tower at the top of the main list since it's after all the symbol of Paris. Anyway, if you read those lines, feel free to post a comment, I don't know what to do. Metropolitan 15:09, 28 March 2006 (CET).

I don't particularly think we need to do anything about this. Personally, I think a building is a structure is a monument; the only factor we're concerned here is with height. So, no, I don't think that the Towers should be separated from the structures. If you think it is necessary, though, we could change the "Use" column to "Type" and give each building lables like residential, office, tower/monument, etc. so that people who are looking at it will realize that it contains rankings for all types of structures.
P.S. I plan on helping you translate some articles from the French WP if I ever get around to it! → J@red talk+ ubx  20:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Table display with smaller screen resolution

Okay, just a quick note here because I've forgotten to explain my edit. The problem about the table display on smaller screen resolution should be, at least partially, solved. The main problem was that metres and feet columns had a fixed width of 7% which was forcing the table to be at a certain size. I've changed this for a fixed width of 45 pixels. The point about having fixed width is simply to make both columns of the same size, which is in my opinion more esthetic knowing that both are about heights. If the problem persists, a solution could always be to completely remove those fixed width. Metropolitan 05:27, 31 March 2006 (CET).

Thanks. When I tried to make the pictures smaller, I knew it didn't work. I figured it was something with that percent thing, but I didn't know how to fix it. You're right, though, that it does look better with two equally wide columns. (It's also great you added a feet column, too.) It shouldn't pose more problems, I don't think.
P.S. What does that (CET) stand for after your timestamp? Everyone else has (UTC) except for you! → J@red talk+ ubx  03:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
(CET) means "Current European Time". It stands for the current time in continental western Europe (From Madrid to Warsaw). Anyway, I've never figured out what UTC was... I guess it's about the universal time, but I don't know what's the time difference between Paris time and the Universal time, so I continue to post in CET, even if I know everyone else uses UTC. Anyway, if there's any logic in the timing of your message that means that UTC is -2 compared with Paris. So I'll give it a try to post in UTC. Metropolitan 04:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC).

Excellent list

I fixed a wikilink and some minor grammar. Is it possible to change the redlink "Front de Seine" because redlinks don't look good in the intro. Also, in the introduction and the title of the first table, the "Paris, France" could be reduced to just "Paris" as it is the only truly famous Paris (the Hilton girl doesn't count). Otherwise this looks very good, especially as it seems to have taken a little more than a week to set up. Green Giant 23:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Twin towers in Levallois-Perret

Isn't there an error with the towers in Levallois-Perret? They are listed as located in the "Front de Seine" distrinct. The "Front de Seine" is in the 15th arrondissement of Paris, so this is very confusing. Is the area of Levallois-Perret where they will be built also called "Front de Seine"? Hardouin 11:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not a mistake as it's located near the banks of the Seine. The district is called "Collange-Front de Seine", I will add the word Collange first in order to disambiguate it from the 15th arr. "Front de Seine". Especially that since the list has been reduced to the Top 50, none of Front de Seine buildings appear anymore (datas are still there but hidden). Metropolitan 12:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

Mention about the city "with the most high-rise buildings in Europe"

I don't believe this mention should remain as the criteria to be used could be very subjective. Indeed, there's no official height determining the limit above which a building is considered as a highrise. It could be 90 meters as it could be 20 meters (see high-rise page). Due to the large number of residential towers above 90m in Moscow, the Russian capital city could be considered as having the most highrise in Europe once using that height as a criteria. The limit at 150m may be rather arbitrary, if we would fix it to 200m, than Paris would have only one building as opposed to Frankfurt having four and London having three. Moscow has no less than 6 towers currently in construction which will be above 200 meters and Madrid has 4. All this to say that it would certainly be preferable to keep it the way it was mentioned before. Metropolitan 12:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC).

I agree. I modified Hardouin's statement before reading what you just said. Thbz 13:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Title change

I think we should change the title of this article to Tallest buildings and structures in Paris, as the current title gives the impression that the article is all about non-office towers. Compare this with Tall buildings and structures in London and Tallest buildings in New York City. Hardouin 14:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I myself changed it to the current title from the one you now suggest because I thought that saying building and structure in the same title is kind of redundant. I don't care what happenes, but I do think it looks better like this currently. Other comments? → J@red talk+ ubx  14:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
This is indeed an informative article, but I have one question, and it's one I've brought up before with Metropolitan: Why is this article called "Tallest structures in Paris" when over 60% of the structures it lists are not in Paris itself? Most of this article's information and images were ported from the French version quite accurately titled "Liste_des_plus_hauts_bâtiments_d'Île-de-France - why does this one not follow the same example with the namespace "Tallest structures in the Paris Region"? The "in Paris" is not as accurate as it should be. Any thoughts on this? THEPROMENADER 08:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
While true, I honestly think that when someone hears Paris, they think of a more broad trem of city limits: they would include its suburbs (in which most of the buildings are located) and main regions associated with Paris (like La Défense), and even small villages like Versailles. Atleast that's my connotation. Therefore, the need to change the title for this respect doesn't seem right, because of (a) This, (b) The title would be longer any more ambiguous, and (c) the municipalities are already listed on the table. → J@red  12:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't bother J@red, ThePromenader is POV motivated and is trying to impose his bias ("Paris is the administrative city, period, suburbs are not Paris") all over Wikipedia. Have a look at Talk:Paris where I have given examples of Promenader's bias. And make comments there if you wish to. Hardouin 12:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
La Défense district, having as postal address name "Paris La Défense" is ending a historical perspective starting at the Louvre and continuing through Place de la Concorde, the Champs-Elysées and the Arc de Triomphe. The district is located in the inner ring of Paris suburbs. Should we consider that Big Ben isn't part of London because it's located in the City of Westminster and not in the City of London ? Here is a picture taken from the Arc de Triomphe showing how much La Défense has no link whatsoever with the city proper, I'm ironical on purpose. Metropolitan 13:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
La Défense from the Arc de Tromphe
I do get your point about common foreigner references and cedex numbers, Metropolitan, but we're talking namespaces here - I'm sure you also got my meaning. Yes, I'm a stickler for this point, but contrary to certain bait-ridden accusations, I am certainly not inventing anything. Paris is unique compared to other major agglomerations (very black and white there) so even there it is difficult to justify through comparisons to other cities ("region of London"? "London Bouroughs"? "Greater London"? These are all official). But my basic question is, and my question itself in a way proves this point: Why does the French namespace for this article have "Île-de-France", yet its English namespace has simply "Paris"? THEPROMENADER 16:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Following Promenader's rigid logic, then the Paris Métro article should be renamed Île-de-France Métro, because the Métro goes beyond the limits of the administrative city and serves many suburbs. And what about renaming Aéroports de Paris into Aéroports d'Île-de-France? Hardouin 17:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What 'logic'? My question is simple - in what way is it not legitimate? THEPROMENADER 14:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

I noticed some inconsistencies in the tables: some heights listed are roof heights (like Tour Total), but some other heights are structural heights (like Tour Les Poissons). Either way, we need to choose one height and stick to it consistently in the tables. Hardouin 13:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the official height only includes spires in the case they are fully part of the structure. The antenna at the top of Tour Total is an additional feature which is not part of the structure in itself. As for Tour Les Poissons, I don't know and I should check about it. Metropolitan 14:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
In the Tour Total article, the antenna is mentioned in the infobox as part of the structure height. Hardouin 14:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I did get your point. That comes from a misnaming in the template. I've renamed the "structure height" into the "total height". This way, there's no ambiguity anymore. To be clear, I'll take examples. The Hôtel Concorde Lafayette has a 53 meters tall antenna on its roof. That means that the total height is of 190m, however, its official height is only of 137m, as the antenna isn't considered as being part of the structure. That's rather logic. On the other side, the Chrysler building has a spire which is fully part of the structure and is considered in its official height. Metropolitan 14:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Metropolitan, would you care to state the reason for your reverting my edits from this morning? The goal of these was to tighten the language are remove ambiguities. If you cannot prove my edits to be erronous or of bad quality, you would be kind to put them back please. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for having not explained this but I actually considered your edits made things more ambiguous that they actually were before. Firstly, I've found it weird to ask for a source to prove that Paris is among the cities hosting the most skyscrapers in Europe, the explanation is given right after in the same sentence. Furthermore, saying that Paris is among the cities hosting the most skyscrapers is a rather general statement, it's not as if any kind of ranking was given.
As for the removal of the word "proper" in the expression "city proper", actually, I've thought it could disturb the readers as they see below pictures of La Défense in the middle of a rather urban environment, and in saying it's to the west of the city, we could believe it's lost in the countryside. All this to say that I've found your edit more ambiguous than what was written earlier.
Finally, I haven't understood at all your edit about the 13th arrondissement. Chinatown is an informal expression, certainly not an official denomination. Furthermore, it didn't look very clear to me to say that the 13th arrondissement towers are located in its "southern regions". The 13th arrondissement spreads on only 7 km², it's weird to identify in it "regions". Told this way, we could imagine it's located in the South of the whole urban area. 13th arrondissement towers are by the way very close of one another, and saying they are located in various regions could give the feeling they are scattered here or there in a very wide area.
Hope those explanations makes it clearer. Respectfully. Metropolitan 13:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I respectfully do not at all think your explanations justify anything meriting this morning's total revert, and you are either totally wrong or missing the point on some things - in many ways your answers seem only an attempt at justifying your reverts, because they only insinuate at something being wrong!
First off, a reference is of course needed when you say something is the 'most of' or 'biggest out' of, and you even compare to cities to boot - no matter how it is 'explained', you must show the source of this information. Secondo, Paris as a city is very proper and precisely delimited, and there is no "greater Paris" or any appelation of the sort in existence and stating 'Paris proper' suggests that a such district does exist. This is more than ambiguous. Lastly, the '13th arrondissement sentence' didn't at all change in meaning, I just moved it around to eliminated the needless 'arrondissement' repetition as you were speaking of the same area in the same arrondissement.
I'll leave it at that for now, but I still insist that you cite your sources as you should anyway. Please do not, in the future, take the easy route of simply reverting ad litteram the work of others and spending time trying to justify it later - let's keep the writing where it should be; in the article itself. THEPROMENADER 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
ThePromenader, you're totally wrong on this, the last version of this introduction isn't mine. It's been edited and re-edited many times by various editors. And keep your accusation for yourself. I've explained very accurately why I've reverted each of your edits. I didn't want to remove them all at the beginning, but it turned out that everyone was getting things more ambiguous than they actually were. I have a lot of respect for you, and I'm sincerly sorry about all this.
Now to answer your points carefully, there's absolutely no one mentionning "the biggest out" or the "most of", it's only written that Paris is "among the cities hosting the most of", something which is explained in the very same sentence with the number of towers being taller than a specified height. I'm not the one who had written that, and I actually didn't want it to be written as I didn't like comparisons in threads such as this one, but other members insisted in saying they were putting things clearer.
The same is true for your 2 other edits. I've well-explained my points already and won't repeat myself. Why removing the "city proper" mention ? Why adding that 13th arrondissement towers are in the southern regions ? Well, okay, you wanted to avoid a repetition, but you made the sentence more ambiguous this way. Seriously, that introduction is rather clear this way, I still fail to see what was your point in editing it earlier. Metropolitan 18:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
There was never any question of 'partinance' in any of my criticisms or changes. I would say, rather to the contrary to what you state, that everything I targeted for change were ambiguous terms - terms that avoid using a precise language in order to 'suggest' something that isn't. The rest was straighforward language improvements and should not have been reverted. There exists no 'Paris proper', and you must provide references for your claims. If you can't, there is something wrong with the article, and no amount of talk-page 'explanation' can change that. THEPROMENADER 20:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Your explanation for your edit is stupid as this article NEVER mentions Paris as the city with the most skyscrapers in Europe, it simply says that it's AMONG the cities with the most skyscrapers. I've already had a struggle with Hardouin on this and I've won my fight to get that "among" word added, I don't want to argue now with someone who doesn't want to read it. You should read back my argument with Hardouin where I explained him that we can't declare any rankings about skyscrapers knowing that skyscrapers doesn't have any official height definition in the first place.
Now, about why is it said that it's AMONG the cities with the most skyscrapers don't need any citations as it's explained IN THE SAME GOD DAMN' SENTENCE !! Please read : "there are twelve skyscrapers with roof height above 150 meters (492 feet) and two more under construction (compared to 9 such skyscrapers in London, 9 in Frankfurt, 6 in Moscow, and 6 in Istanbul)."
I'll remove once again your silly ask for a citation for something which cannot be ranked in any way whatsoever and I don't want to see you reverting this again. Metropolitan 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan, drop the war-like tone please. It is not about "fight" or "struggle", and there are no "winners" or "losers". You say you "won your fight" against me. We must be living on two different planets, as I don't recall having been in a "fight" with you. You should be careful because that kind of excessive war-like tone could discredit what you write in the eyes of the readers. That being said, I agree with your reverts. It's clearly another case of ThePromenader pushing his POV that nothing outside of the City of Paris's administrative borders can be referred to as Paris, despite having been proven wrong before. Look Promenader, even the official zip codes of La Défense read: 92xxx Paris-La Défense. Just grow up. Hardouin 02:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, thanks for trying to calm things down. I agree with your first point and disagree with your second: Yes, nothing ouside Paris can be called simply 'Paris', and no, I have never been proven wrong on this; In fact every reference in existence supports this - and this is where I got this 'claim'! No, your postal code postal-company-only exception does not change this. Neither do garbage company names or airports - 'Paris' in all these is a mark of association or service, nothing more. We've been through this thousands of times before.
Now, Metropolitan, in dropping the language corrections issue, on to the 'wrongness' of asking for a source for "Paris is among the cities hosting the most skyscrapers in Europe" : this phrase is a claim that merits a source, no question about it! Where is the list of 'the cities with the most skyskrapers' from where this claim came? It is only natural to provide it as a source. I will have a look around for one - but if my search is fruitless or turns up proof to an altrenate version of reality, I will have to put the demand for citation back. The phrase in question is a claim, and verything published here must be proven factual. BTW, this is a simple and straightforward question, all the heat is unneccessary, so use a lighter tone please. THEPROMENADER 07:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
As for the language corrections issue, why not using the Île-de-France administrative region ? It's precisely defined and it encompasses every building listed in this article, while at the same time being centered around Paris.
Now, for the building count, one should expand the list of skyscrapers in Europe, since it's currently limited to the 10 highest buildings. I agree with ThePromenader on the source issue: there isn't any documented list of skyscrapers in Europe, yet, with a well-defined methodology, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. As such, stating that Paris "is among the cities hosting the most skyscrapers in Europe" is a bit vague, geographic boundaries set aside, even if it's most likely and even if other european cities are listed after that sentence.
I guess some site like SkyscraperPage.com might come in handy there. Searching for buildings in a country is allowed. There are around 50 countries in Europe. Doesn't sound too hard. — Poulpy 09:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Poulpy. I found better : http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/ma/ct/ci/?id=100001 - Paris ranks number #13 so I guess the phrase in question still applies. Now what was the big deal about that? BTW, that site is great for anything skyscraper, and has a full list of everything even 'tall building' in Paris - but I suppose you're already aware of it. It also gives a very clear and correct definition of what is or isn't Paris.
I don't see the need to change anything to "Île de France" - I think "Paris region" is a more than precise appellation for the area discussed in this article. Now that I look at it in detail, only around 30% of the buildings contained in the list are in Paris. This makes this article's "Tallest structures in Paris" namespace plain wrong. How was this missed? Again, I would suggest changing "Paris" to "Paris region" - this is at once clear, concise and accurate and should make everyone happy. THEPROMENADER 10:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The name is merely a cosmetic change, and "Paris region" (or "Île-de-France", or whatever) is nice. Knowing how many high rise buildings there are in Paris is far more interesting. Unfortunately, I can't access to what Emporis consider a high rise building is, or whether their lists are complete or not. My guess is Paris' got more 150 m tall (or more) buildings than other european cities, but fewer smaller buildings (in the 100 - 150m range). Since it depends on what you call a skyscraper, I believe you could either tell Paris hosts much more skyscrapers than other cities in Europe, or that it's a fairly low-rise area... Which accurately proves the sentence in the introduction should be rephrased. — Poulpy 12:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
And while I'm at it, saying Paris is among the cities hosting the most high rise buildings can't solve our case:
  1. It's just a peacok term.
  2. It still doesn't say anything about sources: who said Paris is among those cities with the most high rise buildings? How can you tell?
  3. It depends on what you call a skyscraper. Is it a building higher than 100m? Higher than 200m? Paris isn't among european cities with building higher than both height.
I used to think nothing wrong about that sentence. The more I dig, the more I believe it should be rewritten. Or scraped entirely. — Poulpy 12:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed it's a peacock term Poulpy, but unfortunately, you don't seem to be able to read the sentence fully. That peacock term is acceptable for the simple that the statement is explained in the very same sentence in comparing the number of buildings above 150m. The only thing I would be ready to add is a sentence saying that there's no official height limit to designate a building as a skyscraper or a highrise, and that's the reason why we can't put any kind of ranking in that field, but I personally believe that this kind of details is totally off-topic and shouldn't be mentionned in the introduction of an article such as this one. Metropolitan 14:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, right. We don't really care if Paris has less 200m+ or 100m+ buildings than other european cities. Let's say that a skyscraper is a 150m+ building (and why should we bother about such details like telling people why we chose that specific height?) and we can feel entitled to say Paris is the city with the most high rise buildings in Europe. Or among, it doesn't really matter. All that matters is bending it enough so we could say so in the first sentence.
Of course, were someone to say something like "Hey! I don't agree! Paris hasn't got that many high rise buildings!", we could tell him a) we defined the height accordingly, b) since there isn't any official height, we can do as we please, c) we can't have any ranking with other cities, but such trivial matter shouldn't stop us, and d) there's no way we're gonna change a thing about that sentence, and he'd better get on with it.
Sooooo. Let's sum it up. We've got a peacok term, no solid source, an original research, and a biased point of view. Did they change the official policies last night? — Poulpy 14:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Poulpy, I really fail to understand you. The article doesn't claim that Paris has the most skyscrapers in Europe. Why are you taking it as if that was the case ? There are 112 highrise buildings above 90 meters in Paris, 12 of them are above 150 meters and only 1 of them is above 200 meters. No matter the height you would like to take to consider a building as a skyscraper, Paris would still be among the cities with the most skyscrapers in Europe. I don't believe that claim is that much a non-sense. Metropolitan 15:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

Actually, all we wanted was a source. Which you eventually provided. — Poulpy 15:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Poulpy, stop with that sarcastic tone, it's really annoying. If you don't like "peacock terms" and "biased points of view", I suggest you check London and British Empire, where you'll find plenty of "peacock terms" and bragging claims to be busy about. I also recommend a visit to London Underground which claims that the London Underground is "the longest in route length" (no reference). Concerned as you are with articles respecting Wikipedia's "official policies", I do not doubt that you will make haste to leave messages in these articles' talk pages. Hardouin 17:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I fail to understand how unsourced sections in other articles might be a reason not to have some kind of references in this one. — Poulpy 19:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying, be consistent with yourself. Instead of just criticizing this list and being sarcastic, apply the same energy to other articles that I have pointed out and which contain unreferenced and excessive claims. Hardouin 12:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, this is getting blown all out of porportion. I'm sorry Metropolitan, but the link you provided has little to nothing to do with the phrase it's linked to - in fact, it is even more ambiguous and muddling - Is it for the viewer to extract European countries from that list and do the ranking himself? I provided a source for you - why are you ignoring it? As for the rest, there's not much I can add on the 'heights' argument that seems rather non-sequitur... the problem is that the phrase in question is just a baseless claim without a source. I gave you one, and that should have been the end of it! But I see this continues below... THEPROMENADER 18:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Just found a moment to look at that web reference again, and noted this time the colour coding for the continents, Europe, NA and such. Apologies for being hasty in my criticisms, but I'm sure you can find better. I also note that, next to "Paris" in the listing, they made the point of noting "(inc. La Defense & périphérique suburbs)" - yet this article makes a point of not making any such mention; instead it uses insinuative terms describing nonexistent entities such as 'Paris city proper', and never once does use the word 'suburb' to describe places that everywhere referred to (and this even the official commune websites themselves) as being suburbs of Paris. Not what one would call encyclopedic, straightforward or informative - this must be improved. THEPROMENADER 22:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing the name of this article would be the most awful mistake ever.

All towers mentionned in this article are built in the urban core of the Paris urban area. They are not built in various cities far apart of one another as using a regional name would make it sound. The Ile-de-France region is absolutely unknown abroad.

Things are different in every countries and don't try to assimilate your criterias from your country to another country. If in Britain or in Germany a municipality encompasses all the urban area and the neighbouring countryside, then that's good for Germans and Brits, but if that's not the case in France then try to take this into considerations before blindingly trying to ignore 80% of the city's urban area.

As for Paris being only 13th of your "ranking", that's actually about the buildings posted by USERS of Emporis website. That doesn't mean there are 1,000 highrise buildings in Madrid and only 200 in Paris, that simply means that there's been more buildings from Madrid posted in the database than buildings from Paris. The fact they are highrise or not isn't even relevant as any kind of building can be listed in Emporis database, no matter their height.

I would like anyone to realize that they are actually editing a featured list, and that all those debates already happened in the past. If you're not satisfied about the conclusions from then, then keep your frustrations for yourself and don't wait to re-edit the article 3 months later in hoping no one would notice.

Metropolitan 13:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That's just another way of saying there's no solid ground for the claim that Paris is among the cities in Europe with the most high rise buildings.
(And I won't even bother to say anything about that featured list argument, which is one of the lamest I've seen on Wikipedia. Like we care about the list being a featured one to edit it and comment it.) — Poulpy 14:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add the source you've requested Poulpy. By the way, most of highrise buildings in the Paris urban area are between 100m and 150m. Paris and Moscow are the two major cities having 100 meter-tall residential towers. Counting La Défense or not is irrelevant to this. Metropolitan 14:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Like Metropolitan, I disagree with renaming the article "List of tallest structures in the Paris Region" or "List of tallest structures in the région Île-de-France". The name Île-de-France is hardly known outside of France. It would be like having an article called "List of buildings in the municipio of Libertador" instead of the more straightforward "List of buildings in Caracas", or like having an article called "List of buildings in the province of Krung Thep Maha Nakhon" instead of the more straightforward "List of buildings in Bangkok". As for the name "Paris Region", it seems to indicate that this is a regional or provincial list, a bit like a "List of buildings in Catalonia" or a "List of buildings in Ontario". Île-de-France is not like Ontario or Catalonia, it is merely the metropolitan area of Paris. The best title is the title that we have now: "List of tallest structures in Paris". Alternatively I would also support "List of tallest structures in Greater Paris" if people prefer that. Hardouin 17:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Almost all the attempted arguments above are either meaningless or non-sequitur, but I'll try to keep this short. One: There is absolutely no danger in moving a featured article. What is most puzzling is, as it contains unfounded claims and an erroneous namespace, how it became featured in the first place. But no matter, it would retain its status. Two: "urban core of the urban Paris area" - now there's some linguistic acrobatics. Unfortunately, no matter how you hint it, it isn't Paris. Three: Île de France is unknown, agreed, but 'Paris region' is quite understandable and used quite often even in government web-sites destined for foreigners for speaking of the area around Paris, the Île de France, or the Paris agglomeration. Four: nobody's comparing anything, nor needs to - Ignore? No, properly name. Quite simple, really. Five: Ah, why the source I provided was ignored. I don't know about the 'users' part - where do you submit data? - but it has exhaustively indexed (it seems) every building in Paris over 12 stories high. What's more, it asks to be cited for any list taken from it - that is what's called backing up your claims. Still, it's closer to a source than the list Metropolitan gave. The 'type' point is rather distracting and doesn't prove anything. Six: What's with the warning? If it's wrong, it's wrong, and just because it wasn't proven wrong once doesn't mean it never can be - this is a ridiculous claim. The 'frustrations to yourself' part has no place in Wiki. Prove your point with sources and everyone will say you're right and that's it. If what is written is wrong and has no sources, it is only natural that it will change one day. Six: I'll leave the 'residential vs office vs whatever' discussion alone. Seven: I frankly don't get the comparisons, and they don't explain or justify anything and there's no need to try to predict how silly other people 'might' be. Eight: No the île de France is not the Paris metropolitan area; although similar in size they have nothing at all in common, and why this old chestnut again, here? Finally, Nine: "Tallest structures in Paris" as a title for this article can't be farther from the truth, as 70% of the buildings it contains are not in Paris, cannot be found in other references under the simple heading "Paris" and are never described by any other reference as being "in Paris" This article's present title is plain wrong, and no amount of vague parlaying can remedy this. "Tallest structures in the Paris region" explains precisely what this article contains in a way understandable even to we ignorant English-speaking foreigners who aren't supposed to know any better. THEPROMENADER 19:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The article List of Art Deco buildings in Sydney contains many buildings that are not located within the administrative borders of the City of Sydney, same as this article contains many skyscrapers that are not located within the administrative borders of the City of Paris. When will you stop doing some literal administrative reading? Most people use the name "Paris" as a generic name for the whole agglomeration. Check List of stations of the Paris RER, which contains a majority of stations located outside the administrative borders of the City of Paris. I find your insistence on doing literal reading completely narrow-minded. It's a bit as if one claimed that nothing outside the City of London can be called London, that the City of Westminster for instance cannot be called "London", because it's official name is "City of Westminster", which is perhaps technically true, but makes no sense whatsoever. Hardouin 12:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
And yes, the Île-de-France région corresponds to the metropolitan area of Paris, despite what you may believe. Claiming otherwise is again doing some literal reading and is simply absurd. All of my Parisian friends to whom I have talked about your attitude tell me I am stupid trying to argue with someone like you. Oh well, I guess stupid me wasting my time trying to respond again to your nonsense... Hardouin 12:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but: non sequitur, what are you going on about, untrue, irrelevent, untrue (they are certainly not interchangable) and it doesn't matter what third-party people or yourself do, think or say, it's what's written and referenced that counts. Show us what is written already echoes the referenced majority and quell all argument. Anything outside of that, with all due respect, is a waste of everyone else's time. THEPROMENADER 12:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Proper names for this article, based on fact and referenced usage

The most commonly used English-language phrase used to describe Paris and its environs is "Paris region", and this phrase is also the most-used by official government agencies - and this by far.

Google results:

...all searches appended with "-texas -OR -tx".

And lest us not forget:

...doesn't take much to do the math. Subtract both "greater paris region" and "greater paris" from "paris region" and "Paris Region" still wins by an overwhelming majority. Any questions? THEPROMENADER 12:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You've forgotten "Paris area" which have 353,000 references. And of course, "Paris" which have 794,000,000 references on Google. Metropolitan 13:07 30 June 2006 (UTC).

...you forgot to append "-texas -OR -tx" though, so the result is the above, with as the others. THEPROMENADER 13:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Playing with google, another funny one is that one :

And last but not least :

It's also interesting to notice that no matter what you put on the google bar, it's always a website about "Paris La Défense" which pops up as first link. Metropolitan 13:14 30 June 2006 (UTC).

Frankly I don't understand what you're proving with the above; this article is not called "tallest structures in Courbevoie|Nanterre|Puteaux|La Défense" - should it be?. This is kind of interesting, so stay reasonable please. THEPROMENADER 13:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second. Those aren't fair either because you neither ensured that no other "paris" be included nor enclosed the phrase in brackets. In fact only the top results of your metas have anything to do with the entire term. Play fair. THEPROMENADER 13:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
(all searches appended with "-texas -OR -tx")
...these are the relevent tests thus far. Metropolitan's "Paris area" leads the race. THEPROMENADER 13:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, same things with brackets this time:

And last but not least :

You simply cannot deny that the official postal address of La Défense is "Paris La Défense", that the skyscraper district is directly associated to the city. And that there's absolutely nothing wrong in associating La Défense skyscrapers with the city of Paris. Metropolitan 13:31 30 June 2006 (UTC).

That's a very narrow logic, and unfortunately does not reflect the majority of referenced reality. Associated, yes, in, no. Apologies. THEPROMENADER 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Promenader, it's your logic which is narrow. There are more Google results for "Paris region" than for "Paris metropolitan area", so what? A quick search on Google shows that:
"New York metropolitan area" leads to 893,000 references
whereas "New York region" leads to 9,080,000 references
"Toronto metropolitan area" leads to 18,300 references
whereas "Toronto region" leads to 276,000 references
What does it prove? Nothing, just that people prefer to use short words. Hardouin 15:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I note, incidently, that there are more references to "Paris metropolitan area" than to "Toronto metropolitan area" on Google. So please! Hardouin 15:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Another quick search on Google shows this:
I think that settles the matter. Hardouin 15:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(Chuckling) What the (expletive) is that, and who do you think you're fooling? So this last example is supposed to "settle" the "fact" that La Défense is "in" Paris - LOL! (wiping eyes) I'm sorry, but you guys are too much - I suppose you're going to claim consensus on this "cited fact and logic"? : )

"Tallest structures in Paris" as a title for this article can't be farther from the truth, as 70% of the buildings it contains are not in Paris, cannot be found in other references under the simple heading "Paris" and are never described by any other reference as being "in Paris."

Get your maps out and, please, get real. THEPROMENADER 16:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Promenader, calm down, you're losing your temper. Sorry to tell you, but you're not the one and only Paris authority on Wikipedia. Hardouin 16:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
(Still grinning) Please. THEPROMENADER 17:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Proper names for this article, based on fact and referenced usage, Part II

My vote is still for "Paris Region", as it dominates in official and referencable usage. http://www.paris-region.com is I think the most glaring example of this. Also: the Chambre Regionale de Commerce et d'Industrie Paris - Île-de-France's English documentation uses this term, as does the RFF, l'EGID and the Sorbonne university. The Île-de-France regional Council website prefers "Paris Île-de-France", and the insee website prefers "paris area" over "paris region" by 24-14. These are not cherrypicked or generalist examples; these are official organisation websites.

Also reveealing is a google for the above terms ("paris area", "paris region", "paris metropolitan area") using an appended "site:fr" to see what the French themselves use to call the area encompassing Paris and its suburbs - or better still, "site:gouv.fr" to see what the government organisations use. "Paris Region" wins in both categories.

An addendum to yesterday's worldwide searches: I note that "paris area" results show a domination of tourist websites and conversational usage, while "paris region" turns up more organisations . This, combined with the above research, is what finally convinced me. Although it would not at all bother me to swing either way, in all logic "Paris region" seems to be the most reasonable and founded choice.

THEPROMENADER 07:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is denying the fact that the Île-de-France administrative région is using the name "Paris Region" in English to describe themselves. You're completely off the mark here. The point is, "Paris" is a generic name used by people for the whole conurbation, not just for the administrative City of Paris, same as "Sydney" is a generic name used by people for the whole conurbation of Sydney and not just for the administrative City of Sydney. If you want to do literal administrative reading, that's up to you, but you're not going to impose it on the rest of us. Hardouin 12:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Your 'by people' may refer to the ignorant few, but certainly not the referenced nor reality. If you cannot lay claim to the later categories then you have no argument. I have taken the effort to prove this fact, so please don't insult this by answering only with untruths and warnings. Unless Paris has grown overnight, this aricle is misnamed, and I don't even know how one can even have the gall to even try to contest this with only opinion and irrelevent comparisons in guise of 'proof'. All that remains to choose a proper name, so if you care to participate in this venture, please do. THEPROMENADER 14:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Article move complete, and all double-redirects fixed. Apologies to any offended, but this move has nothing to do with taste or opinion, it has to do with fact. The title of this article was flagrantly factually wrong, a fact verifiable - as has been already done above - in any reference or governement website.

The move done, this article is not only retains its featured article status, but has a content that can be referenced using the terms of its now-correct namespace.

It goes without saying that I would not have moved the article would I not be 100% certain that it was in error. Proof of this error exists in most every reference and all encyclopedias, but I can again still provide ample evidence if requested. Thank you for your understanding. THEPROMENADER 08:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed your vandalism on this article. No consensus has been reached on this issue, and actually, you were the only one supporting your idea, hence in minority. As a result, I've moved it back as what it used to be. All buildings mentionned in the list are built in the core of the Paris urban area, in what is its most dense area. This is not a regional list, this is an urban list. All buildings in the list are associated with Paris. There are not even built in distant satellite cities as your post assumes, giving to your point of view a blatant bias.
If you're not satisfied about things how they are, we can re-work the introduction of this page to make things clearer, but changing the title the way you did is considered to me as vandalism. Metropolitan 12:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This is quite unprecedented. You cannot have consensus on flagrant untruth. Either you provide resources for your allegations, an act that we all know that you will be completely unable to do, or you must bend to reality and existing references. Wiki is not a soapbox for "just take my word for it" opinions, so what you are doing is quite against the very principles of Wiki.
Your "urban list" and "core of the Paris area" and "associated" attempts at argument only serve to prove my point: The present namespace is "in Paris" and "in Paris" is none of these. Seventy percent of this article is about locales outside of Paris.
I'll also thank you kindly not to invent "conditions of vandalism". Since I am growing quite tired on one-on-one battles with people intent on imposing untruth, time to get another opinion in on the matter. THEPROMENADER 12:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Sincerly ThePromenader, I'm the most tired of all of those futile battles. Actually, I'm so bored about them that I will soon leave Wikipedia for your greatest happiness. What I find tiring is people who don't assume their bias, and sorry ThePromenader but you don't assume yours. If you wouldn't have any bias, could you explain me on which ground have you chosen the expression "Paris region" instead of any other ? In the little google search you made to prove your supposed objectivity, you've realized that "Paris area" got more references than "Paris region". Then why have you chosen "Paris region" instead ? Because you liked it better, and you were the only one thinking this way.
Now, things are different in many countries, and that kind of articles can perfectly takes this into account as long as things are well-explained. I don't believe there's any problem in entitling this article as the "list of tallest structures in Paris" as long as it's well-explained in it that it encompasses buildings located in the Paris immediate suburbs. Now I could understand that you don't find this clear enough, even if the commune in which is located each building is well-specified, I agree we can still work on this. However, talking the way you do, ignoring the specificities of the Paris area which is made of a relatively small central municipality surrounded by hundreds of micro-municipalities is undoubtedly excessive.
In wanting to make appear this list as a regional list, in fully ignoring the specificities of Paris urbanism, you also get into a bias. Why is it so wrong to you to associate buildings located in Paris immediate suburbs with Paris ? Once again, as long as it's well explained, I consider there's nothing wrong in this. Metropolitan 13:19 8 july 2006 (UTC).
I'm sincerely sorry that you are fighting a battle that you cannot win, as this is a place reserved only for existing fact. I am well aware of your "cheval de bataille", and I even see the validity in your cause, but unfortunately you cannot use Wiki to pretend that you've already won; that the future is here already. "Well-explained" can describe a "should be" but only references can describe an "is". "Well explained" cannot make "in Paris" mean "in the suburbs of Paris" when the meaning of "in Paris" is everywhere evident, referenced and crystal clear. THEPROMENADER 13:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
My purpose is not to "win a battle", I simply want to put things as the most comprehensive as possible. If someone would ignore La Défense in an article about the tallest structures in Paris, he would definitly be lying by ommission, hiding the truth behind the principle of administrative boundaries with as purpose to ignore half of the buildings which have to be taken into account. Metropolitan 13:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Metropolitan, you are willing to transcend certain rules - namely by not using referenced works and reverting without providing the same as justification - and one can hardly call this being "passive". The article's present name, as its content speaks of an area other and much larger than its title, is anything but "comprehensive." The second argument has no real point but is a rather roundabout way of declaring that "La Defense is in Paris," when in reality it is not. La Défense is dependant on Paris: yes; important to Paris: yes; attached to Paris: yes; but in Paris, no, and every reference on this subject in existence proves this reality. Lastly, thank you for not insinuating what I am or am not trying to do, as this is an argument for neither fact nor reason: fact is that the present namespace of this article is contrary to reality, that every reference in existence proves this point and, although this fact is more than enough, no-one can produce any referencable claim to the contrary. The argument ends there.
If you would like to discuss what would be a proper name for this article, please let's do, or by all means choose something fitting yourself, but maintaining an erronous namespace in making unreferenced hypothetical arguments seems to do nothing but buy time. THEPROMENADER 15:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Making the Introduction less ambiguous

Obviously, ThePromenader is genuinely convinced there's a hidden ambiguity in this article. The tantrums in this discussion page seemed to prove his deeply convinced in his heart that some people are working together to hide the truth. Well, I propose that we can try to find a way together to re-write the introduction of this article so that no ambiguity remains.

Here's a proposal I would make for the introduction :

Paris and its immediate suburbs host a large number of high-rise buildings, Most of them being located in three specific areas: the 13th arrondissement, the Front de Seine (in the 15th arrondissement), and La Défense which isn't properly located in Paris but in its inner suburbs.
La Défense, the largest business district in Europe, is located west of the city proper, in the heart of the Hauts-de-Seine département. It is ending Paris historical axis. Unlike the other high-rise areas, La Défense is dominated mostly by office buildings. The 13th arrondissement towers are mostly residential, located in the south of the arrondissement, in what is today Chinatown. Most of the buildings of the Front de Seine, which is in close proximity to the Eiffel Tower, were built in the 1970s and 1980s and are of mixed commercial and residential use.
Other high-rise buildings are scattered throughout the Paris metropolitan area, mainly near the Périphérique freeway. These include Les Mercuriales in Bagnolet, the Tour Pleyel in Saint-Denis, or the Hôtel Concorde Lafayette in the city proper (near the Porte Maillot). The tallest skyscraper of Paris, the Tour Montparnasse, stands alone in the Montparnasse area.
Paris is among the cities hosting the most skyscrapers in Europe[1]. As of 2006 there are twelve skyscrapers with roof height above 150 meters (492 feet) and two more under construction (compared to 9 such skyscrapers in London, 9 in Frankfurt, 6 in Moscow, and 6 in Istanbul). On the other side, Paris hosts only one skyscraper above 200 meters (656 feet) when there are 5 of them in Frankfurt, 3 of them in London, and 2 of them in Moscow.

Now tell me what do you think about it. Metropolitan 13:02 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The namespace is wrong - and nothing written in the article itself or this talk page can make it "seem right". Call it tantrums or whatever you like, but the greatest amount of disgruntlement here is caused by the resistance of a very few to existing and referenced fact and their willingness to ignore it completely in favour of their own opinions.
This article is the French equivilent of someone living in New Jersey trying to make New York seem as big as possible so that he can pretend he lives there. I don't even see the point in this effort, because a name changes nothing in locale or living conditions. Paris is quite separate and different from its suburbs, and pretending that this problem doesn't exist - pretending that Paris and its suburbs are one and the same under the same name - will not at all make it go away. In any case, none of this matters because Wiki is not here to "change things" or say things how they "should be said" - Wiki is here to spread referenced fact. This article under its present title does not fall into that category. THEPROMENADER 14:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I do consider the introduction above an improvement, save for the allegation ""Paris is among the cities hosting the most skyscrapers in Europe" - not only is this as a phrase untrue (Paris is flat and uninteresting in this respect), the reference it links to states quite clearly "Paris (inc. La Defense & périphérique suburbs)" .
I also don't see the need to use terms such as "city proper" to insinuate that there is a need to clarify some sort of ambiguity between 'inner' and 'outer' Paris - there isn't. No ambiguity of the sort exists. Instead, to accurately describe a wider area in using "Paris", it would be best to use "Paris agglomeration". This, in fact, is a damn good description for the contents of this article. THEPROMENADER 06:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC reply

Maybe just change the title of the table to "50 largest structures in and around Paris"? Also discuss that in the article a bit, since this list does seem to be addressing structures in the metropolitan area as well. Does the problem lie in the omission of tall structures in Paris proper? SB Johnny 13:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This morning this article was named "List of tallest structures in the Paris region", which sums it up nicely for its "in and around" common usage meaning in both English and French languages. "In the Paris metropolitan area" would be truthful too, but it indicates an area much wider than the subject this article covers. Anyhow. THEPROMENADER 13:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Paris region and Paris metropolitan area are both indicating an area much wider than this article covers. And that's exactly for this reason that I've removed your edit, and put it back as it used to be. Metropolitan 13:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
As we both know, "Paris region" means also "in the area of Paris." Even without this, you still have no cause to revert - and your argument is quite ironic when once considers that what you reverted to is even more untrue. THEPROMENADER 14:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
You're wrong ThePromenader. The Paris region means all the Ile-de-France region. Rambouillet and Disneyland Paris are both included in the Paris region. As for the fact I've edited it, I've already explained it several times in this article. I believe this list has as purpose to be referring to a city, not to a region. If you're not satisfied about the way it is, we can still discuss about it in keeping in mind that fact. Metropolitan 14:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't tell me that I'm wrong, especially when you are being so selective in your arguments. It is of course unarguable (and arguing I never was) that "région parisienne" today is a quasi-official definition of the Île-de-France région. Yet "région parisienne" is often used as a generalistic "around Paris" description: Do a google and you'll find ample evidence of this: take what's on top of the list and its subtitle ("Paris and suburbs") - two stops down you'll find a traffic site showing a "région parisienne" map that is not at all the entire Île-de-France région . To the English-speaking layman "Paris region" has exactly the same connotations. You must also keep in mind the references you use, and follow suit there as well. "Paris region" was a happy mix of all of these.
Although you try to justify, your reverts were clearly unwarrented. The above is semantics, but you reverted to untruth - and this after showing that you were unwilling to discuss the matter. I'm glad we're discussing it now though. THEPROMENADER 07:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Answer to SB Johnny
I fully agree with you that the article should probably specify even more that immediate suburbs are taken into account. And if we would have to change the title, I do believe that something as your proposal or as "List of tallest structures in Paris and its immediate suburbs" or even "List of tallest structures in the Paris urban area" could be indeed a solution. The thing I like with the title as it is is that it's general, and hence easier to use as reference in other articles. My opinion, as I've stated it earlier, is that this title is acceptable as long as things are well-specified and clear to everyone.
Another solution would be to isolate buildings located in the city of Paris properly from those located in its immediate surroundings. Personally, I don't like that solution for the simple reason that most high-rise are built in close proximity to the périphérique, which represents the border of the city proper of Paris. Hence, dividing buildings in those who are in the circle and out of the circle seems rather absurd as they are all very close to each others. But anyway, I would definitly like better that solution, than giving the appearance of a regional list to this article. Metropolitan 13:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Answer to both As I've said before, "Paris region" is often used as a general "Paris area", and this article's French mirror is titled "List of tallest structures in the Île-de-France" (region). Just to make my choice not seem illogical as insinuated. I personally don't have any opinion about how this article should be called; my concern is with the error in its present namespace. THEPROMENADER 13:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The use of "Ile-de-France" in the French speaking article is a lot more understandable as we can decently assume that most of French speakers know what Ile-de-France is about. That's not true for the english speaking version as it's being addressed to a much broader audience, who doesn't necessarily know what is Ile-de-France, and how it is associated to Paris.
Once again, if one's purpose is to make the list of the tallest structure in Paris, he has to take into account La Défense in a way or another, otherwise he blatantly ignores the district encompassing the most skyscrapers. The purpose of this article is to comprehensively take into account all the tallest structures which are associated with the city of Paris.
As I've said earlier, a solution may be to divide the list in two, the first list being dedicated strictly to structures inside the city proper and the second list mentionning other structures in the inner suburbs. However, I repeat that I believe we can keep a single list as long as it's well-specified that buildings located in close proximity of the city proper, in the heart of the urban area, are taken into account. ThePromenader, I must confess that I don't understand why you're so stubborn in this discussion in refusing to think about any other solution than to make appear that list as regional. Metropolitan 14:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing at all for adopting French usage, and it's in fact English understanding that I have at heart - the best of course would be to find a solution approaching both as closely as possible. Reference does reflect the usage and meaning of both, as the above discussions have shown, so no need to get into that again.
I also see no interest in dividing this article between Paris and its suburbs (which would make the Paris section quite short and uninteresting indeed), but I do think the skyscrapers of La Défense could merit an article of their own... if such an article doesn't exist already.
I'm not being stubborn - I was justifying my earlier choice because of your earlier insinuation. While I'm at it, remember as well that my choice was because of both common and official usage. This said, I am not neccessarily maintaining any choice, but still, you must find something fitting - "Paris area", "Paris region", "Paris urban area" and "Paris agglomeration" seem the appropriate choices so far. THEPROMENADER 14:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, could the two of you please refrain from editing (including reverting and moving) for 2 days? There's no hurry (WP isn't going to be printed and sent to the masses before Monday), and it looks like a consensus can be reached here so long as we can keep it CIVIL. I'll hang out for the discussion, and will help incorporate anything added in the meantime if necessary. SB Johnny 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I would like to keep this discussion going until a conclusion - but I am by all means in no hurry. FWIW, you may note that I waited over a week after asking for referenced opposition before I moved anything. Lastly, this is a question of fact before consensus - we can't publish content opposing referenced fact and reality just because we agree to. THEPROMENADER 16:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


For SB Johnny and all the other Wikipedians new to this talk page: the current controversy actually goes beyond this article. It essentially hinges on Promander's personal opinion that the name "Paris" only applies to the tiny administrative City of Paris contained within the Périphérique freeway, and that nothing outside of this tiny area can be called "Paris". This equates to literal administrative reading, and Promenader alone has been arguing this for months against User:Metropolitan, User: Pedro carras, and I. To compare with a city that English speakers may know better, it's a bit like saying that the name "Sydney" only applies to the administrative City of Sydney, and that nothing beyond the borders of the City of Sydney can be called Sydney.

In the particular case of this list of tallest structures, reasonable arguments have been laid out above, but Promenader is as uncompromising and intractable as ever. For people new here, let me recap some of the arguments. First of all, the name "Paris", despite what Promenader believes, can refer either to the administrative City of Paris in a narrow sense, or more loosely to the conurbation of Paris. Thus, in common usage, most people say that La Défense is "in Paris", even though technically speaking it is located beyond the borders of the City of Paris. On Google:

Furthermore, the official ZIP code (postal code) of La Défense is "92xxx Paris-La Défense". Finally, the article explicitly mentions on which administrative territory is each building located, so there is no possible confusion. The title is more generic and made for easier use and reference. This follows the same convention used at List of Art Deco buildings in Sydney, where many of the buildings are actually located outside the City of Sydney proper. Hardouin 17:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, much of the above is untrue, an odd mix of arguments once again unsupported by referenced fact. And in absence of that fact, I see once again that things are taking a personal slant. By all means, please do open an RfC.
The affirmation that anything outside Paris can be called only "Paris" is false. The common usage examples cited above cannot apply to Paris because, contrary to the affirmation presenting itself as fact, it is absolutely not common usage to use simply 'Paris' for anything outside of the city. Only in the conversation of/for the most uninformed/distant foreigner is anything outside Paris labelled "Paris", and this only in the most offhand of ways. Should this be the standard for Wiki, for this article? As for search 'example' above on the most prominant district in Paris' suburbs: is La Défense the only thing this article speaks of? Does the fact the same uses Paris' name to mark association with Paris mean that it is "in" Paris? Get out a your maps and reference works and start citing from there; we cannot transform opinion into fact in citing ignorance and irrelevencies as "proof".
This is an odd situation, because although we are three trying to concoct "reasonable" arguments, only one "opinion" here is documented fact. Fact of the situation is, I don't think someone that hopes to refute documented reality opens an RfC on an article. THEPROMENADER 08:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel this is a "one user issue", and has been a recurrent problem on more than one page, please just start an RfC for user conduct.

I did notice that on the table, and it's well done and informative. I have no objection to the article as it stands, nor would I have objection to the article as Promenader would have it. User:ThePromenader requested the RfC, and I am simply answering the request. (Note that I have looked at his contribs, and see what you're talking about, but while I'm interested in the subject, I have nothing to contribute and not much of a preference about how interested contributors make the article wonderful). -- SB Johnny 17:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

SB Johnny, the problem is very simple: the article's title indicates what the article isn't. That's it. Now if the fellow above, or anyone, instead of citing post-office/garbage company/utility/airport service name exceptions that have nothing to do with territory, or googling for sales pitches for uninformed foreigners and the conversations of the ignorant, can provide a map or citation from reliable mainstream reference - Larousse, quid, Encyclopedia Britannica, l'Encyclopedie Universalis, anything you like - stating that " (La Défense|Courbevoie|Puteaux|Bagnolet) is "in Paris", just one, and I'll drop it. Deal? THEPROMENADER 18:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Addendum - Many English Wiki contributors share your case, Johnny, which is why some here have taken free reign with the facts. I have lived and worked here (Paris) for over a decade. Notice that, without any exception, in all talk page conversations, no matter how long, not one has been able to provide any reference that Paris is bigger than it is - and it isn't. If we speak of a bigger area we have to use a different name, and that's it. I'm sorry to say but I think I hit the nail on the head with my "New Jersey" comment above - there's a bit of a complex at work here - that I fail to understand, because a name is just a name. But you can't name one thing another and call it fact ! THEPROMENADER 18:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
My case? (Didn't think I hade made one). -- SB Johnny 02:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
D'oh. Bad choice of a word; I meant something like "relation to this article" - as in having an interest without feeling the need to wade up to your neck in fact. Sorry if that sounded pompous. THEPROMENADER 06:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia featured geography lists

A proper name for this article, based on fact and referenced usage. Part III

Since, for obvious reasons, no-one can produce any exerpts from any existing references confirming that Paris' suburbs are "in Paris", let's move on once again. Once again I'll open discussion about a proper name.

Thus far in the little discussion on this matter we have had, there has been we have a few contenders: List of tallest structures in the Paris metropolitan area, List of tallest structures in the Paris agglomeration, List of tallest structures in the Paris urban area, List of tallest structures in the Paris area and List of tallest structures in the Paris region. Here are a few arguments for and against. Add and comment freely.

Paris region.

  • Arguments for:
    • encompasses quite largely the area spoken of in this article.
    • with "Paris area", is one of two most-used English-language terms describing the area spoken of in this article.
    • région parisienne is often used by the French to mean a general "in and around Paris", and "Paris region" in English means the same
    • is the English-language term most-used by governement organisations to describe the Île-de-France region
  • Arguments against:
    • this term encompasses an area much larger than the area spoken of in this article.
      • Comment. This is true, but not to English-speakers. If I may remind all, the main reasoning defending this article's faulty namespace is "English people won't know what Île-de-France is" - well, this way they do, in thinking "area around Paris", without even knowing it. In any case, no matter the level of education in this matter, both cases apply perfectly and concord with referenced usage.

Note: This is a point that cannot be added as an argument as it is strictly comparative in nature, but it is worthy to not that the creator of the French version of this article used "Île-de-France" as a descriptive namespace. "Paris region" is this.

Paris area

  • Arguments for:
    • Quite commonly used in the English language to describe the Paris and its suburbs
    • Although against the trend of government usage for the above term, the INSEE statistical institute prefers this one
    • easy to reference
  • Arguments against:
    • is a common term used for purely descriptive language and corresponds to no official namespace.

Paris metropolitan area

  • Arguments for:
    • encompasses quite largely everything this article contains
    • is a term used quite commonly in NA to describe a city with its commuter reach
  • Arguments against:
    • is a term quite uncommonly used even in the English language to describe the Paris and its suburbs (and it may be interesting to note that many of these results are Wiki or Wiki mirrors)
    • is a statistical area that changes with much more frequency than any administrative boundaries
    • is a term that has different meanings in different countries it is used in
    • has no common use in France, so providing references in any language will be difficult

Paris agglomeration

  • Arguments for:
    • describes this article's content perfectly
    • agglomération parisienne is a French term commonly used by public, reference and government, to describe Paris and its suburbs, and the above is a direct translation
  • arguments against:
    • has no common use in the English language to describe Paris and its surrounding suburbs
    • Ungainly?
- this one is my personal favourite. THEPROMENADER 08:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Paris urban area

  • Arguments for:
    • Describes this article's content perfectly
  • Arguments against:
    • is even less used than "paris agglomeration" to describe Paris and its suburbs
    • is a statistical area subject to the same frequent change as "metropolitan area"


I think the above goes to show that there was no small amount of reasoning put into the earlier move, so I'll thank all once again not to call it "vandalism". If nothing further is added to the above and/or the "suburbs in Paris" references asked for earlier are not provided, I will be moving this article once again from its present state of obvious untruth. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 08:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is moving to its proper place today. Let's not waste anymore of anyone's time in this by denying the obvious: Paris' suburbs are not "in Paris". They are "near Paris", they are "related to Paris", they are "joined to Paris", they may "depend on Paris", they can "serve Paris", but they are most certainly not "in Paris", and this in every reference and common usage. Even though this is so head-holdingly obvious that it does not even merit discussion, I gave the week for the appearance of "proof" to the contrary - and as all concerned know full well, none exists, so let's consider this matter closed.
Now for the proper name. According to Wikipedia's naming conventions, official translations of local and administrative terms are the norm here. This cuts the above choices down to "region" and "agglomeration", as both are translations of commonly-used or official terms. Only "paris region" seems to be an official translation though; it is also the next administrative "step up" that encompasses everything spoken of in this article. So once again, "Paris region" it is.
I'll trust that any modifications to this choice be based on fact and reference. If not, please don't bother. THEPROMENADER 07:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
No doubt this will be a tickle for some: due to an error of mine, this page will have to be moved by an administrator. Perhaps this is to the better. THEPROMENADER 07:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That discussion is irrelevant now as the list concerns strictly buildings inside the administrative borders of Paris now. Thus ThePromenader's complains aen't any concern anymore. Metropolitan 10:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity to have marred a perfectly good article out of pure pride and a name. At least you could have altered the table correctly! All the same, just rearranging the article's content cannot 'improve' its namespace meaning; were the logic of this juggling be taken to full measure, you would be making two articles. This is still but one article having still the same content, so in reality nothing has changed! The acrobatics you guys go through to evade fact is just astounding. THEPROMENADER 11:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, at least for now, you win. Presented as it is, with Paris quite separate and given priority, there is a certain logic there that an uninformed reader would be quite able to understand. The cutting though was quite sloppy and the language ambiguities still there - this still needs some attention. THEPROMENADER 11:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That was quite a bit of fixing. Keep the language and context clear and I have no problem at all with leaving the article where it is - but if the article language begins to speak once again of an indescriminate larger whole as a single subject, that subject must be given its proper name.

At present this article speaks of two - Paris, and as a second mention, its suburbs, which gives the namespace subject priority. The motivations behind this change are questionable, and the resulting informative functionality leaves more than a bit to be desired, but at least this article paints a picture closer to the truth in its present state. Personally I think this is only half a measure: the structures in Paris' suburbs are still hidden behind the "Paris" title, and those who know better will never be looking for them in any "in Paris" namespace. THEPROMENADER 13:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Two lists ?

It's really awkward and unexpected to have two separate lists, one for Paris and another for the suburbs. La Défense, as far as skyscrapers are concerned, is of course a part of Paris (see [1]).

Either Paris is only the administrative Paris, and the skyscrapers in the suburbs should not even be mentioned in this article, or Paris is the real Paris (i.e. the Paris area) and there should be only one list. Of course the exact municipality should be mentioned in the list. Thbz 23:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it must have taken one hell of a long lens to take that photo : ) Rather, look at this map.
PS: Thbz - that image is a montage showing proposed towers if I'm not mistaken - and the perspective seems all wrong! Odd : ) THEPROMENADER 09:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the skyscrapers in this article are an integral part of the Paris agglomeration city structure. On the other hand, a unique and intermixed list of towers whose content is 70% in communes outside Paris (communes not only La Défense), the "in Paris" title is incorrect, as even La Défense is not "in Paris" by any administrative or even local sense; it is important to remain true to fact here. Locations named here must be factual and match to references. THEPROMENADER 23:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

After thought, I agree that this article in its present state is quite silly. Look, the problem is simple - this article's present name is an expression of the opinion of a few about what 'real Paris' "is", but opinion is irrelevent here. To accurately locate the objects of which you speak in an article and make them referencable, you must use existing official boundaries reflected in other references. That's my only problem with this article's name.

I really don't understand the ado about wanting only "Paris" as a name, or why the suburbs must absolutely be called "Paris". The Paris agglomeration is obviously a metropolis, but Paris itself (IMHO) isn't. It's too bad that the government has never taken steps to unify the agglomeration under a single 'Paris' name, but they haven't, and we can't very well use this article to pretend they have. I really don't see the 'loss' in giving an accurate name to an article dominated by content covering an area much wider than Paris itself - this is all quite simple, really! THEPROMENADER 09:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Last move

Since there can be no possible factual argument against the incorrectness of this article's former namespace, I have moved it to a correct one. Not only is "Paris region" an official translation of the only administrative area encompassing everything in this article as per Wiki naming conventions, it means also "in and in the area of" to even the layman to such subjects. Thank you for your comprehension. THEPROMENADER 12:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's quite obvious from the discussion above that you are the only one wishing to move the article. Consensus is against the move. Hardouin 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You cannot have consensus on inaccuracy. I will be seeking an administrator's aid in reinstating the article to its proper place. Thanks for making trouble for everyone once again. THEPROMENADER 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Look, everything was explained above by Metropolitan and I. There's only inaccuracy in your small world, where Paris is only the administrative city proper. In the real world, geographers, demographers, economists, and people in the street use the name Paris in the generic sense of the whole agglomeration. It's beyond me that you want to deny this at all cost. Hardouin 12:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You can 'explain' all you want or put your own opinions in anyone's mouth you like, but the best thing you can accomplish in doing that without reference is make your arguments seem as fact. They aren't. THEPROMENADER 13:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Since this article is back where it was before, it has been returned to its pre-move state. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody move! This is the Cabal!

Right. First up, move warring is evil. Second, a majority of a few is not consensus. On the other hand, neither is a minority of one.

So, what is the problem? The problem is that not all of the buildings listed are apparently in the Paris metroloplitan area. Is that important? London can refer to the City of London (approximately one square mile), Inner London or Greater London - or any one of probably half a dozen other administrative constructs. Redirects are cheap, and the most likely search term is Paris, so I'd suggest a redirect at the ~region location and leave this here, but make the intro more inclusive - it starts off by talking about Paris metropolitan area, which appears to be ambiguous given the existence of this dispute. I know nothing about the subject, mind, other than form the perspective of a regular traveller to the City of London (my firm is currently opposite The Gherkin and just moving into 25 Canada Square). Please talk it out among yourselves and come up with some kind of solution that doesn't involve move warring. Just zis Guy you know? 13:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Actually all the building are in the Paris metro area - but that's not the article title. Paris does not enjoy the naming conventions Greater London has - anything outside Paris is only loosely described as "Paris", and let's just say that the chances of this happening increase with distance and lack of knowledge on the subject. You would not find a tower in Courbevoie under "Paris" in any reference - perhaps "Paris suburbs". I would have no problem at all with the article being called "... in the Paris metropole" because at least that would be accurate. Actually I think that title would make everyone happy. THEPROMENADER 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

  • Clarification - This list in its present state is suitable for the "Paris" namespace, as it lists in priority and in context first Paris' buildings, then those of its outlying suburbs. It has been agreed that the list was better in its former state, an intermixed one, but without explanation nor context, a "Paris-only" title is inaccurate. I have no personal preference for a choice of title, but for accuracy's sake it must be one that covers the entire Paris agglomeration spoken of in this article, not just Paris itself.

Survey (Result: Opposed)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support - proposed name is accurate and follows Wiki naming conventions. THEPROMENADER 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the proposed name ("Paris region") blurs things and mislead people into thinking that this is a regional list, as would be a list of Catalonia or South-East England buildings, whereas this is actually a list of buildings in the central area of the Paris metro area (either in the administrative City proper or in La Défense). Paris in a generic sense is used for the whole connurbation, same as the name Sydney is used for the whole connurbation (check List of Art Deco buildings in Sydney). Even the official postal code (zip code) of La Défense is "xxx Paris-La Défense". Hardouin 16:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - The affirmation that "Paris in a generic sense is used for the whole connurbation" is false - the correct and commonly-used term is "Paris agglomeration". Postal codes that show a locale's service or relation to a city don't mean that that locale is in the city. Just look at a map. The Sydney example cannot apply to Paris - "Paris" is not a name that covers several towns or villages - this is comparing apples to oranges. THEPROMENADER 16:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The Sydney example perfectly applies, thank you. As in Sydney, the administrative City of Paris proper is very small and covers only a tiny area of the whole connurbation (in fact the City of Paris covers only 4% of the urban area, i.e. 96% of the urban area known as Paris lies outside of the jurisdiction of the City of Paris). As in Sydney, people in Paris often refer to the whole connubartion as "Paris". To pretend otherwise is simply denying reality. Hardouin 16:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Looking for some information for a trip and landed on this page. While both sides have valid points, I believe that for the average folk looking to learning something about Paris, they are thinking of the entire Paris metropolitan area - not simply the administrative city. We are descending into technicalities at this point, which really isn't very helpful to the actual readers. My humble $0.02. Yotambien 05:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note on the above - A single purpose account most likely another sockpuppet from the usual. The chances of a user on his first visit landing on this very talk page by accident - and registering to vote in expressing the same arguments in the same language as another contributor? Then returning to no other than the very same page? Really. See below for confirmation. THEPROMENADER 22:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - this would be fine were Wiki a tourist guide, but Wiki asks that all information contributed be verifiable, and under this title it is not. I'm sure that someone completely unfamiliar with Paris would imagine a vague urban spread, but I don't think a Wiki article goal is to echo that unfamiliarity. THEPROMENADER 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see a problem with the name being strictly "Paris" as long as the article explains the scope. Also, objecting on procedural grounds, as this clearly is going against consensus. Should have been dropped before WP:RM. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The title itself is fine but the area should be the name of the region, Île de France or the département the category serves. This is 1/ correct & precise and for such lists enables the creation of lists for other regions.

Discussion

Please be reminded that fact and verifiability come before consensus. THEPROMENADER 15:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sydney comparison, Google proof

No the Sydney example cannot apply, and by stating this twice shows a real intent to mislead. The affirmation that the entire Paris agglomeration is "Paris" completely false: only administrative Paris is "Paris" in reference - I await proof to the contrary. The entire urban area is never referred to in the same as "Paris" - please disprove this as well - and most certainly not officially. As for vague spoken-word referrals, as I've said before, the chances of Courbevoie being referred to as "Paris" grow with distance and ignorance. Just look at a map for proof of what is or isn't "in" Paris. It is a waste of time even making such affirmations if the only "proof" backing them is opinion and mismatched comparisons. THEPROMENADER 17:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You await proof of the contrary? I already gave you proof in the discussion above, but since you have bad memory, let me refresh it for you. On Google:
Hardouin 17:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Even if the search is done in French and limited to .fr websites, then we get:
Hardouin 17:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

(Grinning) Googling for ignorance : ) A very selective search too, I might add - trying to prove what isn't? Provide any reference you like, but a real one. Government websites will do fine, for example. Maps too. THEPROMENADER 17:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, so any reference that is in disagreement with you is not a valid reference. We come quickly to the end of any possible discussion with attitudes like yours. Anyway, to take you to your words, here is another Google search, this time limiting the search to .gouv.fr websites (.gouv.fr websites are official French government websites), and excluding the word "ministère" to avoid any reference to the ministry of defense.
Now you can't say these are not official references, can you? Hardouin 18:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Google results aren't considered 'references', especially since google has no way of filtering the accuracy and ignorance in what it finds on the web. I'll also have you know that "à Paris" does not only signify "in Paris", but is also a loose description of proximity or association. What I asked for were references stating that "xxxx is in Paris" - encyclopedias, Michelin maps, the Encyclopedia Britannica website (link is a search for "La Défense"), the EPAD website (link is to a clear statement on the location of La Défense)... not to mention any written references like l'encyclopédie Universalis, any atlas, in fact, any reliable reference at all. THEPROMENADER 20:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Notions of puppetry

One-time Wiki contributor (to this vote) User:Yotambien doesn't at all seem unfamiliar with this page or wiki, the "other people think" language is quite familiar, and how would someone just browsing the web for info even know this vote was going on? Chalk my doubting up to the sock-puppetry seen these last days. THEPROMENADER 07:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct naming conventions

La Défense is not in Paris it's in the Hauts-de-Seine and split between joining communes. Only the Green Michelin guide has La Defense in its Parisian edition, you can't cite other people's ignorance as a source ("La Défense in Paris" leads to 12,100 references). It isn't a commune itself either. The list cannot be named with the Paris location as it is not situated in it. Use the département or the region, as do every other list on Wikipédia; List of red polka dot trees in Shropshire. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Counter move proposal

Proposal made by Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Several naming proposals have been made, unfortunately, while some are outright false (List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris) others, inaccurate (List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region). The common practise and general concensus of list naming dictates that list be named after a geographical region.

The move discussion should be based upon if the list should be based on solely the City/commune of Paris or the outlying region; Île-de-France.

In light of the list's content, the only appropriate choice of naming which obeys the current convention is List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France. This not only cleary states what is described by the list, offers no interpretation, no disambiguation and permits the creation of further list such as List of tallest buildings and structures in Haute-Normandie, or List of tallest buildings and structures in Limousin instead of List of tallest buildings and structures in the Limoges region. In the event of the creation of a category, the newly named list will find its place in Category:Lists of tallest buildings and structures in France, itself in Category:Lists of tallest buildings or Category:Lists of structures.

Please fill in your opinions on this propose naming scheme bearing in mind it's in full compliance with naming conventions and is stricto facto; correct.

Survey (Result: No consensus)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support Well I would, wouldn't I? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose It has been explained many times that this is a list of skyscrapers in the urban core of Paris. All the buildings listed here are located in the dense urban core of the metro area. This is not a regional list. Besides, the rationale for creating lists of tallest buildings in the administrative régions of France seems rather shaky, given that many of these régions are merely administrative constructions that people don't really identify with, such as the artificial Pays-de-la-Loire or Upper-Normandy régions. It would make more sense to have lists of buildings in cities (including suburbs, such as Lyon metro area, Lille metro area, etc.), or lists of buildings in provinces that people identify with, such as List of buildings in Savoy, or List of buildings in Normandy. Hardouin 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - As per Wiki naming conventions, the Île-de-France region is the next administrative step up from Paris.
    • Comment - I have proven many times even in this talk page that most of the towers in this article are not in Paris. The title of this article does not indicate towers "in the Paris metro area" or "in the Paris agglomeration" - it says "in Paris" and this is plain wrong. Every reference in existence proves this. Straw arguments and irrelevent comparisons do not make fact out of fiction - nothing outside of administrative Paris is "in Paris". Perhaps one day Paris will be like Greater London that is even officially called London, but for the time being Paris is so isolated from its suburbs, both administratively and physically, that it doesn't even have an intercommunal/agglomeration governing body yet. Trying to say in face of this blatant and omnipresent fact that everything outside Paris is "in Paris", in both locale and in name, is taking both the uninformed and those knowing better for fools. I have asked countless times for one mainstream reference supporting this far-flung claim - is it just coincidence that the only "proof" available is a google'd irrelevance and ignorance? Please, go figure. THEPROMENADER 16:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Discreding other people, that's what you always do. You want to impose your rigid literal administrative reading to all Paris related articles, which goes against both common usage and common sense. If we apply your rigid definitions based solely on administrative borders, then the List of Art Deco buildings in Sydney, which contains many buildings that are not inside the City of Sydney proper, should be renamed List of Art Deco buildings in New South Wales, and the List of people from Los Angeles, which contains many people who do not live in the actual City of Los Angeles (because they live in the cities of Beverly Hills, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Monica, etc.) should be renamed List of famous people in California. Your administrative rigidity is simply absurd, and several people have already told you that. Hardouin 17:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hardouin, you've done a pretty good job of discrediting yourself. You are again unable to provide even one reference to support your claims. "How other countries are" doesn't make the situation in France any different, so please stop with the blurring arguments and cite some references for once. Otherwise, please drop it. THEPROMENADER 18:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Promenader, do you ever ask yourself the rationale of your editings on Wikipedia? The actual real name of King Louis XIV was "Louis Dieudonné", yet would it make sense to have his article renamed Louis Dieudonné? The actual real name of Bangkok is "Krung Thep Maha Nakhon", yet would it make sense to rename the article Krung Thep Maha Nakhon? Think about common sense for a change. Hardouin 18:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Now you're just being silly. And those references I asked for? Getting any closer? THEPROMENADER 18:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting again?

Another baseless revert, Hardouin? The list was separated by User:Metropolitan because of its present name. If this list should move to a broader and proper namespace it can be joined again. In the meantime, you must respect the work and decision of both User:Metropolitan and myself. And please stop grasping at straws for reasons to revert - to a version that has been proven countless times to be factually incorrect. Such behaviour is nothing but disruptive and shows no respect at all for both fact and other contributors. THEPROMENADER 18:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The list was separated by user Metropolitan because of your harassment Promenader, and nothing else. Now your harassment has paid off, and Metropolitan is gone (at least for now), and so he can't even participate in the vote concerning article move above. You should be ashamed. Hardouin 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It is not your place to put your own desires in other people's actions as reason for your own. My "harrassment" was asking for answers to what is quite obviously untrue affirmations. In the meantime, it was Metropolitan who separated this article and myself who corrected its extensive errors, so you will and can not annhilate this work on your baseless whim alone. Once again, you are ignoring fact, consensus and discussion in favour of your own opinions, and in a rather disruptive and pigheaded manner I might add. THEPROMENADER 18:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the title is full and correct at "List of tallest structures in Paris" because "buildings" are "structures" and the city Paris implies its suburbs. Enough said. → JARED (t)  18:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jared. Some common sense is greatly needed here. Like you, I would also favor the simple title "List of tallest buildings in Paris" (i.e. removing the word structure), or removing the word "buildings" and leaving only "structures", either way. The word structure was added in the first place because of the Eiffel Tower, and a few other telecom towers, which some people said were not "buildings" strictly speaking, so we added the word "structures". If people think we can remove either of the two words, let's remove. It will make the title more simple. Hardouin 18:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Jared, the city of Paris does not imply its suburbs - where did you get that information? Excuses, but if I'm going to ask Hardouin, I'm going to have to ask you too. Hardouin, collective ignorance does not make fact. But one knowing full well the falsity of his claims does not have this excuse. The issue is "Paris" here, not "structures." This page will be going back to its pre-consensus separated state until consensus is reached, so thank you for respecting this. THEPROMENADER 18:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
And those references, Hardouin? Busy looking? THEPROMENADER 18:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The Promenader...take a look at the La Défense page's first sentence! It clearly states that it is one of Paris's major business districts! Its not in Paris, but a suburb of it! And yet it is still considered in Paris. And as long as the table shows which town each buiilding is in, that fine enough. → JARED (t)  18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Jared, La Défense may belong to Paris, and may even considered to be part of Paris, but that doesn't make it in Paris. Even the EPAD itself will not say that La Défense is "in Paris". Perhaps one day it will be. May I also remind you that La Défense is far from the only locale spoken of in this article. THEPROMENADER 18:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm done arguing over such a trivial matter. I'd just like to leave you with the notion that most of the time, when someone speaks of a large city's name, they are referring to the metropolitan area or greater city area as a whole, not just the city proper. Therefore, saying that these buildings are in Paris for the sake of keeping a short title is more than legitimate. → JARED (t)  19:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a trivial matter - but a name change, and myself I don't understand the ado. Trust that I wouldn't go to all this trouble were I not certain of my position - Paris is unlike many of the other world's metropoles. I've left you a word of explanation in addition to the one above. Thanks for your input. THEPROMENADER 19:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You see, that's the problem with you, you always believe you're right, and therefore you don't accept dissenting opinions. This talk page exemplifies this very well. Hardouin 19:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I have fact and reference on my side. Wiki doesn't publish opinions, only fact. Still looking for those references? THEPROMENADER 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
PS: Although you did your best to start one, Hardouin, no need to worry about any revert war tonight: this article's present state only serves to show why it should move. Should the article stay, it will be going back to the version made by User:Metropolitan and myself. Goodnight. THEPROMENADER 19:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

One list is enough

H and TP, I will not bother to read all your arguments and counter-arguments (because they are so predictable) and only say that there are two separated and totally unrelated debates:

  • one is about the title. I won't say anything here because I simply don't care.
  • the other is about the number of lists inside the article. Of course there must be only one list:
    • First because the title of the article is (and will always be) "list", not "lists"; if you decide that "Paris" means "the administrative Paris" then you should remove entirely the towers of La Défense, not put them in a separate list.
    • Second (and most importantly) because it's pointless to separate towers that are on one side of the périphérique to towers that are on the other side. Skyscrapers are not an administrative thing; they are about architecture and economy, which have no strict administrative boundaries.

Therefore the current version (with one single list) is of course the best one. Whatever the title may become. Thbz 21:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We have gone the same rounds enough times for the tune to be known to all. I also was happy with the list the way it was before - only a word in this list's name needed changing for it to become accurate - not the list itself! The cutting was a desperate effort to waylay its being moved from its "in Paris" namespace - as if maintaining an incorrect name had some sort of importance - that's it. It's true that cut as it is, it does 'fit' more or less the "Paris" apellation because of the new context - but I agree that the cut solution is but an a** between two chairs.
I do care about this list's title, and in fact it's the only thing I care about in this article because it's the only thing I saw that could stand correction. This list concerns more than Paris itself, and this must be expressed accurately and correctly. This is but a choice of a correct name, so I don't see all the fuss. "Paris metropolis" would do, as would "Paris agglomeration" - but having this list as an intermixed one titled as though everything it contains is "in Paris" is just false. THEPROMENADER 21:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion

I do understand the need to compare the urban tissue of which Paris is only a centre to other world agglomerations, and it is unfortunate that the Paris region's present administrative makeup makes this urban tissue difficult to name. Official Paris is obviously too small to cover this, and any other "version" of the same is, to date, only opinion and unreferencable. I would vote for "Paris agglomeration", as it describes best what is in this article, but this name is neither official or referenced under this heading enough to meet Wiki naming conventions.

Unfortunately there is no administrative entity short of the Île-de-France encompassing all contained in this article. I don't think that it is without reason that the French version of this article is named Liste des plus hauts bâtiments d'Île-de-France. I am now almost convinced that this is the best choice, as it is a region's official namespace that counts over all. It also makes things much simpler - and this list intact as one. THEPROMENADER 22:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Page move complete, as per Wikipedia conventions (foremost) and consensus. As I've said elsewhere, this was done by the book, for the book, so this should be the end of it. Thanks to all. THEPROMENADER 08:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Promenader, as this talk page clearly shows, there is no consensus to move the article. Your attitude here is pure and simple page appropriation. Hardouin 13:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hardouin. Try that again and it's WP:RfC for you. Fact there is, Wiki naming conventions there are, consensus there is, and by reverting you place your unreferencable opinion above all of it. Please do not waste any more of anyone's time with such nonsense. THEPROMENADER 13:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, this is nearly exciting as the (G)dan(zig)sk naming debate. I have temporarily {{moveprotected}} the page at its original title as there is no clear consensus that I can see - in fact, looking at #Requested move, I should say there is consenus not to move.

Many cities are larger (in terms of the urbanised area) than the central area that falls into a single adminstrative region. Compare the City of London, Inner London and London. This article could be renamed as "List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris metropolitan area", but surely "Paris" is an acceptable abbreviation for "the Paris metropolitan area" in most contexts in English? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is probably sillier. Paris is not like Greater London, and nothing outside of administrative Paris is called simply "Paris" in any reference existing. If it is greater ignorance and convenience that dictate Wiki namespaces, by all means, leave the title as it is. Good day. THEPROMENADER 14:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe your random and rather spontaneous move should be reverted to what participating wikipedian had moved it to after a long, thorough, tenious and hard consensus agreing on using the next higher administrative entity; Île-de-France. Your recent move jeopardises the sheer content of the page and will more than likely require the deletion of 90% of its content since most of the list's content is not in Paris. As ThePromenader has already pointed out, Paris is a rigid and defined entity contained in a well defined area, unlike cities in the UK which are named after the mass of building concentrated around the locality's cathedral.
The list is a list of tall structures in Île-de-France, not in Paris, which is unfortunately not up for debate. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(places)#Follow_local_conventions is there to help. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is temporarily back on topic but will need some serious sorting before all content can be split in Paris and out of Pairs lists. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is silly beyond words. The "Île-de-France" namespace was a result of much discussion, is 100% verifiably factually correct and, in the bargain, applies Wiki naming conventions to the letter. This conclusion became a counter-proposition, and after a wait of seven days, passed by a narrow 2:1 margin and is moved. The page is then reverted to its former incorrect too-small namespace by the only opposing contributor who, in the bargain, inserts references to an unofficial area even bigger than the reverted-from namespace, and the same is still unable and unwilling to provide even a single reference countering the argument that the reverted-to namespace is false.

Is the "most bothersome" contributor to have the final word in matters such as these, without even any attention paid to fact? If reference were the only tool used here, discussion would be short indeed; it is the reverting to unreferenced opinon that provoke 'extra measures' that blow this out of proportion and are a waste of everyone's time. THEPROMENADER 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I am taking no sides here, other than rolling back an obvious attempt to subvert discussion and consensus-seeking. When consensus has been reached, I'll unprotect the article. I'd recommend getting in some outside opinions - see WP:RFC. No more funny business, please. --ajn (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There is on consensus possible when parties do not agree on what is. The list encompasses buildings in Île-de-France, not Paris. 90% of the data contained in the article is not of the area described in its article. This is an absurd situation to say the least. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No consensus, no unprotection. Sort it out. --ajn (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
So by this, are we to assume that we can publish something untrue just because a majority agrees to? The call for a WP:RM was made with the intention of calling attention to the factual inaccuracy of a low-traffic page after all other efforts, through both reference and reason, failed. 2:1 is a narrow consensus, but a consensus all the same after a wait of seven days, and combined with the factual aspects of this argument, and even unneeded one IMHO. You have two contributors who have provided ample reference proving factual error, and one, constantly reverting, who cannot provide even one - yet still reverts. It is only normal that tempatures rise. THEPROMENADER 17:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I would welcome any measure at all that would bring a knowledgable consensus to this article. Perhaps this can be found on French wiki - but this would mean wasting even more people's time for what should be a trifling matter of reference. THEPROMENADER 17:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps everyone could cool down by reading Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. It would do you all a lot of good. --ajn (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm reading Flaubert's L'Éducation sentimentale - this should no doubt tickle some : ) Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You see, part of the problem is that this is the English wikipedia - you mean Sentimental Education. The local practice does not trump the English usage. For example, Munich is not at München.
I am reading it in French. Of course I could cite the English title with an outrrrrrrrageous Frrrrench agxzan if it would better explain this quite hors-propos anecdotal comment : ) THEPROMENADER 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Oui, wiz ahn aoutraaaaaaaaagus Frranch axzan would be parfait :) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
FWIW, I understand that La Défense is not in the administrative region designated by the French as Paris, but rather the adjacent one instead, but it is in the urban agglomeration that, for want of a better word, an English person would call "Paris". The article on La Défense does it quite well - La Défense is one of Paris' major business districts, located west of the city proper in the heart of the département of the Hauts-de-Seine. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That variant of the possessive apostrophe makes me wince, but yes. Wittgenstein was a perfectly serious suggestion, and very relevant to this. --ajn (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be reminded that this article does not concern only La Défense, but several other communes outside Paris in all directions. The standard for facts published here should be verifiability - as in what you'd find in other references - not the general ignorance of foreigners. I don't think I should have to tell anyone this. THEPROMENADER 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but they are all very close to the centre of Paris, non? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
There are 54 buildings and structures in the list. 17 are inside the administrative City of Paris, 32 are in La Défense, and only 5 are in 4 other communes (all of which are bordering the City of Paris). La Défense and the 4 communes are administratively distinct from the City of Paris (Ville de Paris), but they are nonetheless in the central core of the Paris metro area. I'm not sure the word "suburbs" would properly describe them. In La Défense, for example, population density varies between 13,000 and 17,000 inh./km², which is twice denser than the population density in Central London. Hardouin 22:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry here too, but the title of this article is not "in the Paris metro area". Besides, the "Paris metro area" does not exist as a state-recognised entity; it is to date but a statistic created and used by the statistical INSEE agency for statistical purposes only, and is not at all used in France for speaking of things like city girth - the common term is 'agglomération' - but even this does not apply as, if it is not an official and often-referenced term locally, you cannot use it as a namespace here, as per Wiki naming conventions. The administrative city of Paris is the only place called simply "Paris" and all communes outside have their own names as places. Hardouin, the term "in the central core of the Paris metro area" is an insinuative invention of your own, still not "Paris", and also quite unusable here. Personal 'reasonings' and comparisons are even less a justification - only reference counts here.THEPROMENADER 23:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, ALoan, but no, not at all - the 'centre of Paris' would be the inner arrondissements (I-XI). Again, Paris is much unlike other world agglomerations in its rigidity - nothing outside of its official administrative limits is called just 'Paris', and, most importantly, certainly not in any reference. On the other hand, a common phrase for Paris as an agglomeration is agglomération parisienne - or "Paris agglomeration" - but never just "Paris". "Paris region", or région parisienne is another possibility representing - vaguely - the Île-de-France. But none of these are suitable for a Wiki namespace, because none are official administrative entities used in reference. Official usage is important for not only naming, but categories following administrative hierarchies as per Wiki naming conventions.
The problem with the agglomeration - of which Paris is only a centre - is that it has no official name, no governing body, not even a representative association - "Paris" ends at Paris' limits. If you would like a more historical explanation, I've left one on another contributor's user page here.
A very few here have, since more than a year it seems, profited from both low contributor traffic to the 'French' English-wiki pages and foreign ignorance to try to 'bend' France's (rather backwards) existing administrative makeup (or ignore it altogether) to make it seem as though it fits into a "greater world schema" of international metropoles.
Take the plane to Orly airport: while you're flying you'll think that you'll be landing "in Paris", but once you're landed it will take you no longer than ten seconds - or the first time you ask directions - to find that you're nowhere near. Also, I suggest that you compare the Paris articles to their corresponding French Wiki namespaces - especially the article of today's conflict and Economy of Paris - I'm sure that you'll find these revealing. Above all, please look at references, references, and references - all nationalities confounded. Nowhere in any of them will you find any place in Paris' suburbs indicated as being "in Paris" - it will be named by its proper commune name. Apologies, but this is the way things are here, and we cannot invent a new reality just for Wiki because, if we do, readers will find it nowhere else. THEPROMENADER 22:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why we can't call the urbanised agglomeration (also a perfectly good word in English, by the way) "Paris"? The only counter-argument seems to be that there is a relatively small region in the centre of the agglomeration that has the French administrative designation "Paris" and the rest of the agglomeration is administratively designated as something else. But the article already explains that. To my mind, insisting that "Paris" can only refer to the relatively small region that is officially designated as such is exactly like insisting that "London" can only refer to the small region that is administratively defined as the City of London, and that the wider city of London has to be called something else. Our article on London recognises that the word can be ambuiguous, depending on context, and that a qualifier may be needed to clarify the extent of the urbanisation that is being referred to. Why is Paris any different? Why must the French administrative designation (which, it is admitted above, is "rather backwards") trump common sense and everyday usage? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Simply because, in every reference existing, "in Paris" means within the administrative city itself. Any refrence to a region larger than this takes either an appendix adjective to Paris or an entirely different name. Again, Paris is nothing like London - there is no official "greater Paris" that can be called simply "Paris". Calling "Greater London" "London" is not only common usage everywhere, but it is also official usage as can be very well seen in the Greater London Authority website. Paris cannot be compared to this, as the next important administrative step up - a region that can in many ways be administratively compared to Greater London, is the Île-de-France.
I have absolutely nothing against calling the article "in the Paris agglomeration" or "in the Paris Region", and have even argued at length for these, but they are both unofficial terms unsuitable (according to Wiki) for namespaces. I really have no preference at all for any name, as long as it encompasses everything in this article. If you care to look above, one cannot say that I have tried to avoid all discussion on the matter : ) THEPROMENADER 10:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps I am being dense: why is an unofficial term unsuitable? I think we all know that the city of Paris is an urban agglomeration that includes substantially more territory than the area with the French administrative designation "Paris". -- ALoan (Talk) 11:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It is perfectly suitable. It is only ThePromenader who has been insisting for months that the word "Paris" only applies to the adminstrative City of Paris and who has not hesitated to wage edit wars to defend this rather narrow-minded thesis. Some people you know... Hardouin 12:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
When I say narrow-minded, let me clarify this. The metropolitan area of Paris, as defined by the French statistical office, extends over 5,606 sq. miles of land and contains 11.6 million people. The administrative City of Paris (Ville de Paris) covers only 41 sq. miles and contains 2.1 million people. Hardouin 12:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Apples to oranges. The question to ask here is "What is Paris"? Every reference you will find gives a clear answer, and it is only on this we can rely here - anything outside this is subject to/a result of opinon, and Wiki seeks to avoid this at all costs. "In the Paris metropolitan area" is certainly not "in Paris" as you seem to be suggesting, and this affirmation is most certainly not findable in any reference; this in fact would seem to be a quite personal opinion shared by next to none. THEPROMENADER 12:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you're asking all the right questions. But to the above, if you mean "unofficial term" as in "Paris agglomeration", personally I don't really see the problem with naming the article this, but Wiki seems to like official things. If by "unofficial term" you mean "'Paris' as a general offhand reference to the Paris agglomeration", this contradicts explicit "in Paris", and the general understanding of "in Paris", especially here, is not this.
Again, I'm thinking reference and Wiki naming conventions here - you won't find towers outside Birmingham in an "List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_Birmingham" article, and the same outside the 5 buroughs in an "in New York" article. This is not just in the interest of reference, this is plain common sense.
Again I must ask you to look at the French version of this article for evidince of the realities at work here, and the same for the other examples I gave above. Apologies for sticking to my guns here, but as far as I know Wiki seeks to educate, and not to cater to already-existing but uninformed ideas.
Your Greater London earlier example sums things up quite nicely. "Paris" is indeed like the "square mile" - Unfortunately France's Greater London in this case is the Île-de-France. THEPROMENADER 12:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Aloan here - although it may not be official usage - it is common usage in English. That those speaking French are more precise in their usage of the term would be reflected in the Wikipedia Français. We should stick with common/unofficial usage. --Trödel 13:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Common ignorance as a standard for Wiki? I cannot hide my disappointment. THEPROMENADER 13:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you take a rest from this debate for a little while - your arguments are on the border, but approaching, ad hominems --Trödel 15:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I may sound exasperated at times, but this is only because of the unnecessary complications this affair has taken on. Pick up any encyclopaedia, look at any map, and refer to that - if what you read there does not correspond to what is written here, then there is something wrong. This should have the final say in the matter. THEPROMENADER 19:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Per your request, I did some looking around and it seems common in reference works related to tall buildings to refer to the Île-de-France as Paris. Paris used as identifyier on: Skyscraperpage.com, Emporis.com Encarta (includes suburbs in the Paris, France (city) article), and of course I found lots of tourist guides that refer to the area as Paris. So while it may be ignorance of the borders of the city, that ignorance is common, as we frequently ignore political boundaries when talking about contigous developed land. For example Seaworld Orlando is at least 5 miles from city limits. So it doesn't seem unreasonable to refer to the area as Paris. --Trödel 21:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look into the matter, but unfortunately this is not a generalist article on "Paris" in which it would only be normal, within the context of an article on the city itself, to speak of the suburbs on subjects like population and economy and nearby tourist attractions; this article has no such pretext nor context: it is an explicit "List of X objects in X location".

Most of the examples above, especially tourist guides and Encarta, do use this generallist context for speaking of Paris' suburbs. The Skyscraperpage.com does indeed take the same sort of largesse as this article - a better example to follow would be this "Skylines" list that clearly indicates "Paris (inc. La Defense & périphérique suburbs)". The Emporis.com "Paris" list contains only towers within the city. I have never seen any instance at all of the Île-de-France being referred to as "Paris" in any place or publication - "Paris Île-de-France" is the closest possibility I can think of. A city name in another entity namespace can mark an association or service to that city, but it doesn't mean that entity is in the city as the contents of this article is indicated as being.

I can make this even simpler by indicating this "List of buildings" page - every one of these indicating a location is "List of X (and X) within (official namespace)", and every one of the buildings contained within each article is within that official namespace. There is not only reason behind this, but Wiki naming conventions designed to remove all ambiguity and remove varying opinions resulting in arguments such as the above. I really don't see any reason why this article should be an exception to this logic. Where is the error in a proper name? THEPROMENADER 07:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

* List of structures in London - uses London as the area, which as the article makes clear is a vaguely-defined area but everyone (everyone who is not a pedant) knows what London is.
* List of buildings in Ireland - I don't see any definition of Ireland here, and there is a particular corner of the island missing. I guess the list is actually a list of structures in the Republic of Ireland, but again everyone who is not a pedant knows what the list means.
* List of tallest buildings and structures in Great Britain - this includes one in the missing corner of Ireland, and a pedant would say that the Isle of Wight is not in Great Britain either.
Life's never as simple as a pedant would like it to be. Seriously, folks, Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. --ajn (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
The above does not seriously target any point, and is even provocative in the bargian. When 70% of a an article's contents is not where its title says it is, there is little question of 'pedantry'. I really don't see the big deal in stating things as they are, but I can only argue so far before coming full circle. I also don't understand the arguing to maintain inaccuracy/ambiguity, as this seems to be quite against the very principles of Wiki. We seem to be jockying our positions here rather than arguing for fact. THEPROMENADER 09:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't find your above comments persuasive - in fact - I think anyone who isn't an expert or hasn't spent some time on the issue would think of this area as Paris. I don't think we need formal rules here - but common usage in English. --Trödel 13:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
(holding head) "Common usage" is not one and the same as "common ignorance". It is absolutely not common usage, here, anywhere, or in any book you read, to describe Paris' suburbs as being "in Paris". Does this mean that, when contributing to Wiki, we should just ignore existing conventions and references on the subject and adjust our writing to the level of ignorace of those we think will be reading? Pardon my French, but this is indeed outrrrrrrrrageous. THEPROMENADER 15:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Admittedly I am not an expert on the geography of France; however, after seeing that this was an issue on admin incident board - I thought I would take a look, as I speak French (fluently 17 years ago - decent today) and have done some research on large buildings (my degree is in Physics but I took a particular interest in civil engineering). I read the discussions, spent some time researching, and expressed my view that the current name best meets the Naming convention policy, which is (in nutshell form): "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."
I think you are frustrated because my findings on what most English speakers would recognize easily doesn't match what you, as an English speaker in Paris, have found - I can't really change that - unfortunately most of the English speakers aren't going to live in France, and thus although your view may be totally valid it isn't common usage - which I take as a euphamism for "majority of English speakers would most easily recognize". Unless new information becomes available - I would oppose any move to this page --Trödel 16:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I do respect your decision, and I do very well understand the need to make titles understandable to English-speakers - I think you'd clear evidence of this in another discussion I had on this subject where I proposed, and still do, "Paris region" as a title - but to take this 'ease of understanding' into inaccuracy is going a bit too far. Even English maps and references, were we to use only these as reference for better English understanding, do not agree with this article's affirmation, and other or later research will prove this article's title affirmation to be false. I'm wondering also how this reflects on opinions of Wiki standards.

"Paris region", the name-space alternative that I have pushed so hard until now, is 100% accurate description for this article, an official translation for "Île-de-France", and is a title easily recognisable and even comprehensive in regards to article scope for even the most French-geography-layman English-speakers. I really am persuaded that this option would not only make this article description accurate but everyone concerned happy. THEPROMENADER 17:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is not a regional list of buildings. This is a city list of buildings. That's why several people opposed your "Paris region" move. As simple as that. Hardouin 18:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This is very odd coming from someone who filled the article with references to a "metropolitan area" even larger than the IDF. THEPROMENADER 18:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Check List of Art Deco buildings in Sydney if you don't understand what I mean. Hardouin 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Apples to oranges. Comparison doesn't make truth - reference does. THEPROMENADER 18:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I am French an in my opinion it is right to group the buildings there as "Buildings and Structures in Paris", you may add "area/region" after in the title if you wish to be exact. Often the region is called Paris, as abuse of language, like Holland may refer to Netherlands while officialy it's just a part of it. This is a historical and rather arbitrary purely administrative delimitation of Paris. The city of Marseille includes its suburbs for instance, it could have been otherwise, but that doesn't change any thing to the fact that Marseille in the end is just one big metropolitan area. I don't think semantic should matter, the point is that all the Defense area where there are many tall buildings are economically, culturally, historically, part of the same urban area which we French indiferently call Paris. They also wouldn't exist if these weren't so close to Paris. Herve661 21:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I do understand the "common generalspeak" side of things (but please also note that French "à Paris" does not have the same precision as English "in Paris"), but the question is whether Wikipedia sets its standards at this level: normally a Wiki article is supposed to approach encyclopedia-quality article and provide at least some sort of precision and verifiability. If we were to accept unnwritten general opinion as a standard, even if it were general, there would be no end to debate about what 'should' or 'should not' be included in a namespace - it is namely for this that Wiki asks that we follow official naming conventions and mainstream references. I hope you see my point. I'm glad though that you agree to additional precision. thepromenader 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
...and yes I would say that the City of Paris needs a good kick in the a*s about joining with the suburban locales dependant upon it (or even incorporating them into the city), but for the time being these are quite separate, under their own name and on their own administratively; today the suburbs are united with the city in governance only through the Île-de-France conseil régional. Few other cities share this quite particular situation for sure. thepromenader 22:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please - an end to this silliness

'Paris' is a clear-cut entity; its administration and official namespace end at its borders, and this is a fact reflected in every map and reference existing. One of Wiki's foremost rules is verifiability: If it doesn't exist in any reference, then it isn't good for Wiki.

Discussions of 'levels of ignorance' and 'common usage' for geographical names are irrellevent in the end - how can one assume that one ignorant would have the same understanding as a local speaking in an offhand manner? It is precisely to avoid this sort of ambiguity that Wiki asks that contributors use official geographical names. There is no reason not to follow this very basic convention.

Nor do I understand the reluctance to add one word to the namespace. What is so wrong with an accurate "Paris agglomeration" or "Paris region" or "Paris urban area" (or even Île-de-France if it is explained correctly)? And if "Paris region" is too big, why is the article now filled with references to an even bigger "Paris metropolitan area"?

The mix of opinion, ignorance and indecision of uninformed participants on what "sounds best" from both has made this a quite silly situation. Can we just keep it to fact please? thepromenader 08:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think the weight of opinion is against you, notwithstanding your undoubted correctness on the technical position. Wikipedia is not mathematics, however, and pure logic is unlikely to prevail. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
If opinion were to outweigh fact, Wiki would be a mess. I don't see anything 'scientific' in clearly placing things where they are. Open a reference, look at a map, read and copy what's there - so that others can do the same. There is nothing complicated in this. thepromenader 11:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
To misquote Lord Justice Bowen in Edgington v Fitzmaurice, the state of a man's mind is as much a fact as the state of his digestion.
The question comes down to whether de jure overrules de facto. The fact is that the buildings are in the city of Paris (meaning the continuous urban agglomeration), and English lists of buildings put these buildings in Paris, not in some other place. My opinion, and the opinion of others, is that these facts should override the clear fact that these buildings are not in the limited administrative region as defined by the French government. The article explains this issue anyway: why are you so worried about such a trivial issue as the title? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This is where you are wrong and were wrong last time this debate occurred, Paris is a city, not a région, not an area, not a département, not an idea. See Paris: Paris is the capital city of France.. That's fact and you cannot find something other than one's opinion proving me otherwise. That or using your argument, I have lived in Paris, when clearly I never have. Val d'Oise isn't Paris, nor are the Hauts-de-seine, are they ? Some Wikipedians seem to have problem with boundaries and irrefutable facts such as 2 and 2 make 4. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually - if opinion does overweigh fact (i.e. a concensus can be reached that is contrary to fact), the concensus will prevail - but the likelihood of such a thing happening is so small as to be inconsequential. For an explanation of my thoughts - read the excellent Atlantic Monthly article --Trödel 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the insightful article. This guideline is also worth considering. If I may, this article is a very example of 'such a thing' happening - but with all the ado aside, it should take only a few knowledgable parties to set things straight, so really I should not take this too much to heart. Cheers. thepromenader 23:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
On stuff like this, where I feel I am totally right, but don't have concensus, I usually find comfort in m:eventualism and patience --Trödel 23:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Good advice. thepromenader 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
In the guideline that ThePromenader linked to, I can't help noticing the following sentence which ThePromenader should read again and again: "Those who find that their facts and point of view are being excluded by a large group of editors should at least consider that they may be mistaken." Hardouin 23:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
And when the facts forwarded by a contributor are echoed by every reference and official source in existence? Really. thepromenader 00:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing for. It is a matter of fact that the city of Paris is not the entire agglomeration, and the truth of this is evident everywhere - and it is only a matter of opinion that the title 'Paris' alone should cover the entire agglomeration. In fact, yet another here has done his best to imply that the 'Paris' title covers the entire Paris aire urbaine (metropolitan area). With opinions of what Paris "is" (rather, "should be") so diverse, it is only normal that we rely on fact.

The fact of the matter and the obvious solution is a trivial matter - it's the resistance to this that is blowing things out of proportion. I really suggest you look to how other references present the area in question before arguing further. thepromenader 13:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

Don't fret so much about what the article is named. The article should reflect what someone would look for in an index, it doesn't have to be "accurate" as such. Think about it. We have Turin (not "Torino"). We have Ringo Starr (not Richard Starkey). We pick whatever name makes most sense and is the most useful to a reader. Does the average reader even know what Ile de France is, let alone "Paris agglomeration" or "Paris aire urbaine"? Of course not, but they understand what phrases like "in Paris" or "around Paris" mean. I strongly recommend you pick the simplest term that roughly describes the article, and use the introduction to define your topic closely.

If this was any other topic (without this history of animosity), I would just say: Call it "Paris", include all buildings in IdeF, and for the ones that aren't strictly in Paris (ie, everything in La Défense) just put a footnote saying "The buildings marked with a * are not actually technically in Paris, they're within the région known as Ile-de-France." That would be by far the most logical, accurate, sensible, rational, useful, friendly, normal thing to do. Stevage 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Anything with "Paris" in the title - 'Paris region', 'Paris area', 'Paris urban area', 'Paris agglomeration' - would fulfil exactly the same 'recognition' purpose and be accurate in the bargain. I don't agree with the argument of sacrificing truth to 'simplicity' - I do have quite a bit of faith in the intelligence of people, but I agree that we should not take this too far. thepromenader 19:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to add that I don't agree to sacrificing truth to 'friendliness' either - were this acceptable, bullies could paint reality as anything they liked. I do understand that a maintained criticism may at first roll some eyes, but this is just a normal school-yard knee-jerk reaction. Move past this and forget the 'personal' in any argument; present the facts as they are through reference, and the argument has to end. As long there remains any assertion vague, ambiguous, misconstrued and disagreeing with fact, there will always be reason to criticise. Stick to fact: this is the shortest and simplest solution. thepromenader 08:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi TP. As usual, I don't really understand what you're saying. But if you're here to crusade for "truth", you're in the wrong place. Wikipedia's just an encyclopaedia. It tries to be accurate, and it tries to be helpful. But it doesn't attempt to define "truth". And "verifiability" (being able to demonstrate that someone else said it first) is more important than "fact" as you put it.
It's such a pity that all the articles vaguely connected with Paris have been caught up in this maelstrom of pettiness over such a minor issue. I'd love to work on some of them, but it's just ridiculous. Stevage 10:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
My dumb. My 'truth' would be clearer stated as 'verifiability', but I think it was obvious this is exactly what I meant: when have I ever cited or asked for any other evidence than reference?
A 'minor issue' is an easily verifiable and correctable error that is corrected. Yet same becomes a 'major issue' when correction is vehemently and continuously resisted for no reason based on fact ('verifiability').
Thanks for the comments, but if you don't want to touch the fact of the matter then your contribution here about amounts to a rolling of eyes. thepromenader 12:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ by Egbert Gramsbergen and Paul Kazmierczak, Almanac of Architecture and Design 2004. "Skyscraper Cities Ranking List". Retrieved 2006-06-29.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_Paris/Archive_1&oldid=1136258918"