This is an archive of past discussions about Paris. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I propose to change the photo montage at the start of the article, and replace it with the single view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense that appears at the start of the Paris articles in French, Japanese, Portuguese, Chinese, and various other languages. Several people here have already said they preferred the single general view of Paris, rather than a montage of tourist attractions (Paris is not a tourist theme park, that would be Disneyland Paris). The montage also infringes French copyright laws (views of Pei's pyramid at the Louvre are copyrighted; there is no freedom of panorama in France). Given that the usual suspects will revert any attempt to remove the montage championed by Dr Blofeld, I think it's best to vote on this. So express your views. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
You can forget the copyright infringement argument: I had a conversation with the author of the photo himself (about another issue, the SNTE's copyright claims) last night. Someone tried (again... and again...) to have his Louvre photo - the one used in the montage - deleted, and you can find the quite informative discussion around this here. What really should be an issue is Versailles' presence in the montage. Anyhow, cheers. THEPROMENADER05:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm in favor of replacing the photo montage of tourist attractions with the single general view of Paris (Eiffel Tower and La Défense), for the reasons stated above. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
You can put my vote here, but I do think going to such lengths (including Paris' suburbs in the photo) to make Paris itself look 'Manhattan-y' is a bit ridiculous. Paris is a unique in that it has (to date) no skyscrapers, so I don't see the point in trying to hide that. But ok. THEPROMENADER20:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Why should this article follow the dominant trend, with a lead picture looking like a postcard ? Mouloud47 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the photo change. The picture shows well the very unique urban fabric of the city with its dense collection of stone buildings, the Eiffel tower in the foreground making it instantly recognizable and both Bois de Boulogne and La Défense far away in the background giving depth to the picture and symbolizing the economic importance of the Paris region. Metropolitan (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I generally prefer single images, but that is a matter of taste. But as stated in a previous discussion, I am not sure File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg. I do not agree that it "shows well the very unique urban fabric of the city". The zoom and the frame distort distances, and makes Paris look like it a city of parks and skyscrapers, which are certainly not its distinguishing features. La Défense is an increasingly important business center, but its architecture is not very typical of the Paris urban area, and I do not see a major need to feature it here. These problems are less pronounced in File:Pano_0519.jpg even though the technical quality may be lower. --Superzoulou (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
23% of the City of Paris (within administrative borders) is made up of parks, gardens, and woods, as this view reminds us: [1]. That's nearly one-quarter of the city that is parkland. I would call that a distinguishing feature. As for La Défense not being typical of the Paris urban area, then Manhattan is also not typical of the New York urban area. Should we therefore have no view of Manhattan in the NYC infobox and show only Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn low rise buildings? Der Statistiker (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, much of the green area in this view is not inside Paris (Parc de Saint Cloud and Parc de Brimborin in Sèvres if I am not mistaken ;). --Superzoulou (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Nope. All of the green area in this view is the Bois de Boulogne. It is entirely within the administrative limits of the City of Paris, except the part most to the right (to the right of the elevated freeway), which is inside the administrative borders of Boulogne-Billancourt. Sèvres and St Cloud do not appear in this view (which was taken from St Cloud actually). Der Statistiker (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
...and Manhattan may not be ~all~ of New York City, but it ~is~ the centre. Towers make the centre of many of the world's Capitals, but La Defense can't be represented in that way here: it is a suburbs-unique (and even France-unique) island of towers not even in Paris: trying to show otherwise in a Paris article would be at best considered misleading, and at worst considered a lie. I understand that many here (including myself) would like the world to see Paris as a 'kick-ass Metropolis' and not a place of backwards laws and touristy clichés, but if we're going to remain honest, we're going to have to wait a while and tell things how they are while we do. THEPROMENADER17:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The image shows both, the Haussmannian mid-rise buildings of Central Paris, and the high-rise buildings of La Défense, so we have the old and the new in one view, plus the Eiffel Tower on top of it. It's rare to have so many things in one view. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Obviously not. Also, it seems that Der Stat, you are the only one who is saying it is a copyright infringement. Could you explain in more detail? My understanding is that this should be discussed on Commons anyway.--GilderienChat|What I've done04:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I can see the argument for one single image, but in my opinion the montage just looks of higher quality, and better reflects Paris's most notable landmarks than the one image of the Eiffel showing the business district of the suburbs. If anything it's a cliche just to have an image of the Eiffel, and with the high risers in the background it is indeed trying to look like NYC. I think the montage betters reflects Paris's architectural/cultural heritage.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I would go along with the current approach but agree that the Versailles image should be replaced with one taken in Paris itself. It seems to me that despite the fact that many other wikis have the Eiffel Tower as the lead image, the montage brings us into a new level of sophistication. So let's continue to work on that basis.-Ipigott (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Sophistication to the detriment of information I would say. What's shown in that touristy photo montage are tourist sites and touristy neighborhoods of Paris which the Parisians seldom ever frequent. It is clearly "Paris as seen by the tourists", which is not surprising since those insisting on using that montage do not live in Paris and are only tourists to the city. If the photo montage was meant to inform readers about the real Paris in which Parisians live, work, go out, then it would rather show areas such as Bastille (the streets around, not the column), Montparnasse, Belleville, St Lazare, and uh, well, La Défense, where tens of thousands of Parisians work and shop every day. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Strongly opposed to changing the image. The idea of the photo is to give an idea of Paris, and I think the current photo does that very well. The proposed image of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense given a very distorted image of Paris. In Paris, there are hardly any skyscrapers, the proposed image gives the impression it's a major US city. (Strictly speaking, La Défense isn't even in Paris). The proposed image is already used in the article on La Défense, and it suits that article well. It's a picture of La Défense, it's not a picture of Paris.Jeppiz (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
New photo montage?
Ok, I've just made a new montage by using pictures from Wikimedia Commons. I've tried to make it less touristy and more resident-oriented, with, for example, views of the Rue de Rennes shopping district, the Pompidou Centre, the Rue Sainte Anne Japanese district, and La Défense. I've also tried to mix the old and the new, because Paris didn't stop in 1900. I still prefer a single view for the Infobox, but if a montage absolutely needs to be used, then I think this one would be infinitely preferable to the current touristy montage. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I quite like this montage, though I am a bit wary that the image of Beaubourg will get deleted, as Commons tend to be very strict in the enforcement of French copyright law (the idea is that buildings can only be photographed when the architect has been dead for at least 70 years...). --Superzoulou (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not a vote, but I do think it would look better if the Eiffel scene filled the entire top third, and the Pompidou image filled the entire bottom third... but that depends on the Pompidou Centre image's (cough) 'right' to be there. Nice balance of 'raw known' ('known' referring to the Eiffel tower; the top image is not 'daintified' at all, or it shows 'the city as it is'), the middle image is 'lovely known', and the bottom is... 'modern abstract'. That's the message I get, anyways, and the mix of the three could be quite powerful. Just my two cents. THEPROMENADER17:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I tried that, but it's nearly impossible. The Eiffel Tower, due to its vertical structure, cannot appear as the entire top third (that was my initial intention), because there is not enough width compared to height. Same with the Pompidou Centre. There is simply not enough width compared to height, at least for the pictures I've seen at Wikimedia Commons. Also, this montage contains 5 photos, which seems more or less the average for city montages. A montage with only 3 photos would have significantly less photos than all other city montages I've seen, and might destroy the dynamic effect of the montage. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm really not sure about the top and bottom right pics: WP:LEADIMAGE suggests that "The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic", and I'm not sure that the two rather anonymous locations do that at all. You may rail against the fat that the current montage has a number of well-known locations, but those locations are exactly what many people from outside Paris think of when they think of the city. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The montage I've made contains already 3 well-known locations (Eiffel Tower, Louvre, Pompidou Centre), even 4 if we consider that La Défense is also well-known outside of France now. It's ok to show less well-known locations besides these, to make a contrast. It arouses the curiosity of the readers, whereas a photo montage containing only pompous views of tourist sites so well-known that they have become almost clichés (like the Sacré Coeur) is tedious in the extreme. A city is also made up of its streets, and it's crazy that the Paris montage didn't even include views of city streets. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's taken as read by most people that a city is made up of streets! As I've already said, those two images don't help readers identify with the topic. They may, of course, be entirely suitable in the relevant sections about those local areas of the city, but not really in the lead. - SchroCat (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Although I am pleased to see that the new montage does not contain the Palace of Versailles, it has nothing like the impact of the former montage. I know Paris extremely well and have seen it evolve over the past 60 years. For me, the original montage was not a "tourist" appreciation of the city but simply emphasized some of the more outstanding landmarks. In my opinion, the tubes of the Pompidou Centre are not typical of the historic monuments of the city. May I humbly suggest that we work on the original montage with, for example, an image of Notre Dame or Sacré Coeur to replace Versailles. My Parisian friends are as proud of their churches as they are of the other landmarks in the montage. We should not forget the historic role the square outside Notre Dame played during the liberation in 1944. I would therefore suggest Notre Dame as the replacement image.--Ipigott (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The past ("churches", "1944", "historic monuments"). Do you realize your comment and proposal seem to be stuck in the past? Are there any landmarks from the past 30 years in your list, or did Paris stop in 1900? Is this an article about Paris in 2013 or about Paris in 1900? There is already Britannica 1911 for the Paris of 1900. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No need to be incivil. A few crappy 1960's-70's architecture experiments aside and a building here or there since then, Paris is stuck in 1860 as far as I'm concerned (and I work with the APUR!). How about forgetting the 'International Towers and Power' race (that seems to have swallowed many Wiki 'big city' article editors) and making an article that ~really~ represents this city? Paris will grow one day soon. Cheers. THEPROMENADER23:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
« Paris is stuck in 1860 »? Then the image should not show the Eiffel tower if nothing really significant was built since 1860... Or did you mean 1960? Seudo (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I started off my comment meaning 'stuck border-wise' and I guess I digressed… of course a lot has happened building-wise since 1860! Sorry 'bout that. THEPROMENADER09:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The buildings you list are isolated; nowhere in Paris, save the Front-de-Seine and that horrible 'ilôt' behind the quai de la Rapée are there entire blocks of tall or modern buildings (and even these are hardly worthy of mention in the 'international tower race'). Paris is at least 80% either buildings in the 'Hausmannian style' or are (preserving the style of) more 'normal' pre-Haussmann style buildings (back streets, Belleville, Menilmontant, etc). Aside from a post WWII-1970's 'relaxation', the Haussman-era 'alignement' law (itself actually a revision of an unenforced law created by Napoleon I) has been in effect since its creation. And that is the entire story, not just a selective part of it. Cheers. THEPROMENADER22:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I was discussing the age of the buildings, not the height. They are forcing a montage that shows only the old Paris from before 1900, completely disregarding the Paris that has been built in the past 100 years, and when I propose as a compromise a montage that shows both the old and the modern Paris (since they also refuse a single view in the infobox), they oppose it immediately without even acknowledging that it could have any quality. It's like talking to a wall of prejudice! Der Statistiker (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
So what do we do, show images of La Villette, the former PCF headquarters, the Montparnasse tower (that most Parisians disdain) and tell people that's 'Paris'? There's only a few images in a montage, and doing that would generate a 'wtf?' in anyone knowing anything about the city. It's like going into a room full of blue pillars with a few red pillars here and there, and taking photos of mostly red pillars to show 'this is that room'.
Paris never got into the late-19th century 'skyscraper race', and have obstinately refused to do so since then, and that's a fact. Paris' wealth is indeed great, and its international influence also, but it's managed behind a facade that is quite different from any skyscraper/'modernist' model, and that should be told as it is. THEPROMENADER07:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you just feigning ignorance? In the cas contraire: I'm sure it's possible to find images that are 'un-touristy', 'un-individual modern building-y' and 'un-suburb-tower-y' that better represent Paris. THEPROMENADER11:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Montage of Paris' Eiffel Tower and Louvre Museum
Is this any better? The tweaks in the upper photo were quickly done (too contrasty to my taste) and I'll probably eliminate it later as it's just an example. Cheers. THEPROMENADER11:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Looking again, the Eiffel image is esthetically not very nice - out of alignment, and that haze - but that's the best you can get if you want absolutely that the Eiffel Tower and La Defense are in the same picture, and that's what you get with Paris' 'periph' smog (about midway between the two locales) and the (at least) 300mm lens used to make the La Defense look 'closer' to the Eiffel tower (almost 5km between the two as the bird flies). There must be something better out there. THEPROMENADER22:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Just replace the photo of Versailles with something else for now. Versailles is not only not in Paris (or even bordering it), it spent decades as another Capital of France - an ironic note to a misleading message. THEPROMENADER10:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I do prefer the montage and don't think one image is the best way to approach the lead. However, I do see the merit of having File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg in there. It's not the best or most striking image of the tower itself, but it does show the tower in some form of context to the surrounding city. Having a small selection of the very small number of skyscrapers in the shot actually shows how few there are in the city from this shot. - SchroCat (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
'Context to the surrounding city'... suburbs, you mean. If one ~really~ wanted to show how few skyscrapers the city has, then he/she would simply suggest an image of the tower and Paris. THEPROMENADER12:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
O...M...G...! That's ~beautiful~ ! I don't think it's CG - that tent in the centre of the esplanade du Trocadero (complete with power cables coming out of it) is usually set up for the 14th of July - the country's bigwigs dine and watch the fireworks (best spot, of course) from there. I wonder if the same photographer has other views of Paris too. THEPROMENADER15:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, a WikiBot pulled it from Flickr. It's not CG, but it is HDR - a mix of over/under/correctly exposed versions of the same view. It looks unreal because neither a camera or the human eye can pick up that much data (details in the shadows (normally underexposed) and highlights (normally too bright) at the same time). Great find! THEPROMENADER15:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
That picture may be beautiful, but it is quite outdated. Several skyscrapers have been built at La Défense since that picture was taken, and the god-awful Tour Axa was replaced with the more iconic Tour First ([3]). File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg is a much more up-to-date picture, although it will soon have to be replaced too, because three new skyscrapers are currently under construction at La Défense: Tour Carpe Diem (topped out a few months ago), Tour Majunga, and Tour D2. A general view with those three new skyscrapers: [4]. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying that the Paris article lead picture has to be replaced every time La Defense gets a new tower? When La Defense isn't even part of Paris (yet)? Are you serious? We obviously have some 'we want skyscrapers in Paris (even if they aren't)' fans here. The POV creep in that direction is becoming a tiresome waste of time. THEPROMENADER20:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a magical looking photograph.. If we had to have one image I'd be happier with something of better quality like that. Der Stat perhaps you could have a go at a montage image with that and one of the Eiffel and Louvre or whatever and get rid of the Versailles image. I think the existing montage with File:Aerial view of Paris.jpg instead of Versailles would be an improvement. Or File:Aerial view of Paris.jpg with images of landmarks all around the edges or down either side in a strip to look less postcard-like. ♦ Dr. Blofeld21:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Blofeld, that image is actually a view ~from~ the Eiffel Tower (not an aerial view - I looked at the authour's website), so this picture combined with a picture ~of~ the Eiffel Tower itself would make a both sensible and esthetically-pleasing duo that I'm sure would please everyone. THEPROMENADER21:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem of course is that most of the images of the Eiffel are vertically oriented so it wouldn't easy to place one on top of the other. Somebody could try the "CGI" photograph with a few landmarks pictured at the sides.♦ Dr. Blofeld22:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem with that "magical looking photograph", as already explained, is that it is outdated and shows La Défense in the early 2000s, with buildings that don't even exist anymore. It would be like having a view of Manhattan with the twin towers. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
...the twin towers were ~in~ New York. La Defense is not. Stressing the importance of making a few isolated towers in the article subject's suburbs look like they're in the city itself - and stressing the importance of these towers being 'the latest version' - is ridiculous at best. Enough with the 'Paris is a modern skyscraper city too!' POV-pushing please - it's not, yet. Period. Patience, grasshopper. THEPROMENADER05:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
La Défense is not Paris
It seems as if most of the discussions here derive from the wish of one user to showcase La Défense. I would oppose any such move, for a number of reasons.
La Défense is not in Paris.
La Défense is not representative of how Paris looks, quite the contrary.
You cannot see La Défense from most parts of Paris.
In short, I see absolutely no reason for this article to have any image of La Défense to represent Paris, just as I would not support a picture of Slough representing London or a picture of Newark representing New York. There is an article about La Défense, we have a picture of La Défense in that article. In this article, we should stick to Paris. And preferably try to use pictures that represent Paris, and Paris is not a city of skyscrapers.Jeppiz (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg shows essentially the City of Paris within its 1860 limits. All I've been saying is if we use such a picture, we shouldn't use an outdated one from the early 2000s. And there's more than one user in favor of that picture as per the discussion above, so please do not falsely picture this as "the wish of one user bla bla bla..." Der Statistiker (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you explain how the picture is "outdated". If any of the buildings in it had been razed to the ground, then I could understand the point. As it is, I'm afraid I don't see how it is "outdated". In short, I haven't seen a single viable argument for why the current picture wouldn't be good. The picture you propose, on the other hand, is very unsuitable for the reasons given above.Jeppiz (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Right, I see we have an editor who has decided to jump in the discussion without even taking the time to read it. So first off, read the above messages, and you'll understand which outdated picture I was referring to. Der Statistiker (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could try to stick to factual arguments instead of discussing persons? I have read the discussion, in which no valid argument is made for why the picture would be "outdated". Jeppiz (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
This comment and your previous one show that you haven't read the discussion. Pray tell me which picture I was referring to when I said "outdated"? Der Statistiker (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
...the point of whether the towers in question are 'new' or not is rather moot when you look at the section title: new or old, those towers have never been in Paris. Keep it up and I'm going to vye for keeping the (modified) montage. THEPROMENADER19:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I wonder why La Défense is not Paris ? This district is built in the perfect match with the axe historique and included in one of the most famous perspectives of Paris with the Carrousel, the Arc de Triomphe and the Grande Arche. And then, why is the palace of Versailles included in the photo ? More far away from Paris than La Défense, not visible from anywhere except the gardens of Versailles itself, not representative of Paris urban area. Paris is also Paris Rive Gauche, Front-de-Seine, Austerlitz, many modern districts so the outdated Epinal vision of Paris by Amélie Poulain is quite the contrary of what Paris really is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.13.182.45 (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
(Pointing to above comment) Um, really. A Paris-and-wiki-knowlegable (but Paris-deluded) anon parachutes into the discussion just when.... oh, forget it.
The Eiffel tower is not representative of how Paris looks.
So the Eiffel tower and any other monuments should not figure in the main Paris photo, we should have some Haussmann buildings, pre haussmannian 18th century buildings and 1970's to now housing buildings very common in the "outer" arrondissements and the "outer" arrondissement which are the majority of the city).
You cannot see the Eiffel tower from most part of Paris.
The Montparnasse tower is more visible from most of the city than the Eiffel tower, the Louvre or Notre Dame, so we should have Montparnasse tower in the first picture of Paris.
About the fact that La Défense is not in Paris.
Why still be focuced in the outdated city limits? More parisians go in La Défense everyday than in the Eiffel, Notre Dame or the Louvre (places mostly limited to tourist crowd).
In the real fonctionnal way, la Défense is more a part of Paris than those monuments.
Comparing La Defense with Slough clearly show that this editor has really a small knowledge about Paris, its realities and functioning. The distict is only at 3 km of the Arc de Triomphe and Etoile Plaza. La Défense has more its place in the picture than the Versailles castle.
The real question of all these talk is: what Paris should Wikipedia showcase?
The real functional and living Paris or the theme park that tourists imagine, you know, the romantic city where everything is old and everybody is white.Minato ku (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
'Why still be focuced in the outdated city limits?' - Paris' limits may be outdated in some people's opinion - opinion -, but they exist. Nothing outside of those limits is 'Paris'. No lawyerly argument, no matter how convincing (to any uninformed audience) will change that. Are you suggesting we throw fact to the wind, go above and beyond the government and documented fact and tell people about your 'Paris as it should be', and that it exists already? Enough already, this article has seen and rejected that a thousand times. THEPROMENADER22:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
"Nothing outside of those limits is 'Paris'." - Well the French postal services seem to disagree you, as per the postal code of La Défense, as can be seen in the mailing address of this company whose headquarters are at La Défense: [5]. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I kindly suggest you read WP:OR before you try to impose your own interpretation of where Paris is based on where a company may have its postal address.Jeppiz (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
(Pooking left and right) Nope, in spite of that only seemingly sensible argument, Paris hasn't changed yet. Enough. See my comment in the section below. THEPROMENADER23:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
See WP:LEADIMAGE, which suggests that "The image helps to provide a visual association for the topic". I'm not sure what else could provide a better visual association to Paris than the Eiffel Tower. - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree fully. Most lead images for cities show some famous monuments and/or sights of the city. That is the point of the lead image.Jeppiz (talk) 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, La Défense is FULLY part of Paris, and its second business district after Paris CBD in the “triangle d’or”.
You cannot except every district outside Paris Intramuros because it has no sense
- The transport network is used by 12Million inhabitants who work in the region, and mainly in the inner Paris: it doesn’t make difference if you are inside the old frontiers or not
- The main Airport Paris CDG, outside the official Paris, would so be considered as not included in the city?
- Versailles has been the main residence of the kings of France, which capital is Paris. It is by the way direct linked with Gare Montparnasse in 15-20 minutes
- The Grand Paris project is on its way! The future metro area will have the same name as the existing lines, which means lines 15-16-17-18.
- The administrative limits will expands massively and officially make the administrative limits as the real Paris area
- The official name of La Défense (official address for La Poste) is Paris La Défense
- The Police action is getting harmonized by the authorities on all Grand Paris perimeter
- You say *La Défense is not representative of how Paris looks, quite the contrary”: what does it mean? Paris, a world city, would just have only one face? You are not addressing one type of people, Wikipedia is open to every kind of people. Paris is not just a tourist city, it is, actually, the most powerful economic region in Europe. So yes, La Défense is representative of Paris. And its economic face08:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Clouchicloucha (talk)
(Looking up) Wow, there's a lot of 'one time only' revisionists parachuting in here today. I don't see any whining on user talk pages, so someone's either networking or sockpuppeting.
Anyhow, this article has heard all the above arguments a thousand times before, all of them weak WP:OR 'interpretations' that change what 'Paris' is. Rather than pushing for a 'pretend Paris' that doesn't exist yet, start a 'Paris area' or 'Paris urban area' article. Cheers. THEPROMENADER09:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it’s not a question of Paris which doesn’t exist. I understand your point of view, but if you look at Paris’history (as presented in this article by the way), Paris is more than its administrative limits.
We are I think talking about the development of the agglomeration as well.
We can make a distinction between the full area and the administrative Paris (for example for population which is ~2m ihb vs 10M for the urban unit).
It has especially less sense when you think about the evolution of Paris, particulary when the department was the department de la Seine, a far bigger city than today.Clouchicloucha (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
'Paris' is also a département. The 'Paris urban unit' is not 'Paris', it is the 'Paris urban unit', for the INSEE and government alike; is the opinion of a few above these institutions? There is no precise and referencable definition for anything outside of that. This article speaks of the suburbs and their interaction with Paris in context where relevant; don't aim to strip context to mislead readers into thinking the future is already here; call things by their correct names and there can be no problem. THEPROMENADER17:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I think if La Défense would not directly appear on the montage it could be visible at the background, as in the actual one.
Another contributer talk about adding street view, which could be a good idea IMHO (especially with modern buildings) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clouchicloucha (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Now the Fondation Louis Vuitton has been finished, we can maybe add this kind of building on main pic
Getting out of hand
Apparently those who want to show only a picture from outside Paris are running out of arguments. Nothing wrong with that, but their increasingly ugly arguments are displeasing. Der Statistiker keeps repeating he doesn't think I've read the discussion. Again, nothing wrong with that, just a bit silly. I don't mind if the user thinks I haven't read his posts. I have, and I've said so, and if he wants to repeat an ad hominem point instead of discussing the matter, well, just go and do it. But the low point goes to Minato ku who goes completely off track to imply that everybody who doesn't agree with his view apparently must be a racist who wants a city where "everybody is white". Did anyone say anything even remotely like that? Completely uncalled for, and a clear violation of WP:NPA.Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You still haven't told me which image I referred to when I said "outdated". Until you do, I won't believe that you have taken the time to read the discussion. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Drop the stick DS, and stop being so pushy with others. This is supposed to be a collegiate, consensus-led project, not Fight Club! - SchroCat (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you referred to the how La Défense looked 10 years ago, with many fever skyscrapers than today. Which in itself is a rather moot point as this is the article about Paris, not about La Défense. And I agree 100% with SchroCat.Jeppiz (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I referred to the picture proposed by Dr Blofeld (here), a picture which both Dr Blofeld and The Promenader seemed to find great, and this is what I said regarding that picture: [6]. But you reached for your guns without even considering which picture I was referring to. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The Paris article has had an amazingly few (knowledgeable) contributors for an article of its importance over the years (and I've been editing and following it since ~2005). Anyone making any sizeable edit has spent at least some of their time correcting/arguing with a few 'skyscraper revisionists' frustrated with Paris' lack of evolution, revisionists who try to make this article look like 'Paris' is either a) full of skyscrapers and/or b) as big as the Île-de-France. This article's talk archives shows ~reams~ of convoluted (often ad hominem and quite often uncivil) arguments to this end, but when these (arguments) ran out their propagators always, if their opponents were few, resorted to tactics like off-board networking (to call 'parachute' comments, consensus and reverting) and sockpuppetry (I think we just saw an example of one or the other above). I could even argue that the same even dissuade anyone from contributing to this article. Funny that nothing of the sort ever happened on the French Wiki article - this says a lot, actually; It's FA, by the way. THEPROMENADER23:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I forgot to mention: revisionists also a) ignore entire explanative replies (usually about the why of how revisionist dreams cannot be presented as reality) to give a long lawyerly reply on a single POV-serving 'fault' (in the explanative reply) and b) try to wear other contributors out. THEPROMENADER06:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
We had no "obvious consensus" against the La Défense image on the French Wikipedia. On the contrary, all the discussions on the subject lead us to keep that image. It's far from perfect, but we couldn't find a better one. There is a good reason to this: if you want a good picture of the Eiffel Tower with Paris behind it, the best place is the top of the Montparnasse tower (and you get La Défense as a background, whether you want it or not). So it is not an image about La Défense, but the best image you can get of the Eiffel tower with some background. (However I also thought about this kind of point of view, which you can see in every American movie about Paris but shows nonetheless the Parisian typical architecture). Seudo (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
(after reading further) Yes, I did jump the gun on that one. And also true that, in a city with two tall towers, you're either going to get an image of a) the Eiffel Tower from the Montparnasse Tower or b) an image of the Montparnasse tower from the Eiffel tower. Speaking from a photographer's point of view, the Marsfeld2 photo's La Défense looks so close and wide because the photographer used the longest lens possible (I would say a 500mm lens) to photograph the Eiffel tower; the longer the lens, the closer to the viewer further objects seem. That part is perfectly understandable, but the Paris revisionists are pushing that photo because it is one of few (because very few photographers have that sort of equipment) that has La Défense stretching to both edges of the photo, making Paris seem as though it is the 'huge tower-y metropolis' that they so desire. I'm sure that we wouldn't have even noticed or cared if there hadn't been such a fabricated fuss. THEPROMENADER06:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
PS: One of Paris' nicest places to see the Eiffel Tower with 'Parisian architecture' context is from the top of the rue de la Manutention (I used to work there) stairway on the Avenue du Président-Wilson… but I can't find any corresponding photos on commons or even Google. Perhaps I'll take one myself… THEPROMENADER06:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Conclusion is that you still haven't dropped the stick, or realised that the consensus is running against you. - SchroCat (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Errrmmmm... Firstly I'm talking about the view showing the skyscrapers (as per the rest of this thread) and secondly, when did Wiki become somewhere to vote. Either try and move on and stay positive, or edit something else until you can be. - SchroCat (talk) 01:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Regardless of the outcome of the discussions above, it seems there is clearconsensusthat the Palace de Versailles image should be replaced. The question is, with what? I would favour Ipigott's suggestion of either the Sacre-Coeur or Notre-Dame. Suggestions would be welcome, then I'll redraw it in GIMP.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds06:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
With a bit of colour correction (and framing) this could be quite nice too. But if only one image is to change, I prefer Pompidou. THEPROMENADER07:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus for a montage, so I don't even see the point in discussing a change in the current montage. The alternative is between File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg and the current dubious and clichéesque montage. That's the reason why I created this section, and so far we have 7 people against the montage vs. only 5 in favor of it. We'll have to wait for more editors to speak their mind on this, as most of France is on holidays until the end of the month. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
No, the choice is not between the precious 'Marsfeld2' photo and the montage, it is between a single photo or the montage, and the montage will stay in place until what that photo will be is decided. If your arguments for La Défense made any sense, there would be no need for such convolution. THEPROMENADER18:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This image is nice too, and it is being offered for free in HD (as wallpaper) on many 'wallpaper websites' (more versions here) - can't find any authour info, and I'm not sure how 'free' "free" is in this case. Cheers. THEPROMENADER13:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Here's some Eiffel Tower and Paris… took this today from the top of the St-Jacques-de-la-Boucherie. This one's not retouched at all so I'm not suggesting it… but I have quite a few others waiting to be chosen/retouched (even a 360º panorama (that I have yet to stitch together)). Cheers! THEPROMENADER21:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
In favor of the photo change
I'm in favor of replacing the photo montage of tourist attractions with the single general view of Paris (Eiffel Tower and La Défense), for the reasons stated above. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. Why should this article follow the dominant trend, with a lead picture looking like a postcard ? Mouloud47 (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the photo change. The picture shows well the very unique urban fabric of the city with its dense collection of stone buildings, the Eiffel tower in the foreground making it instantly recognizable and both Bois de Boulogne and La Défense far away in the background giving depth to the picture and symbolizing the economic importance of the Paris region. Metropolitan (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I generally prefer single images, but that is a matter of taste. But as stated in a previous discussion, I am not sure File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg. I do not agree that it "shows well the very unique urban fabric of the city". The zoom and the frame distort distances, and makes Paris look like it a city of parks and skyscrapers, which are certainly not its distinguishing features. La Défense is an increasingly important business center, but its architecture is not very typical of the Paris urban area, and I do not see a major need to feature it here. These problems are less pronounced in File:Pano_0519.jpg even though the technical quality may be lower. --Superzoulou (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I am in favor of a change of the photo, I would prefer a single photo, the picture File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg was quite good, at least much better than the current photot. The picture File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg gives a much better representation of Paris than the tourist cliché of monuments, we see some famous monuments, the dense haussmannian fabric and its modernity and economic power with La Défense in the background. The current photo shows nothing of the structure of the city, just monuments and monuments are not more representative of Paris architectural structure than La Défense, so if we only include numberous monuments, I don't see why La Defense could not be included.Minato ku (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I am me too in favor in a change of the photo, to be remplaced by the photo with La Défense in background. This one: File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg Paris is a dynamic economic city, Paris La Défense is the biggest CBD in europe, and it represente the cities economy ! Sesto92 (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I call bullsh*t on this. Let the Saint-Mard vacationer himself correct this. Okay, understood now that it was just another 'skyscraper city.com' member whose only role on Wikipedia is to vote here. THEPROMENADER05:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The goal is not to create a postcard but show emblematic places of Paris in ONE photo, here are La Défense and the Eiffel Tower. Unless some here have a problem with Defense? … --Abdel-31 (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course we have to keep this picture of the Eiffel tower AND La défense in the background: the reason is Paris IS a metropolis, one of the most populated in western Europe and simply cannot be dwarfed to what is called Paris city. What makes Paris economically and demographically lies way beyond Paris city limits!! Hands down.194.177.40.11 (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I am me too in favor in a change of the photo, to be replaced by the perspective Eiffel Tower/Boulogne/La Défense. It is one of the most famous (maybe the most famous) point of view of Paris with 1.2 million tourists per year at Montparnasse Tower (among the 10 most visited parisian monuments). This photo shows the diversity of Paris with the haussmanian urban plan, the modern achitecture of La Défense and represents the green spaces of Paris with Boulogne. It is the most famous representation of the Eiffel Tower, known all around the world. Moreover, Paris La Défense is the biggest business district in Europe and represents the quarter of the French national wealth and lets Paris to be the first economic region in Europe. The link between companies and inhabitents located at Paris La Défense and Paris is undeniable, even if the outdated limits of Paris City are too small to be really representative of the real Paris. La Défense is fully Paris, without any urban border and a full integration in line with the historic axis. The current photo is nothing but an unrational collage of an outdated Epinal vision of Paris which does not justice to the economic power of Paris.AvemanoBZH (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
LOL, none of these votes post Superzoulou are credible. Do you think none of can see right through this? I'd quite frankly be embarrassed. This isn't a vote anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep: seems like someone may be engaged in meatsocking. Also seems like whoever that individual may be, they kind of fogotten that these "votes" all fail WP:DEMOCRACY. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that term - meatsocking - is that what that's called? It would be useful to know who instigated it to better make a case if there are any future disruptions. I am aware of the 'skyscrapercity.com' forum happenings, but who went to the forum in the first place? THEPROMENADER09:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
PS: after all the comments left here today, the 'caller' still hasn't come forward? It was obviously someone here: a bit of integrity, please. THEPROMENADER17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
No worries Promenader we just came to add our point of view, especially because we have lots of debates about this subject.
The question will be resolved very soon as the Metropole de Paris will be created (2016), and its limits far pushed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clouchicloucha (talk • contribs) 17:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Against the photo change
Obviously not. Also, it seems that Der Stat, you are the only one who is saying it is a copyright infringement. Could you explain in more detail? My understanding is that this should be discussed on Commons anyway.--GilderienChat|What I've done04:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I can see the argument for one single image, but in my opinion the montage just looks of higher quality, and better reflects Paris's most notable landmarks than the one image of the Eiffel showing the business district of the suburbs. If anything it's a cliche just to have an image of the Eiffel, and with the high risers in the background it is indeed trying to look like NYC. I think the montage betters reflects Paris's architectural/cultural heritage.♦ Dr. Blofeld09:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I would go along with the current approach but agree that the Versailles image should be replaced with one taken in Paris itself. It seems to me that despite the fact that many other wikis have the Eiffel Tower as the lead image, the montage brings us into a new level of sophistication. So let's continue to work on that basis.-Ipigott (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Strongly opposed to changing the image. The idea of the photo is to give an idea of Paris, and I think the current photo does that very well. The proposed image of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense given a very distorted image of Paris. In Paris, there are hardly any skyscrapers, the proposed image gives the impression it's a major US city. (Strictly speaking, La Défense isn't even in Paris). The proposed image is already used in the article on La Défense, and it suits that article well. It's a picture of La Défense, it's not a picture of Paris.Jeppiz (talk) 13:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
So a picture of Tokyo skyline with Fujiyama in the background wouldn't be a picture of Tokyo because Fujiyama isn't part of the city? What a silly argument! You guys make no sense. The picture used to be for years on the Paris article and is still in the French version. Metropolitan (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
That's rather apples to oranges - I think you missed the point. Yet it would indeed be silly if one tried to make it look as though Fujiyama was ~in~ Tokyo and that the mountain represented it. THEPROMENADER11:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Excellent comment Metropolitan. Likewise, the picture of Yerevan with the iconic Mount Ararat in the background, which is the top picture in the Yerevan article, shouldn't be legit if we follow petty administrative borders, because not only Mount Ararat is not within the municipal borders of Yerevan, but it is not even inside Armenia! It's been within the political borders of Turkey since 1923. Yet Mount Ararat is universally used in pictures of Yerevan. I'm waiting for the zealots to go and edit the Yerevan article now... Der Statistiker (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
All this insistant but nonsensical hankering for La Défense erections has finally tired me out of wanting to change the lead image. I do think we need a unique image, but I'm for keeping the montage on the condition that we get rid of Versailles therein. Once we find a better image, let's vote again on it if we have to. THEPROMENADER17:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I've replaced the Versailles image with the nice "cgi" one. I tried the one Der Stat wanted and it looked a much poor quality image among the others. However, the clickable map option doesn't allow you to click the image and see it in all it's glory. I see the benefits of the clickable map option, but it would also be nice to view the montage in greater detail..♦ Dr. Blofeld21:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Whoah, nelly - this page is almost nothing but a heated discussion over the main image and you just go ahead and change it? Personally I don't care (anything is better than Versailles), but the more 'entrenched' contributors might get the wrong message. THEPROMENADER21:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it seemed the plausible thing to do seems as nobody supported the Versailles image and it isn't even in Paris.♦ Dr. Blofeld22:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
LOL the new image links to La Defense… it is but wee in that picture, I see the Trocadèro Gardens and Palais Chaillot more than anything. Was this intentional? THEPROMENADER23:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea where comments are supposed to be placed anymore, but I oppose the proposal to change. To be perfectly blunt, the proposed image of the Eiffel Tower is inferior to the one that already exists in the montage. So even if there was an agreement to use a single image, that isn't the one I'd support anyway. The existing montage is actually quite striking, made up of high quality images, and represent Paris to me. Resolute23:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Same as promenader, keeping the montage on the condition that we get rid of Versailles therein. Against single pictures for cities which are too restrictive, and the one proposed with the Eiffel tower and polluted La defense skyline is not defendable.... In replacement of Versaille I would propose Notre Dame which is much better known internationaly than Beaubourg. Examples of a good montages used presently: New York City. London, Rome, ... I know the debate is subjective (we have the same on French wiki and just look the Sydney and San Francisco talk page on this wiki), so I am afraid it's going to last until we find a compromise (4 pictures montage ? Main picture + 2-3 smaller picture montage ?).Apollofox (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Abstain
What exactly are we voting for here?
I voted for replacing the montage with a single image that represents Paris, nothing else, but a few seem to be trying to weevle the above into a vote for an image (La Defense, of course) in particular. I therefore withdraw my vote. Cheers. THEPROMENADER13:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
PS: And who moved the 'vote' down here, in leapfrogging (and ignoring) the above discussion about replacing just the Versailles image? It looks like an attempt to force a vote on two 'choice' choices when there are many options. This is becoming downright immature. THEPROMENADER14:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
As there is a massive lack of clarity here, can I suggest we open a formal RfC to ask whether it should be a single image or montage? At present there is no consensus at all and the same people saying the same things in different ways. Once the single -v- montage issue is resolved, the actual image(s) to be shown can be thrashed out. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The first sentance was pretty clear, It was about changing the current photomontage of monuments with a more broad aerial view of Paris with the Eiffel tower and La Défense in the background. Honestly, I don't mind if this is not exactly the photo File:Paris - Eiffelturm und Marsfeld2.jpg that is choosen, I just want a better picture with a big aerial view of Paris than the current montage of monuments. Minato ku (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Which first sentence? The one that says La Défense isn't part of Paris and having it in the image is misleading? There are so many first sentences in the various threads and sub-threads that, as ThePromenader has pointed out, there have been several questions and scenarios raised and people are being misled into which point they are addressing. - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
What's hardly helpful is to behave like a pettifogger and claim that La Défense shouldn't appear in a view of Paris because it's not adminstratively part of the City of Paris (although it's part of the Paris Region), when it's impossible not to have administrative suburbs of Paris in a general view of Paris, just as it's impossible not to have parts of France in a view of Monaco, due to the extremely small size of the City of Paris and of Monaco. So unless you have a hidden agenda, I can't see why you and 2 or 3 other users would engage in such pettifogging. PS: I was outside of Palais Royal métro station half an hour ago, in the Medieval heart of Paris, can't be more central, and the skyscrapers of La Défense were very conspicuous in the end of the Rue de Rivoli. But I suppose I wasn't looking at a street of Paris according to your book. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
DS, I've just asked you to be civil, so to repeat and expand on your rudeness is even less helpful than your normal comments. Stop. Drop the stick. Walk away for a little bit and try and come back in good humour. If you want to keep sniping at people, don't be surprised if they turn round and either bite back or report you: neither of which you would appreciate. In order not to drag this on any longer, stop with the petty sniping and try and focus on the issues, not the insults. - SchroCat (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You reverted ALL my edits (4 hours of work) in the beginning of July before having even had a conversation with me, so don't make me laugh! You lost any credibility in my eyes from that moment. Der Statistiker (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Way to go DS, drag up the old stuff and pile on more bad faith to compound it. Considering I've been asking you to remain civil for the last couple of posts, I can't believe the lack of thought that's just gone into your last post. Move on DS - SchroCat (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
That is one ugly photo. Not the precious 'Marsfeld2', but what other content can you expect when taking a photo of the Eiffel tower from the city's only other tall tower? The 'precious' will always be in there somewhere. THEPROMENADER06:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The title here means that some people are doing all they can to prevent any view of La Défense in the article, arguing that La Défense is ABSOLUTELY NOT part of Paris, when even the Paris City Hall itself uses a view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense to illustrate the cover page of the City of Paris's magazine. So if the king says La Défense is ok, who are we to say it isn't? Der Statistiker (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi, La Défense is FULLY part of Paris, and its second business district after Paris CBD in the “triangle d’or”.
You cannot except every district outside Paris Intramuros because it has no sense
- The transport network is used by 12Million inhabitants who work in the region, and mainly in the inner Paris: it doesn’t make difference if you are inside the old frontiers or not
- The main Airport Paris CDG, outside the official Paris, would so be considered as not included in the city?
- Versailles has been the main residence of the kings of France, which capital is Paris. It is by the way direct linked with Gare Montparnasse in 15-20 minutes
- The Grand Paris project is on its way! The future metro area will have the same name as the existing lines, which means lines 15-16-17-18.
- The administrative limits will expands massively and officially make the administrative limits as the real Paris area
- The official name of La Défense (official address for La Poste) is Paris La Défense
- The Police action is getting harmonized by the authorities on all Grand Paris perimeter
- You say *La Défense is not representative of how Paris looks, quite the contrary”: what does it mean? Paris, a world city, would just have only one face? You are not addressing one type of people, Wikipedia is open to every kind of people. Paris is not just a tourist city, it is, actually, the most powerful economic region in Europe. So yes, La Défense is representative of Paris. And its economic faceClouchicloucha (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
La Defense depends on Paris, but it is not in Paris, and La Défense's architecture is indeed quite different from Paris' - that's all that was said. All indicated in the above is indeed happening, and probably will go through, but it is not here yet, so pretending it is already is just silly. And it's not even sure that it will be called simply 'Paris', so stating otherwise is not only silly, it's WP:OR. Cheers. THEPROMENADER11:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
After a week of complete silence, the post of one 'Marsfeld2' -pusher is followed by three 'parachute contributors' who have, just by accident, the same propos and want the same photo, and this all in the same day… just amazing. Someone is either puppeting and/or doing some hardcore off-the-board whining. THEPROMENADER11:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
What's amazing is that someone went to 'skyscrapercity.com' to complain about the Paris article. Another explanation for 'der Parachuteurs'. THEPROMENADER12:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
And BTW, who left an anonymous 'mega-controversy' complaint on the French Paris article talk-page, when no controversy exists? This is a sneaky sad case of WP:GAME. THEPROMENADER12:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The only case of WP:GAME I've seen here is when some people with a hidden agenda use some narrowly-defined administrative borders to reject views of La Défense in this article, when all other definitions indicate that it is part of the functional Paris. That's frankly being sophistic and playing games for the sake of...? And as Metropolitan pointed out, the same editors have no problem with a view of Mount Fuji in the main picture of Tokyo, or with Mount Ararat in the main picture of Yerevan. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Widespread fact is most certainly not 'narrowly-defined', widespread fact is most certainly not a 'hidden agenda', and I already pointed out above that the Fuji example is silly - now that there are no more arguments supporting the 'La Défense is Paris' case, you have resorted to under-the-table means. Drop the schtick. THEPROMENADER12:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You use facts when they agree with your POV. You discard facts when they disturb your POV (such as the fact that La Défense's official post town, used after the post code, is "Paris La Défense", or the fact that, as Clouchicloucha reminded us, La Défense is within the PARIS Prefecture of Police zone of police). Enough said. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Both Clouchicloucha and Sesto Elemento were called from Skyscrapercity.com. Go figure. Stop repeating the same nonsense. THEPROMENADER13:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
For the last time, those are not facts that make Paris any bigger, that's WP:OR whimsey. You don't have to be a member there to whine, and someone sure did. Drop the schtick. THEPROMENADER13:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh, so the fact that La Défense's official post town is "Paris La Défense" and the fact that La Défense is within the PARIS Prefecture of Police zone of police are not facts. Interesting... Der Statistiker (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
'Paris La Défense' is not 'Paris' just as 'Paris CDG' is not 'Paris' just as 'Disneyland Paris' is not 'Paris' just as 'Paris urban area' is not just 'Paris' and 'Paris aire urbain' is not just 'Paris'. Compris? THEPROMENADER18:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
So ein Quatsch! Seriously, drop the lousy lecturing tone, prof. How can you compare a commercial name (Disneyland Paris) with an official post town and zone of police? And CDG is officially called "Roissy-Charles de Gaulle" by the way. Der Statistiker (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense? Not. All of the areas you described are called 'Paris (something)' or '(something) Paris' to show dependancy; none are called just 'Paris'. Even your own examples speak for themselves. THEPROMENADER19:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=1280843. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original orplagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
New Mayor, Update!
I changed yesterday the name of the new mayor, but someone not aware of what's happening in Paris probably doesn't know that Bertrand Delanoe is no longer Paris's mayor and changed my update. ANNE HIDALGO is now the mayor of Paris!
Thanks to update that fact! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.174.33.253 (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Size of the history section
I haven't been in Paris article since a long time and I was surprised by how big the History section became, especially when compared with the little size of the other sections.
This section is representing something like a third of the whole Paris article, this is much more than in other cities articles.
It is subdivided in 19 different sections!!!
Wouldn't it better if this section was cut by more than half and much of it moved in the History of Paris article?
I agree with Minato, this acticle represent very badly this city, the differents sections are completly disproportionate (look at the history section, and compare with others cities, this is just staggering). Message for the next personn who tell us that we are from the same forum: So what ? For that reason, our opinion doesn't count ? Are you really serious ? Congratulations for this fantastic state of mind...first with the front pic, comming from nowhere and showing the part of Paris since 1900, and now with this huge section "history" worthy of Pompei...I thought that Wikipedia was an objective website (and free, let me laught !), but it's far away from that adjective...SestoLD (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
The size of the history section in this article is absurd. It's actually longer than the entire History of Paris page, which is obviously the opposite of what the intent is. JCO312 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the history section is too long while in my view the article on the history of Paris doesn't have enough in some sections. I will begin to move some of the text in the main article over to the history section. SiefkinDR (talk) 06:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
After today's trimming: 272074 bytes in English article against 271090 in French.
I totally agree: the history section is too long & much of it should be moved to the History of Paris.
For about two weeks, I have been going thru the article section by section, only editing French & correcting a few details, and avoiding to add anything.
Left to do on the history part are:
WWI
Années folles
WWII
Postwar Paris
21st century (thankfully extremely short!)
By curiosity, I transferred in my *office* the history section of both French & English articles, only texts, no pictures.
Times New Roman size 12:
French: 12 pages
English:36 pages
As I can spare time only on one section per day, I will ask SiefkinDR not to move any of the above before I am thru editing them. Will probably be done by end of week...end.
I strongly suggest restoring the earlier history section several months ago when it was at 170kb odd and moving the history content to the sub article. 269kb is crazily long. Who expanded it?♦ Dr. Blofeld21:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I've restored it to my version and have moved the content to User:Dr. Blofeld/History of Paris as it looks like good content which would be better placed elsewhere. It should be put in the main History of Paris article and sub articles of that, not the main article.♦ Dr. Blofeld21:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Much better; the chronology makes much more sense for a 'head' article such as this one. I don't understand the original reason for the such-drastic change, anyway... care to clarify? Cheers. THEPROMENADER05:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Siefkin was the one who expanded it. He seems to be very interested in history. I have nearly 1200 articles on my watchlist and didn't notice the changes until yesterday. It's been this big a few months now, not sure how!! The content is quite welcome in History of Paris and sub articles but not the main article which should be a brief summary. If you can merge the content from User:Dr. Blofeld/History of Paris into the History of Paris article and sub articles Siefkin none of your work will be be lost. ♦ Dr. Blofeld06:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I had updated and expanded the section based on more recent French sources, and I agree it got to be too long. I will put the new information into the History of Paris article, and I've done some of that already. Some of the information in the main article is out of date, such as the earliest evidence of human occupation in Paris. the updated information with citation is found in the History of Paris article.06:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was my concern, that you might have updated the sources. If you can really write a condensed version of yours so that the end result doesn't put the article over 185kb that would be good if you're interested. But it really has to be a basic summary as the main article should just briefly cover the main topics evenly. You should create a series of subarticles too like Medieval Paris, Paris during the 18th Century etc. I don't want to discourage you Sief as the content looks very good, just not in the main article! I'd strongly support a History of Paris series of articles with detailed sub entries by period.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your good ideas and interest on this. It's an old city and has a lot of history. I will work now on moving the longer text and citations into the separate History of Paris article, and then look to see what information in the shorter history section of the Paris aricle needs to be updated, without making it longer. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Having a 'history of Paris' article' (divided into epochs) itself spread between several 'child' articles on each epoch is a brilliant idea, and something that should have been done ~years~ ago. I can contribute there ; ). Cheers! THEPROMENADER19:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Good plan: this article should be able to act as a summary, with good linking towards a general "History of Paris" page, and to more specific sub-pages if needed. The history of Paris is a big topic and I don't see any problem in having several separate pages systematically detailing key aspects. - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Copied text in Demographics section
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Demographics of Paris was copied or moved into Paris with this edit on 18:52, 3 April 2014. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
I made some small changes in the text, and some big changes in the images, something which which I think really needs improvement.
I corrected the date of the founding of the University of Paris. (middle of the 12th century, not 1200). The incorrect date is still in the article.
In the Middle Ages section, I added a mention of the building of the Louvre, Notre Dame, and Sainte-Chapelle. How can they not be mentioned in a section on the history of Paris?
I put the sentence on the Enlightenment in with the the French Revolution, which is much more logical than including it with the Middle Ages.
The existing article completely ignores Louis-Philippe. No mention of the Place de la Concorde, Arc de Triomphe, Napoleon's tomb.
The existing article says Paris was "practically unscathed" by World War II, praises Choltitz at length, and mentions a 1966 movie. I added a sentence about the infamous 1942 roundup of Paris Jews, which shouldn't be ignored. Paris was not "practically unscathed."
The existing article completely ignores events in Paris history since since the 1960s, with the exception of a vague paragraph about social change and unrest and some sentences, outdated, about Sarkozy's urban reforms in 2007. No mention of May 1968, of the Pompidou Center, Mitterrand, the Grand Louvre, La Defense, the Opera Bastille, the National Library, the Musee du Quai Branly, Mayor Delanoe, or the Velib' program. This section badly needs updating.
As to images, the article really, really needs improving. It has a total of five images and three small and almost unreadable maps.
It has one dark and gloomy image of the baths at Cluny, when there are beautiful images of the the ancient art of the city from the Carnavalet Museum.
For the period from ancient times to the 18th century, It has a 19th century painting of what Clovis might have looked like, and an image of the chateau �of VIncennes, which was far outside Paris when it was built. There are beautiful medieval images avaiable of the Louvre, the Palais de la Cité, Notre Dame and Saint Chapelle. Why not use them?
The 19th century section has no images at all except a small map. No images of the Paris Opera, Eiffel Tower, Paris boulevards, Paris Expositions.
The 20th and 21st century articles have only one image from the Liberation. No images of anythiing since 1944, other than a small map of a proposed future transit system. No images of the new monuments, museums, parks, and changes in Paris.
I agree that the article could be shorter; there's more than there needs to be about early French Kings and about the Second Empire and Paris Commune. But I don't think the way to fix it is for one editor to immediately delete all the changes by another editor. I think this should be a collaborative effort, with all editors working together to make it better.
SiefkinDR (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
This has already been discussed before. Read the previous discussions above. Everybody agree that the history section is too long and not proportionate to the rest of the article. If you feel like things are missing in the history section, you should only add them if you remove other sentences in the section, so as not to lengthen it. Things should be summarized in the most abridged form. Images should also be limited to the minimum. Free free to expand the economy or transport sections. They are very small compared to the history section or to the equally bloated 'Landmarks by district' section. Let's recall that this article is about today's Paris, not about the history of Paris or its tourist circuit. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. I will edit and reduce the size of the history section, and when possible will include links to more complete articles on those topics, and to the history of Paris article. Some of the text on transport in the history section can move to the transport section. I do think the history section needs better pictures than it has now. .SiefkinDR (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Progress on the size of the history section
With the edits to the history section, the article is now down to 189,000 bytes, compared with 194,000 on August 14, when this discussion began. I hope we can hold it at this level, and that future additions on history can go into the history of Paris article, or into existing and future history sub-articles. Comments and suggestions welcome. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Yikes, Siefkin why have you been expanding it? It's now back up to 190 kb and looks pretty long again. I thought you were going to work on periods of Parisian history articles? ♦ Dr. Blofeld13:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm moving all of SiefkinDR's edits since August 13 here for discussion. All his edits concern the history section, which I have reverted to its August 12 state. Here below is the history section after SiefkinDR's edits from August 13 to August 15. They should be moved to the History of Paris article. The history section, even as of August 12, was already too bloated and should be trimmed (I'll let the trimmers work on this ;) ). Der Statistiker (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@SiefkinDR: I hate to see time and effort wasted but really this article was already long enough when it was 160 odd kb. It definitely shouldn't go above 180. I wish you'd put your efforts into writing detailed articles by period of Parisian history like Medieval Paris instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
A travel pamphlet (Lawrence, Rachel; Gondrand, Fabienne (2010). Paris (City Guide) (12th ed.). London: Insight Guides. ISBN9789812820792. — with an average customer review rating of one-out-of-five stars on Barnes & Noble) is being used as a citation for the history section. Surely a more scholarly work exists to replace that? Depaderico (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
What subjects should be included in an article about a city? The weather and the hour at which cafés open? How can we write an article on Paris and ignore entire chunks of its history? Paris and its history are one block difficult to break because every monument, building, bridge, even its cobblestoned streets spell history.
There are articles difficult to fill because not enough knowledge about them or simply not much to write about. Here we have the opposite, an article about a city that has so much history that the difficulty comes not in digging for events worth writing about, but in eliminating meaningful events.
Out of curiosity, I compared the history section of several cities (decreasing order below):
78 336 bytes Paris (fr.wiki)
61 440 bytes Paris (en.wiki)
59 904 bytes NYC (en.wiki)
58 368 bytes Rome (en.wiki)
53 248 St Petersburg (en.wiki)
41 984 Paris, Texas (!) (en.wiki) - not bad for a town of 25,898 inhabitants that saw the light of day in 1840.
As for the size of articles (any rules & regulations?):
285 043 bytes St Petersburg (ru.wiki)
276 835 bytes Paris (fr.wiki)
259 794 bytes NYC (en.wiki)
241 545 bytes Madrid (sp.wiki)
193 526 bytes Paris (en.wiki)
What I think should be done at this time is:
first go on with the editing/writing as being done, which is correcting mistakes and (yes!) adding details
then when all is done, have our designated contributor-chief editor, i.e. Siefkin, go thru the article & remove all the details then judged not necessary & bring them to the various articles he has created. This way, he will pick material already edited & referenced and, the Paris article will be done.
then, only then and not before, everyone should come in & give their opinion, as it is difficult to try to create something right while others are constantly on your back with a measuring tape.
Going thru such an article demands a lot of time, thinking, checking etc. and what comes out at this time may not be perfect, but perfection will not be reached in one session. It is comparable to making a statue, at one time it has hardly any shape & there is too much plaster. We are now removing some of the plaster & giving it some shape. However, it still will be a large statue as the article is on Paris (France) not Paris (Texas).--Blue Indigo (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
A cat then?
How about just putting an image of a cat? Everybody likes cats. We can wrap it in a French flag and position it in front of a fresh croissant. Or maybe a picture of a guy bored to death sitting behind the wheel in a hopeless traffic jam, smiling at the camera, with Arc de Triomphe in the background. Now that would really be "reality of life in Paris". Timbouctou (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh and to avoid cliches, we can alternatively replace the cat with an alligator, the flag with a copy of the New York Times and the croissant with a donut. And the background for the bored guy can be an Egyptian pyramid. Timbouctou (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I vote for the donut! Let me count... two, so... two against... none! Okay, we have consensus, we win! And don't even try reverting, it's too late, the vote's over ! THEPROMENADER13:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry we do not want PAris to look like America.
Just would like see the different part of the city, its culture and the reality of its economy and urbanism.
Inner Paris ALSO include Montparnasse tower, Bibliothèque François Mitterrand, La Villette or Centre Georges Pompidou.
For other animals, not my cup of tea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clouchicloucha (talk • contribs) 15:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
But what happened to the donut? But we said the donut won! (scrunching eyes, closing fists, shouting upward) "I want my donuuuuuuuut!"THEPROMENADER20:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Constructive (and neutral) title and thread
Current versionFile:Montage X.jpgFirst of Sesto's suggestions up for consideration
Can we go back to some of Sesto's montage suggestions for further discussion? At least he was trying to be constructive with his suggestions—many of which had merit—although some of the angles of buildings I didn't agree with. If we can possibly look objectively at one or two of his suggestions along lines that we can all agree on. I hope that, despite people ignoring what admins have to say, we can possibly get through this without any more stupidity from any party. Can we start with File:Montage X.jpg, shown on the right? - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
There's not anything wrong with the current one though, not to mention it looks more striking. The top image makes it looks like Athens! All of the landmarks in my montage are very well known worldwide. Why anybody would remove the Louvre beats me.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Definitely, I also think your montage, the current one, is the best option. I don't think Sesto's is bad either, but I do prefer the current one.Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I generally prefer Blofeld's montage overall too, although there is one image I think you should consider dropping: La Défense. It's just too small for a montage; nothing is discernible in it unless you click on the image to enlarge it, and you have a large spralling image of the same area in the economy section. Each landmark should ideally be identifiable by just glancing at the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, it's a nice image, but in the montage at small resolution not really helpful. Open to updating that one image with a different one.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hm. I think 'instantly recognisable even when small' is capital here. For 'Long' images like that, I'd say the Pont Neuf, panorama of the Champs Elysées (arc de Triomphe small in centre), the Louvre image (already there) I like a ~lot~... but that Madeleine image, one would say Greece ; ) I'm not particularly against having a La Defense distant skyline in there (if there is room for it after priority), just don't try to make it look as though it's ~in~ (or ~is~) Paris - but that's actually quite a hard thing to do.
(after looking at existing montage) I really think we could keep it KISS and keep the strength of the present montage if we changed just the bottom-right and long bottom image. The 'night-pont-neuf' image is a bit... busy. THEPROMENADER18:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I've always found this image to be particularly striking. No need to use all of it though - a central crop (with Eiffel 'in wee')?
So, Paris should be reduced to old tourist clichés, this is what do you mean? Rename Wikipedia into Lonely Planet if this is to make a tourist guide. It is not because tourist don't know or don't like the modern sides of the city that it is not revelant and should be hidden ! This is an encyclopedia, we don't care of tourist, what matter is the functionning Paris. (the global multicultural economic power, not the accordeon and café) Minato ku (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
No. The montage should have the city' best known landmarks within them. That mean tourists and any body on a world scale. The London montage for instance has three of its best known landmarks. I'm sure Schro living in the London area could think of dozens of other landmarks he thinks worthy of picturing too but would agree that on a world scale those are among the best known. ♦ Dr. Blofeld19:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
All of it. The top image makes it looks like Athens, and the bottom images could quite frankly be in Estonia for all I know.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Minato ku, did you read the comment by Bbb23? If you have a constructive suggestion, please do add it and take part in the discussion. If all you're interested in is to heap cynical scorn at those who disagree with you, then don't write. There is nothing inherently better with a skyscraper from 2014AD or a temple from 2014BC. What matters is whether they are representative and illustrate the article. In the case of Paris, there are a number of well known monuments that represent the city, regardless of how well known they are by tourits. There are hardly any skyscrapers at all in Paris except Tour de Montparnasse. The current montage is representative of Paris.Jeppiz (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Jeppiz (talk), SchroCat (talk), and the others: Please, tell me that you're joking...The image with the Madelaine is a joke You understand that ?! This montage I made is completly bullshit ! You don't even know what "irony" means ?? I put the oldest buildings of Paris I've found, I have even put the Rue Irénée Blanc, a street that looks like part of a small village, and you, you are saying "Hmmm that's very very old, I love that !" A huge LOL ! Pfff, you're completly over the top...My REAL proposition is the previous montage I've made, this one. Sesto Elemento (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Sesto Elemento, I think they were ironic too. They responded to your irony with some irony of their own. A good way to bury the real debate. Now if everybody could stop the diversions... Cats and 19th century photographs of La Madeleine have nothing to do in this discussion. Der Statistiker (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Those of us who are interested in discussing the article and the image have been quite unanimous. We prefer the current version in the article, but are open (and of course obliged) to discuss changes to it with serious, good faith users. If someone has a change to suggest and to argue for, I'm all ears.Jeppiz (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Who is we? As we have no trust in each others and a consensus seems improbable, I think it would be better to have the opinion of more neutral editors. Minato ku (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
When saying "we", I was thinking of the users Sesto Elemento choses to ridicule, including SchroCat, ThePromenader, Dr Blofeld, Coldcreation, Betty Logan and myself.Jeppiz (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Please don't include Tour Montparnasse, the least Parisian and least loved building in the city. There's a good reason they decided to cancel further skyscrapers. Otherwise the current montage is very good. Why don't we close this discussion and move on? SiefkinDR (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it is loved or not, this is one of the most important and visible building of the city. It is more centrally located than the Eiffel tower
I don't understand what mean "the least Parisian", I didn't know that "Parisian" was an such a restrictive term that it excludes everything that does not correspond to the stereotypes. Most of the French media shows the Montparnasse tower when they speak about Paris, it is noted as a monuments on maps. Minato ku (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
SiefkinDR (talk) We would like to put the montage you have seen, but 2 people, THEPROMENADER and SchroCat (talk) don't want that. I proposed many montage, they refused everything. And they are not moderators, they are 2 people like you and me. I could re-take the montage and put another better pic of MOntparnasse, or something else, they say that they wouldn't accept anyway....Sesto Elemento (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't lie. I have not "refused everything": I have pointed out that some of the images used in one of the suggested montages were not very good, while I accepted that the buildings themselves may be OK to include. That means swapping out images with better angles, not just that I "refused everything". If you could try and be honest it would make life easier on everyone. - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I notice that nobody is addressing Metropolitan's fourth point:
A city cannot and should not be reduced to the strict administration managing it under its name. According to Wikipedia a city is defined as a relatively large and permanent human settlement : city. It is under that definition that city's article should be elaborated. This has been the rule on Wikipedia since its origins.
Then in this case the article should be renamed "City of Paris", and the "Paris" name should be left for an article about Paris in a non-narrowly-administrative sense. This is exactly what has been done for Brussels. There is the City of Brussels article for the narrowly-defined commune (municipality) of Brussels proper, and there is the Brussels article for the city of Brussels in a larger sense. This is also the case for Sydney (compare City of Sydney and Sydney). It would be ridiculous if the Sydney article contained information and pictures only about the narrowly defined "City of Sydney". Yet this is exactly what some editors are trying to do in the Paris article. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I quite agree with Der Statistiker. the metropolitan area is the WP:COMMONNAME, not the strictly defined city limits. Another wonderful example O'Hare is Chicago's most famous airport, but conveniently just outside the city borders for tax purposes. As the cities have grown to consume their suburbs, the concept of the city changes. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Apples to oranges, again: nothing of the sort exists here, and nobody here knows what a 'Paris Metropolitan Area' is.
Or are you really proposing that Wikipedia rewrite French terminology and usage for them, or tailoring them for what other countries are "used to hearing" ? THEPROMENADER06:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm proposing that this is a naming issue rather than a content issue. There will always be two articles, one for the city inside the Périphérique and one for the metro area. Right now, the former is at Paris and the latter is at Paris Metropolitan Area. If the articles are moved, all the discussion here will still pertain to the former: the city of Paris proper. --NE206:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
When a discussion is not going 'your way', just deny that it exists!
Comment on the latest revert: "There is no "talk-page discussion in progress", there is only obstruction by a few editors. Sesto Elemento was entitled to create a new montage, given the criticism of the old one, see WP:BOLD"
The latest addition by our friend Der Statistiker, defending his meat-puppet. When discussion is not going your way, deny it exists! And authoritiarian-toned wikilawyering trumps consensus and fact, too. All carefully crafted around an oft-counted three-revert tally, I'm sure... you guys are behaving despicably. THEPROMENADER21:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
...and the reverted-to thing up there isn't even finished, look at the spacing! It's not about quality, is it? It's all about misusing Wiki as a disinformation platform; your behaviour these past days shows that only too clearly. THEPROMENADER22:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of the quality, ThePromenader, have you seen the quality of the montage (the one with an invisble picture of la Defense) ? The spacing is maybe correct but the quality of the pictures is horrible, this means that as long the modernity is not visble you don't care of the quality. Trying to show Paris as if it was a sole mix of old monuments is disinformation.
I am not interested by your war among editors but by the way that Paris is shown in Wikipedia, I find rather disturbing that an encyclopedia does no go further than the usual Hollywood clichés! Minato ku (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a question of definitions. You take care to stay just outside violating 3RR, but you most certainly edit war actively.Jeppiz (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Not more than you and the other editors who participated in this discussion. If I am violating rule in this case, you are also violating the rule. Minato ku (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I've edited Paris two times in five years. If that's your idea of edit warring, do go ahead and report me. Don't forget to report any other user who edited an article more than once every five years. But your bizarre accusation just shows what kind of level we're discussing at.Jeppiz (talk) 23:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The last two editions you have made in this article were to revert the picture, so, you are actively participating to an edit war if there is one. Minato ku (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
You think it is great because you only know Paris through usual stereotypes. What do you would think if London was only represented by few cliché stereotypes ? I note that you have never participed at the Paris talk or edition but that you know Dr. Blofeld and SchroCat. Minato ku (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm was led to believe Minato ku, that this is a "talk page" where people "talk". So because I haven't edited this article before, does that exempt me from all discussions? Cassiantotalk08:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Composite image or the Eiffel Tower-La Défense
There is no consensus for using a single image of any kind in the infobox. The type of composite image to be used is now being discussed below. De728631 (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Der Statistiker has reverted for the third time the lede image. Formerly a composite image showing a variety of monuments and panoramic views, Statistiker has repeatedly inserted an image showing only the Eiffel Tower with a lager view of La Défense (part of the Paris Metropolitan Area but not Paris) filling the background. I will revert this edit once again, as I believe the general public would benefit more by seeing other monuments in addition to the well-know Eiffel Tower right from the start of the article. Most other articles about major cities use composite images in the lede. This one should be no exception. Opinions welcome. Coldcreation (talk) 04:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipédia says that "Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." But there is no consensus on this montage, there never was any consensus. So we have to discuss. This picture is part of the infobox and the infobox "consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles." But it isn't the case here. The Arc de Triomphe, the Louvres, and the Eiffel Towers represent surely not the real Paris. This amateur montage represent the TOURISTIC Paris. Asks a Parisian where he is most often during his days. Ask him where he works. And then you will see how Paris is. There is an article from the INSEE for more informations: http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=ip1129Sesto Elemento (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I also agree that the photo montage that was forced in this article by an editor last year presents a cliché touristy view of Paris as seen by (some) foreign visitors. It would be like having a montage on top of the China article showing the Great Wall, a boy eating rice, an old man with Chinese beard doing t'ai chi ch'uan, and a bicycle in one of the few streets left of old Beijing. Not that these views wouldn't show China, but they would show only a certain aspect of China, completely disregarding the forests of skyscrapers that typify the modern Chinese cities, or the busy seaports, the big car traffic everywhere. Well it's exactly the same with the montage: not that it doesn't show Paris, but it shows only a certain aspect of Paris, and one that is more curios than encyclopedic. I don't think Wikipedia was created to propagate quaint old clichés. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sigh We went through this for months last year. Those are the best known landmarks internationally. La Défence does NOT give a a fair balance of the feel of the city. Paris is not New York City. Find something of real concern to worry about. Please move on.♦ Dr. Blofeld15:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
This photo montage does not give a fair balance of the feel of the city. Paris is not a tourist resort solely made of monuments and old buildings. Minato ku (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
And it's also not a metropolis city of skyscrapers like New York. The montage image identifies landmarks most associated worldwide with the city and it looks perfectly appropriate. If you don't like it as a citizen, read French wikipedia instead. Has canvassing for support on that shoddy architecture website taken place again as it seems very suspicious you've all turned up at once again.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
We have had stability over the montage image recently, so it's a bit depressing to see a revert war breaking out again. Perhaps (esp Der Statistiker) the discussion could run it's course, rather than have you try and crowbar your personal preference in? - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah but no but yeah but no La Defense is not in Paris, and it is not representative of Paris. Perhaps one day (soon) it will be a part of Paris, but presenting things like it already is is a lie. I've had at least to witness a few (often the same) hankering for participancy in the "World's Tallest Erections" competition since more than ten years already, so... enough? The OR POV of a few cannot trump reality. The lede image is fine how it is. THEPROMENADER19:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps Wikipedia was not created to "propagate quaint old clichés" - but it certainly was not created to dispel them either. The picture is fine as it is. Timbouctou (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Minato ku, which bit of "stop edit warring and use the talk page" are you having difficulty in understanding here? The last stable image on the peg was the montage. It was there during the GA process, which gives it a measure of consensus. You are edit warring to your preferred version based on nothing at present. The etiquette here is to use the talk page to discuss in order to change the consensus, not just mindlessly bloody revert to your preferred version while the rest of us re discussing. - SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Sadly I see Der Stastiker is also too stupid to understand the concept of discussion, and is content to mindlessly edit war despite a discussion being in progress. Rather pathetic way to ensure people are too pissed off to discuss things properly. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
No, this montage is not right because it is only propagating old clichés, old clichés which are very far of the reality of Parisian life, even if La Défense was located inside the city limits of Paris, you would do your best to exclude it. The problem is not the location but the fact La Défense shows a more modern view than the usual tourist stereotypes. Curiously, here many people here hate the modernity when it is about Paris.
Note that the picture shows the Eiffel tower, Trocadero, Haussmannian and other buildings buildings and La Défense, it is not just one type of architecture, this is more a balanced view than a montage of only old monuments. Minato ku (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I see no logic in your argument. For how many Parisians is La Defense "the reality of life" exactly? I stayed there 3 or 4 times when I was in Paris and La Defense is completely deserted after 6 pm. Timbouctou (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I was at La Défense at 8pm no later than last week, and it was full of people. Lots of people sitting at the terraces of cafés that they have installed all across the esplanade and enjoying one of the last warm summer evenings. The stores were also very busy. That was between 8pm and 9pm, on Tuesday last week. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
As many people works long after 6 pm in Paris (especially white collars), la Defense is not deserted at 6 pm, the main area is busy until the closure of the shop in the shopping mall at 8 pm even after because of the restaurants in the mall.
Anyway even if La Defense is not busy at night, at least there is many local people going there during the day unlike around the Eiffel tower, Notre Dame and Louvre whose are almost only frequented by tourists. Minato ku (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the montage has been in the article for some time. Any change, if challenged, needs to be agreed upon before it is implemented. --NeilNtalk to me20:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
May I say that the cityscape picture focusing on the Eiffel Tower has illustrated this English version of the Paris article for years, and that it still illustrates the French version of this article. The anger generated by such a consensual image is highly suspicious. Some people apparently believe this article is their private property. Metropolitan (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
That's not what is 'suspect' ; ) The English article montage is better and more informative than the French article one (and the quality of that image ~sucks~); why are a few insisting on one image that says something about Paris that's not true? A few of you have a die-hard obsession for La Defense, not Paris, that is an evidence that has since long become quite tiring. THEPROMENADER21:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
La Défense is Paris just as Mount Rainier is Seattle. Or perhaps you're also going to change the picture at the top of the Seattle article and tell them Mount Rainier is not in Seattle and should not appear there? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You guys can do all the word-twisting, apples to oranges comparisons, cherrypicking and wikilawyering you want, but that will never change the fact that La Defense is not in, nor representative of, Paris. THEPROMENADER21:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
In which way monuments would be more "representative" of Paris ? No local goes here ! The cityscape with the Eiffel tower, Trocadéro and La Défense is maybe not the best picture but at least it gives a much better representation of Paris with a mix of monuments, ancien and modern architecture; a mix of landmark, residencial and office buildings. Minato ku (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I've been living in Paris since twenty three years and I see those monuments all the time. What I don't see is La Defense (and I, or anyone I know, hardly sets foot there), and how can anyone honest really even try to insinuate that, when media of any sort wants to show Paris to the world, La Defense is the image they use?
Really, a few of you guys are taking a very local 'suburb' complex (that our North American friends probably won't understand), mixed with your own desires to be in the 'big-city big-erection race', and trying to use Wikipedia as a pedestal to make yourWP:OR "reality" seem "true".
Enough already. THEPROMENADER22:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Promenader, the very own official magazine published every quarter by the Paris City Hall uses the view with La Défense on its cover. See here: [8]. So why, oh why, are you trying to be more royalist than the king? Next thing you're going to tell us that the Paris City Hall is lying by showing La Défense on the cover of their information magazine? Der Statistiker (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
...And what's especially annoying about all this is the sneakiness of it all: you can't say, in text, that "La Defense is in Paris and that's really what Paris looks like", because you'd have no sources for such affirmations, and be laughed out of the house because of them... but you can say it through that image that you seemingly hold so dear. THEPROMENADER22:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I see more the Montparnasse than the Eiffel tower and I am pretty sure than more parisians sees the Montparnasse building on daily basis than the Eiffel tower or Louvre or Notre Dame. So why the Montparnasse tower is not visible in the montage ? About saying than that nobody goes in La Défense, there are hundred of thousand people working there, several hundred of thousand people shopping and using the transportation hubs, it is much more than the Eiffel tower. 6.7 million vistors at the Eiffel tower, 45.6 million visitors at the Quatre Temps shopping mall in La Défense. Minato ku (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Minato ku, you are edit warring and at the limit of 3RR, despite there being an active discussion. Please have the manners to continue the discussion, and not mindlessly revert again. - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I reverted that quite belligerent revert. Tell everyone else to discuss 'your' preferred version after imposing it, but if the discussion isn't going your way... sigh. Herein, any change will be discussed here, gentlemen... THEPROMENADER22:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm not too fond of the skyline picture in the composite image. It's too small (on my screen anyways) to make much of an impact. --NeilNtalk to me22:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Look, all of you involved, instead of just being led by the 'arguments' here, go and look at the facts for yourselves elsewhere. Maps, articles, whatever you want, and you'll see that La Defense is not in Paris, nor is it used to represent Paris. It seems that a few here are trying to pull the wool over other people's eyes because they think that those contributing to this article are ignorant. Cheers. THEPROMENADER23:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You're lying. The very own official magazine published every quarter by the Paris City Hall uses the view with La Défense on its cover page to represent Paris. See here: [9]. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
You're cherrypicking, partaking in ad hominem ('Lying'? Why? But I'm not the one with no argument), and promoting a 'reality' that you know very well is not true. And there is some sort of 'conspiracy' going on to 'suppress' an opinion that anyone looking any further than this page would find is not true? Really. You're the one promoting your agenda, and you have no argument. THEPROMENADER23:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Neil, what you're saying about the skyline picture being too small was pointed out by me and several other editors to the owners of the article last year (to Dr Blofeld who created the montage and put it on top of the article without asking for consensus on the talk page beforehand, to SchroCat who stubbornly enforced Dr Blofeld's change without consideration for the opinion of other editors), but it was discarded out of hand (I remember that Dr Blofeld at the time vaguely promised that he would modify his montage to make the skyline with La Défense more visible, but he never did it). As for us, we cannot change his montage, as is too obvious considering what has happened these past few days. This is one of the ugliest case of WP:OWN I have seen on Wikipedia so far. Dr Blofeld single-handedly rewrote 80% of the article last year (June, July, August), and there's not much we can do about it, because either he or SchroCat revert us almost immediately (I had several good faith edits last years reverted by SchroCat without any regard for the time spent by me to research the information and write it down in the article; I can bring in diffs if my statement here is challenged by SchroCat). As for Promenader, for as long as I've seen him around, he's always had this weird obsession that anything one inch beyond the administrative borders of the City of Paris set in 1860 does not belong in this article, even if it's the largest business district of Paris and is visible from pretty much everywhere in Paris. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmmmm.... Lies, damned lies and things that Der Statistiker writes. You still seem to be very bitter that your OWNership of the article was questioned by people who have the temerity to disagree with you. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Obviously the picture of La Defense in the montage is not visible, with such a bad quality even with a bigger screen you will see nothing. This is done on purpose to make it invisible. We had already a long discussion about the bad quality of this montage. The fact that La Défense is in suburbs (a very close suburbs at 3.5 km or 2 miles of Arc de Triomphe) is not the real problem, the real issue is its modernity. The current montage is clear, no trace of modernity should be used to represent Paris (Pyramide du Louvre is the sole exception but it is because it became a cliché landmark) even if there is plenty of modern buildings inside the City limits.
Paris is not a museum frozen in the 19th century, there are many modern districts inside the city limits of Paris. The 13th, 15th or 19th arrondissements are not less representative of the city than the 5th or 7th arrondissements. Minato ku (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
It's forbidden to show the modern side of Paris, don't you understand?
Photomontage of Tallinn, displaying the city as if it was some sort of US skyscraper city:
Photomontage of Vilnius, again displaying the skyscraper district prominently (is Vilnius more associated with skyscrapers than Paris? I don't think so!):
Photomontage of Paris, only old monuments, no skyscrapers please, it's France with bérets and baguettes:
This is beyond ridiculous! One of the major world cities, one of the biggest and most modern economic hubs in the world being forced by a few editors to hide its vibrant modernity on Wikipedia because some people have watched too much Moulin Rouge and Ratatouille. Guys, Paris is not a Woody Allen movie, and it's certainly more modern than Tallinn, Vilnius, or Warsaw. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The few 'examples' I have looked at so far have their towers in the cities talked about in the article. Paris is not in this case. Apples to oranges, yet again! If you were honest, you would say: "Look guys, I know La Defense is not in Paris, and not many people in the world would recognise it, but it would be cool to somehow show a more modern side of the city." But rather than risk having that rejected (because you know it represents an untruth), you try to convince (the hopefully ignorant) others that La Defense is Paris. So bravo for both being condesceding and dishonest in your arguments, and motivating those who know better than that to work doubly hard to dismantle them. THEPROMENADER00:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Blah, blah, blah, let's just drown any points we don't like in authoritative-sounding hyperbole about how we're 'right' about how things 'should be'. Well, they aren't that way, so you cannot pretend they are so here, that is the very definition of WP:OR. La Defense is not in Paris, nor does it represent Paris. Period. THEPROMENADER23:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Mount Rainier is not in Seattle either. It's located much further away from the municipal borders of Seattle than La Défense is from the municipal borders of Paris. So by all means, if you mean what you say, go and change the picture in the Seattle infobox and tell people there that they can't use this picture because it contains elements which are not in Seattle. You can't have double standards and apply something to the Paris article and not to the Seattle article. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Dude, apples to oranges yet again, it is obvious in that photo that that mountain is well outside the city. You want to pretend that La Defense is in the city. THEPROMENADER00:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
What ad hominem? Stating that what you're trying to show is untrue, and inviting everyone to see that for themselves? That is not ad hominem. Outright calling someone a liar, as you did, on the other hand... but if evidenceless affirmations and empty accusations is all you have as arguments, I suggest you give it a rest. THEPROMENADER00:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
(sigh) I would be okay with moving the rather spectactular panorama that is there down to the bottom, meaning that we'd see more of it. But telling us that that (expletive) shoddy 'marsden' image alone is a 'better' representation of Paris, no way. THEPROMENADER00:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that the aerial view in the montage doesn't add much - on my screen it's so small that nothing is visible, and it could be almost any city, I have no problem with showing Paris monuments; I can't imagine an article on Paris that doesn't have a lead image showing the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower, as London shows the palace and the houses of Parliament. I would keep the image as it is. Now please, let's stop the personal attacks and bickering and get on with improving the article. Respectfully, SiefkinDR (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
La Defense is clearly not visible in the current montage, the image pointing to la Defense is ugly and in a very low quality. I have no problem with showing monuments in the leading picture but I have a problem with a picture showing only cliché monuments, Paris is far more than that. Everything here is done to diminish the modern functionnal form of Paris. Without the fight of some editors, there would be no modernity, no diversity, no economy and etc in the article. If you could write that Paris was only a small resort town with only 2 million and nothing else than tourism and old things, you would. Just higher in this talk, Dr. Blofeld wrote that Paris is not metropolis, say that to the 5 million passengers in the crowded subway, the millions of workers. The promenadeur says that Paris and its suburbs are two completly different things, say that the millions of commuters from the suburbs who come everyday inside the city and hundred thousands people living in the City doing the oposite. In other city articles this doesn't seems to be a problem to include some important leading suburbs, especially if this suburb has for postal name Paris La Défense, if this suburbs is served by the same public transports networks (Paris MétroRERRATP busTram), if this suburb shares the same police and emergency services (Prefecture of Police of Paris) but here in Paris according to some people the limit should be strictly considered. Is the Périphérique worse than the Berlin wall in the mind of some people ?Minato ku (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
La Défense is clearly part of the Paris Metropolitan Area. That is the article in which to include images of it, not in the Paris article which strictly is about the city of Paris, i.e., that which is located within its 20 arrondissements. Anything outside of the 20 arrondissements is outside of Paris. As for the image for the infobox of this article, it is better to show a composite of several sites, including the Eiffel Tower, rather than just show one image of the Tour Eiffel with a panorama of La Défense filling the background. The latter gives the wrong impression of Paris. Coldcreation (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Wrong on all counts. This article is not and has never been strictly about the administrative City of Paris within its 1860 borders, otherwise half of the article should be deleted. And the view of the Eiffel Tower and La Défense gives a wrong impression of Paris only to those who imagine Paris is like a Woody Allen movie. The skyscrapers of La Défense are visible from pretty much everywhere in the city and have become a visual reference for Parisians just like the old monuments. As for a composite image being better than a single image, there was never a consensus about that, and many city articles still use a single image (for example the Seattle article which I have already talked about). Der Statistiker (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hardouin, I've had to put up with your repetetive evidenceless affirmations (that 'this article is not really about Paris, but the Paris Metropolitan Area (<- itself WP:OR terminology of your design))' since ten years already, and now I have to watch you do it all again... because you were hoping for a sneaky 'no contest' or a new batch of people 'too ignorant' (in your mind) to know that you're spreading untruths? THEPROMENADER13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
If you think the montage-composite could be improved why not do so, make a new one, present it here, and we can discuss the new version (within which you could consider including the image of La Tour Eiffel and La Défense). As it stands now, the image of La Tour Eiffel and La Défense, alone, is not representative of the city of Paris.Coldcreation (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I did try to improve the montage. In fact I created one which shows both the old and the modern Paris (see to the right), but surprise, surprise, it was rejected without any discussion by the little clique who control this article. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh good, I see another editor has decided to edit war over the image while the discussion is in progress. And it's another newbie. Not suspicious, oh no, not at all. Anyone for meatsock? And once again, they are aided by Der Stastiker warring again – who has managed to revert for the FOURTH time in 36 hours. - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
If any of you or your 'parachute friends' try to force 'your' preferred image or revert again, I am calling for admin intervention. Change will come only after discussion is finished here. THEPROMENADER12:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Firstly User:Der Statistiker, no one controls this article. Secondly, your composite image is clearly not representative of Paris. The Chinese districts are but small sections of Paris confined predominantly to the 13e arrondissement. The image of the Pompidou Center is so cropped one wonders what it is supposed to mean, aside from being a collection of tubes and pipes (better to show the entire edifice). The street scene with the Tour Montparnasse n'a aucun intérêt architecturally, or culturally, as neither the building nor the street scene are well depicted. You could probably do better than that.Coldcreation (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Not entirely true. Wikimedia Foundation controls this article, when you think about it. Secondly, the image of Chinese districts is representative of Chinese districts. The collection of tubes and pipes is actually the first thing that comes to mind when people think "Paris" outside the tourist context. And who are you to disparage Tour Montparnasse? Because when I think of Paris, I usually think of phallic symbols. Timbouctou (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually this is not a picture of a chinese district, I can easily reconize Rue Saint Anne (1st/2nd arrondissement). This street is pretty famous and popular among parisians as the Japanese district. This big error of location gives some clues about the knowedge of Paris that claim some people.
The street with no interest is Rue de Rennes, one of the main shopping street in the left bank in Central Paris.
In my opinion what matters in an encyclopedia is not what people think or believe but the accuracy of the information, this is not a tourist guide Minato ku (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
ThePromenaderUser:Coldcreation: I don't know the Statistiker, where did you get that out ??? So i'm surely not a "parachute friend", but you're apparently pathetic...I LIVE in this city, and I can tell you that this multi-picture does NOT represent well Paris. The real Paris (the Paris that you surely don't even know). No, there are not just 18 and 19th centuries buildings in Paris. That's what you try to pretend with a very bad photomontage. Still, another photomontage has been proposed and only one personn is talking about it. Only One. So stop frozing conversation and rejecting all proposition. Sesto Elemento (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
So, after months of inactivity, a few contributors trying to impose the same image all swoop down on the same article at the same time. What are the odds? (counting fingers, then toes) Damn, if I count any higher this is going to get indecent... but I love the feigned indignation! (applauding) ; ) THEPROMENADER13:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Funnily enough I lived there for five years, and it's very common to me... Secondly, do not call other editors names: you know nothing about them, their background or their thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
And I've lived here since twenty-three years, so I know full well the what and the why of what's trying to be imposed here. Paris is a bit backwards (especially for your Skyscraper forum), mais, c'est la vie ! THEPROMENADER13:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Funny how that hazy, badly-coloured picture always gets in there... it must have taken at least an 800mm lens to make those distant suburb towers look so close to Paris. Are the other photos just accessory to this, why those in particular? That's not the best picture of Notre-Dame at all, in fact, if I didn't live here, I wouldn't have recognised it (all true, but I'm just poking now ; ). THEPROMENADER14:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
And that is the point of your comment ? I've integrated the Arc de triomphe and Notre Dame (le Louvre was already here), and you're still crying ?!? Are you fucking serious ? Sesto Elemento (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Wiping tears (of laughter ; ) I'm simply pointing out that 'your' preferred image is always the centre of everything. Don't you have a better one? For sure, not very many people (not even me) have the sort of equipment it takes to make towers ~4km outside Paris look that close, but I suppose you're willing to sacrifice quality for your... cause... ; ) THEPROMENADER14:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
And the picture of the Seine in the old montage, it's quality ? And the ugly thing in the center-right (it looks like a photo of a TV screen), it's quality maybe ? What a bad faith ! Laughing out loud ! And yes I prefere by far away this new montage than the old one. I took a step towards you with this new montage. But who is doing any effort ? Sesto Elemento (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Certainly better quality and colour that your blued-out image, and the Montparnasse image is not pretty either. If you have a better proposition, of course you have to work for it, just like the person who proposed the existing montage, but for now I don't see 'better' being promoted, I see La Defense being pushed. Cheers. THEPROMENADER15:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
You can say whatever about if La Défense is in or out Paris, but you cannot say it do not reprensent the city: La Défense is clearly the financial center of Paris, and just ask people of which city La Grande Arche immediatly make think of.
I don't understand, when we speak about La Défense you say it is outside Paris, and when we propose pictures whith inner Paris tower and/or modern architecture you say it is not representative: does the representation of Paris only goes through your eyes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clouchicloucha (talk • contribs) 15:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
(waving pom-poms) Another parachuter from www.skyscrapercity.com! I said the Montparnasse tower picture wasn't pretty, not an improvement, mkay? And 'yabut' any way you want, La Defense is not in Paris, and does not represent Paris! Your orchestrated agenda is quite clear now. (finishes pom-pom dance) THEPROMENADER16:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
So you affirm, as though it's final. I say no of course, because, not only is all that work on that La Defense image in particular you're pushing (henceforth named), the rest looks like it was thrown together as an afterthought, no effort even on the spacing. But no, adding spacing does not make it any better: you guys have an obvious 'tower mission', and must execute it at... any cost. To the suburban-tower-imporation machine! (bugles sounding) THEPROMENADER16:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, now I see that you're not only bad faith, you're just a little troll. You asked before a better picture, I improved it, I put better photo of Notre Dame (why did you precised that it wasn't easily recognizable if it is to finally say that it will never be good ?! Couldn't you just you shut up ?) You said that I had to change the pictures myself, I had. And another thing: why did you asked me to come here to speak, if it isn't to find a compromise ? Whatever, enough time wasted with you. Sesto Elemento (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to the joy of "discussing" with ThePromenader, Sesto Elemento. Personally I've long stopped trying. As for your montage, it's still a bit too touristy for my taste, but of course much better than the current one by Dr Blofeld. Der Statistiker (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
For fuck's sake Sesto Elemento, do you really have to keep edit warring to force your preferred version onto,the page instead of letting a consensus develop? How arrogant are you that you are prepared to ignore all other opinions except your own? - SchroCat (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Instead of letting a consensus develop ??? Are you blind, illiterate or something else ??? I just proposed 2 montage 2 hours ago ! Open your eyes, and you will see. The promenader is not trying to develop a consensus. He's just opposing to everything. EVERYTHING ! I try to make a concensus with serverals montage. Sesto Elemento (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, fuck off with your insults. Secondly, it must be said, what an awful image! I am flexible about what is contained within the montage, but the Eiffel Tower blurs into the background too much, the Notre Dame is almost unrecognisable from that angle, and the, quite frankly, fucking boring image of who knows what in the bottom right? It's piss poor and n utter embarrassment. Yes, the Pompidou could be in there instead (but not the close up, which is unrecognisable unless you've seen the building), and yes to Notre Dame, but not that angle (or the previous side view either). As to you forcing your preferred version after only two hours on the talk page, you do realise that this in an international website for people to comment from around the globe? You may have been around in that two hours, many were not: they were asleep, or at work, and have no time to say just how terrible your suggestions have been. Your attempts to try and impose your version, regardless of the opinions of others is, frankly, despicable.
Most of all, take it down until the discussion has reached consensus: you are acting utterly dishonourably here, but I suspect you don't fully understand what that word actually means. - SchroCat (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
These two latest montage versions (Eiffel tower with La Défense, Arc de Triomphe, Louvre, Notre Dame, Montparnasse tower with Rue de Rennes) seems good to me. I am not against some clichés monuments as long the montage is not only made of those. So this mix seems to be a good compromise Minato ku (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I reverted that particular hissy fit of belligerence, since its authour is apparently too arrogant to.
All you 'tower guys' aren't here to edit wikipedia, anyways, you are just trying to use it as a soapbox for your [skyscrapercity.com] tower-fanboi faux-message shout to the world that "Paris is a city filled with big towers, too". And, just by coincidence, all of you are pushing one rare image that, coincidently, at least to the unsuspecting, makes it look as though Paris is a city with tons of towers in it. It isn't.
What makes this most annyoying is that you all know very well the reality of the situation, and are intentionally attempting to spread disinformation. My sense of humour is gone, boys. THEPROMENADER18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Rare in the way that that photo was taken with a lens so long that the distant towers seem right behind the Eiffel tower. The fact that you have only that image to push is proof of its rarity... or do you have another, better one? ; ) THEPROMENADER18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, You are insulting me with your "arrogant", "acting dishonourably", "despictable" and other stuffs. Sure that's less woth than me....Secondly, you are not flexible. Not even more than promenader. ""I'm flexible, but I found not the Tour Eiffel picture good, the Notre Dame picture too, and the Montparnasse Tower picture is boring."" We don't have the same definition of "flexible"....The montage is not my prefered version, it's something called "a step toward you", thing that you never, ever did in the entire discussion. Apparently, talking to you is as usefull as talking to a wall. I'm not forcing everything, you're just trying to keep an, franckly(as you say all the time), awful montage. There is even a picture in center-right, where we can see absolutly nothing. How terrible my suggestions have been ?? And where are yours ?! Oups, there is none...And you can keep you your "despictable" for you. Can you try to be more open ? But the problem is that I suspect you don't fully understand what that word actually means... Sesto Elemento (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
'He said I said' and opine all you want, but that won't change the fact that La Defense is not in Paris, nor is it representative of Paris. You are attempting to use Wikipedia to broadcast a lie. If this weren't the case, you would propose another image to better the quality of the article, but since propaganda is your aim, you haven't, and you won't. Cheers. THEPROMENADER18:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I cannot believe how the image has suddenly become problematic after all this time. Prompted by nothing but a bunch of amateurs on a piss poor architectural site who like skyscrapers. Good news, you can create as many montages of them as you like in the wiki commons. Just leave the image which the majority of regulars are fine with alone.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I have understood that what matter is neither the quality (the picture is ugly) or the accuracy (just tourist clichés) but having a stereotyped cliché image of Paris. Paris is not just made of monument and showing cliché monuments is not representative of the reality of Paris Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a tourist guide, it needs to show a wider view of the city. La Défense as one of the most important business district of the city is as much as its place in the montage than the monuments. Wikipedia is useless if it just made to confirm the stereotypes to the others instead of giving real informations about the city. Minato ku (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunalty, there is no like button. :D I've created a new montage. I hope you will like it, and I hope the buildings aren't too recent for you two (because apparently you 2 decides). I hesitate to put the Arènes de Lutèces, but it would have been too confusing with the anthic Rome. I'm sorry I let the Eiffel Tower in colour (and not black-and white like you should like it), I forget it. Sesto Elemento (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)File:Montage X.jpg
That's actually funny, Sesto. And you actually worked on the spacing this time! ; )
Like you, I'm also dismayed at the ville musée effect going on here, but what you have attempted to do (in about the worst way possible) is preempt the government and pretend that changes they should make have already happened, and that just ain't what Wiki is all about. Cheers. THEPROMENADER20:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
This being en.wiki, which I enjoy very much, I'd rather stay out of this lively discussion, as I can understand everyone's point of view & think it is good for everyone to air out their ideas. However, this concerning Paris, I would like to give my thoughts on a couple of points:
The new montage with La Madeleine, put together by Sesto: The pictures represent some of the old & some of the new(er) Paris, although not going all the way to modern architecture, thus avoiding "la raffinerie", i.e. Beaubourg. Each picture in particular is fine but something bothers my eyes & I believe it is the weight: at the bottom is a street like that of an old town in France with one- or two-story houses, and at the very top, the wide picture of the big Madeleine sitting on top of the Arc de Triomphe, with under a small picture of the Seine, and below the already mentioned street. My first impression was: "My God! What if the Madeleine falls on the Arc de Triomphe, which will in turn fall into the Seine... that street down there is going to be flooded & all its houses crushed!" Going to the left, is the Tour Eiffel on top of fragile-looking Tour Saint-Jacques. Difficult to put these pictures together with proper balance. The Eiffel Tower has to be ankered to the ground in a corner, the Seine has to flow at the bottom, and there is something to do about the size of the pictures so that the ensemble is not top-heavy.
My other point concerns La Défense, which we all agree is not in Paris... yet, would I add, as one hundred years from now, it will be, just like Montmartre is, that some 150 years ago was a village overlooking Paris. And just like Montmartre is seen from everywhere in Paris, La Défense is also seen from different parts of the capital - not from everywhere -, mainly on its Axe historique of which the Grande Arche is the most western end - a will of its creators and the "king of the French Republic" at time of its construction. The problem with photographs showing La Défense from the Eiffel Tower, is that they are taken with back turned to Paris, thus showing very little of it & missing all monuments, except for what is in line with Champ de Mars in front of the Eiffel Tower. What has to be used is a photograph taken from La Défense toward Paris, which would show all of Paris, y compris the axe historique all the way thru the Pyramide and the Louvre, its origin, which also happens to be part of Paris oldest history. That way we would get Paris across the centuries in one picture.
I cringe when I see architectural photos which fail to have the necessary perspective correction, so that a building with vertical lines is made to look like the lines converge, or when pointing the camera up at a building, it looks like it is falling over backwards. This is discussed in any introductory book on photography, and in Perspective control. Such images are just bad snapshots and inappropriate in an encyclopedia. An architectural photographer would have made adjustments on a view camera by raising or lowering the lensboard relative to the film plane. Alternatively, Photoshop offers perspective correction. A building which is not a pyramid (or inverted pyramid) should not be made to look like one. Edison (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![[1]](http://oi43.tinypic.com/70i713.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DSF1634.JPG){kind=link}
![[3]](http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/6195/axafirst.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5491/9522997387_2424248768_b.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](http://oi43.tinypic.com/2nkul53.jpg){kind=link}
