Talk:Paris/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Sentence deleted by ThePromenader

The phrase "only 19% of the inhabitants of the statistical metropolitan area of Paris lived in the city of Paris proper" is odd, even silly, and somehow signifies that the metropolitan area as one should be considered as an entity as one even before Paris itself. Chip, chip, chip. People live in Paris, then its suburbs, then the rest. Not the contrary. And stop the accusatory 'revert' - we both who know who does that. Even today's version isn't exactly the same as yesterday's - in fact it's much clearer. THEPROMENADER 07:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: The references provided at first puzzled me as one was for Paris census and the other for the metropolitan area - until I understood that the numbers in each calcultated together will give an 'in-out' percentage. Do we really expect readers to open both links, note the numbers and do the math themselves? Let's not be silly. Edits such as this show a disregard for contributors and readers alike. THEPROMENADER 08:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that only 19% of people in the metro area of Paris (région parisienne) live inside the administrative city of Paris proper is important and should be noted,

Save for the fact that the 'metro area' is NOT the "région parisienne" (OR "Paris region") THEPROMENADER 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

as this is contrary to what happens in most other European cities: in Madrid 55% of the 5.8 million inhabitants of the metro area live inside the Municipio of Madrid proper, in Berlin 81% of the 4.2 million inhabitants of the metro area live inside the Land of Berlin proper, in Rome 67% of the 3.8 million inhabitants of the metro area live inside the Comune of Rome proper, whereas in Paris the percentage is only 19% which is very unusual.

Apples to oranges again. Who draws their borders the same way? Why not say "Paris' population is this, the entire Paris agglomeration's population is this." ? This is clear. Your phrasing is a roundabout way of placing the "metro area" first again - and the result is confusing and ambiguous!

As I am always accused of POV by ThePromenader, please have a look at what Encyclopaedia Britannica write in their Paris article, population section:

Since World War II this growth has continued, and Greater Paris by the late 1980s had close to 9,000,000 inhabitants. The population of the City of Paris, however, has steadily declined, from a peak of 2,900,000 in 1931 to 2,200,000 by 1982, so that more than three out of four Parisians are now suburbanites. -- Encyclopaedia Britannica ([1])

Encyclopaedia Britannica deemed it important enough to mention that less than one in four Parisians live in the city proper, so why exactly is ThePromenader forbidding any mention of that in the Wikipedia article? Also please note that Encyclopaedia Britannica use the term "Greater Paris", and they refer to people in the suburbs as "Parisians". These are two terms that ThePromenader deleted from the article on the ground of them being my POV. Hardouin 17:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is actually funny: "so that more than three out of four Parisians are now suburbanites" means simply: "the weight of the population formerly centred in the city has moved to the suburbs." It does NOT mean "people living in Paris' suburbs are Parisians."

"Greater Paris" to the Encyclopedia Britannica is the Paris agglomeration, and I have never contested the use of this phrase nor this subject. My edits are evidence enough. And, pray tell, for the thousandth time already: where is "metropolitan area" in the above? - It is the misuse of THIS statistic that I contest. THEPROMENADER 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am getting totally sick of the imposed presence in this article of opinions seen nowhere else in any other citable reference. I am also very tired of the fog of 'justifications' that follow the inevitable revert to any attempt at conforming this article to language used in even official websites. I am totally sick of making the same arguments a thousand times over. The Paris aire urbaine is NOT Paris, this is NOT an article on the Paris aire urbaine, Paris' suburbs are NOT the entire aire urbaine, the 'region Parisienne' (OR 'Paris region') is NOT the 'aire urbaine'. Last of all, the fact that the numbers you cite are correct does not justify your misuse of them.

The wool-pulling blabla conveniently skips the above very basic arguments - but the meaning of your phrase is very clear to readers. Its presence in this article is hors propos, misleading, and chip, chip chip. This is why I removed it, and will do so again. THEPROMENADER 20:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

And I really appreciate your using the above edit to sneak more "metro area" chip chip chip into the introduction. The aire urbaine (metropolitan area) to Paris is but a statistic. Speak of it as such, or not at all. THEPROMENADER 22:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Err, aire urbaine is a statistical unit yes, and the sentence you deleted says "only 19% of the inhabitants of the statistical metropolitan area of Paris lived in the city of Paris proper", so what's the problem exactly? The sentence clearly uses aire urbaine in a statistical context. You just object for the sake of objection here. Hardouin 23:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You obviously haven't read a word anyone has written. This is not an article on the metropolitan area of Paris, and you insist on referencing Paris against the metropolitan area. The tone and meaning of this is clear to all, mostly you. It is possible to give the same info more simply yet you don't; the reasons for this are clear as well. Your intro sneaky intro insert cannot stand either, and this for the same reasons - chip, chip chip. Say it clearly or desist. THEPROMENADER 08:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Calm, cool, collected.

I'll just say this once. There is no excuse for not referring to Paris and its surroundings in the same way as citable references and (surtout!) official websites do. Any further use of "metropolitan area" to refer to anything other than of the statistical area it is, or any phrases speaking of the "metropolitan area" as if it is an entity more important to the Paris region than the little-cited statistical tool it is, will be removed illico. This unreferenced foolishness has gone on long enough. THEPROMENADER 08:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I see some other users have reintroduced metropolitan area statistics in the article, but you haven't reverted them yet. I can only interpret this as a personal grief towards whatever I edit, whereas when it is other people who write the same thing you seem to find it perfectly alright. Not very Wiki, Promenader. Hardouin 17:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I have ever reverted are your reverts to good-faith edits. Nice try. People who write fact and speak reason have no need to rewrite history. THEPROMENADER 21:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Read again - metropolitan didn't re-introduce "metropolitan area" - but he sure clarified a lot around it. Added "urban area" info, even, which is what you've insisted on skipping and I've been doing all along. Error aside, what are you getting at? I've never said no to reality. THEPROMENADER 19:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm coughing. User Metropolitan wrote:

The population of Paris metropolitan area (also including satellite cities) was estimated at 11.6 million people in 2005.

This is the exact same sentence that I wrote before but that you have deleted repeatedly. You are the most dishonest person I have ever seen. Hardouin 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I do find it rather odd that this phrase would reclaim its to-the-letter form that is exactly yours. It is better in its new context, but still not entirely accurate. I have left a message about it on Metropolitan's talk page. THEPROMENADER 08:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The population of Paris was estimated at 2,144,700 inhabitants in 2004[1], and the population of Greater Paris metropolitan area, consisting of the city, its suburbs, and its satellite cities, was estimated at 11.6 million inhabitants in 2005.

...I'm wrong - you must be making me paranoid. The above was your original 'all-in-the-same-breath with false and unreferenced "Greater Paris==Metropoltan area" ' phrase. Now I must correct my message on Metropolitan's page. THEPROMENADER 09:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I don't at all appreciate the name-calling. THEPROMENADER 09:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm chuckling. The original writ, my own, was:

Its influence as a city extends well into its suburbs in a metropolitan area commuter belt whose population was estimated at 11.6 million inhabitants in 2005.

...and of course you forget the "urban area" clarification before it, that makes - in addition to the updated infobox - the city proper, urban area and metropolitan areas distinctions quite clear. You, on the other hand, just lump it all together in "metropolitan area". Are you done wasting my time? Thanks. THEPROMENADER 21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

First, as an aside, ThePromenader has made his point consistently and clearly, and should be commended. However, I did note this on a policy page, and I believe it applies to certain of the listings under the Nightlife section in that some of them are probably not notable. "good places for electro music (techno, electro-rock, D&B)." is also POV. Which of these listings is notable? Frankly, I have no clue, but I think that there should be consensus on a standard of some sort. Tenebrous 14:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, Tenebrous. There is probably a lot in this page that can be improved, but personally most all of my 'Wiki time' is taken wresting its more glaring misconceptions into a form closer to reality. Please do improve anything you can! THEPROMENADER 08:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Demography edits

Before it is reverted, just an outline of what changed: Many phrases having (seemingly) the same meaning were in both Density and Growth sections, and were not at all clear in context as they were. The meaning is exactly the same, just put in a clearer way. One quite lengthy phrase whose purpose nor meaning wasn't at all clear is gone - that comparing London offices to (?) historical quarters between London and Paris. I can post it here if anyone is interested. Oh, yes - and I moved the 'muséification' section from History to Demography where it seems much more fitting... but not really sure if this part should even stay as it is (Crystal ball), or if it can be split up (or is already outlined enough) in other sections. Anyone thinking that these edits aren't improvements please post here. I've put stuff back before, and I can do it again. THEPROMENADER 12:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This one took a fair bit of research and number-crunching to debunk:

Modern suburban development is even accellerating, as with an estimated total of 11.5 million inhabitants for 2004, the Paris metropolitan area is showing a rate of growth double that of the 1990s.

or its original version :

As for the metropolitan area, it reached approximately 11.5 million inhabitants in 2004, growing twice as fast in the 2000s as it did in the 1990s.

In my morning's editing, I couldn't find any 2004 predictions for Paris' aire urbaine (metropolitan area), only those for the Île-de-France, so left it where it was until I could research the question properly. Now that I have looked at the INSEE site itself, I see that in fact 2004 aire urbaine (metropolitan area) predictions do not exist. I looked all the same at the 'until 2004' growth rate of the existing predictions, those for the Île-de-France, and didn't see any amazing "twice the growth" rate: 1990-1999 growth was 2.7%, and the 2004 (prediction) and 1999 difference was (my calculation) 3.1 %. I then (bored yet?) went to the Aire Urbaine ('99) page - its population growth between 1990 and 1999 worked out to (my calculation) 2.9%. If we took, just for hypothesis sake, the IDF region (relatively similar to the AU) and applied its growth to the 'metropolitan growth' claim, the numbers still wouldn't work out as I doubt the band of AU that overextends the IDF could account for another 2.7% growth. So, in short, based even on the inexistant 2004 AU predictions, the above phrase was but pure invention. THEPROMENADER 21:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Once more, Promenader, you reveal your bad knowledge of statistics. It's frustrating to see people with very little expertise in one subject writing extensively about it on Wikipedia. You are simply comparing growth rates over dissimilar period of years instead of comparing growth rates per annum. Hardouin 17:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And the above is total (expletive) - even the formerly unmentioned per annum growth does not and cannot come out as double if the end result is not the same. I found all the sources - but I await your proof to the contrary. THEPROMENADER 18:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What the ### was that comment on your edits? Rampage? Writing extensively? What are you going on about? Where did you ever mention 'per annum'? Where are those sources I was unable to find before you revert to them? Why are you again cut and pasting your former writ over someone else's? Will you get down, back off grow up or whatever? Really. THEPROMENADER 18:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I just looked again at your revert/edits and have yet to see where the 'factual error' is - why did you trumpet this untruth? I really dislike how you count on other people's ignorance to make your accusations/edits 'stick' - do you really think others won't know the difference? You have absolutely no justification for such behaviour - and wouldn't even in the worst of circumstances. All you did was replace my edits with their older version. If anything, your reverts are factually wrong, and as far as I can see, pure invetion - where is the reference for the so-called 2005 metropolitan area estimation you reverted to? There is no such prediction even on the INSEE's own site. The only "spite" felt around must be by you, my dear. I just ask for fact and clarity. THEPROMENADER 18:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And after checking the veracity of the pasted-over phrases for a fourth time just to be sure, I noticed that you couldn't even be bothered to change the references your reverted-to questionable numbers linked to - let alone provide real ones for them. THEPROMENADER 18:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And how can you just totally ignore all of the above arguments and revert anyways? Simply astonishing. THEPROMENADER 18:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In spite of the above, I see reason in a couple of Hardouin's edits - inner London, etc - but mind you that wasn't present before - so I have replaced them. I also 'got the point' for another but its hasty paste-over was not clear so I clarified the whole myself. The rest was indeed cut-and-paste/re-insertion of 'original' text over/into new edits, nothing else. The history's there for all to see it. THEPROMENADER 20:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd almost like to give an apology here - I honestly didn't get the real intent of the "religious wars" demographics passages until just now - I think it was the 'on the other hand' that threw me. I just edited it back to what its original meaning was supposed to be, but in a much clearer way leading up to today. There is a line, all the same, between city conurbation and population growth, and the phrase in question transcends it in a way not so clear to the reader - Paris has constantly outgrown its limits, and (faubourg) populations were counted in ways varied and many... this is vague at best. Also the "conservativeness" phrase tacked on to the end of Hardouin's last edit (before today) is more fitting up with the conurbation phrase - but it is already explained there. Speaking of the metropolitan area growing as a whole doesn't work either because a) it is not the city growth and b) it is a lump one. City limits, communes, agglomerations, conurbation, départements. That's where Paris' growth is.THEPROMENADER 23:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: This is not an invitation to go nuts on the rest - if it is not an improvement and does not bring anything factually useful, true and new, forget it. The purpose of editing is towards fact and understanding, not footprints. THEPROMENADER 20:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Period X of to-the-letter reverts.

I've already outlined the changes and re-insertions above, yet again, Hardouin, you insist on re-imposing your pre-prepared writ. There were absolutely no factual errors in anything you changed, and to declare this is in your edit tag is... go figure. 'Improving style' is not cutting and pasting old disproved text. Enough already? THEPROMENADER 00:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, I don't really like the reversed page-appropriation insinuations either. I don't care who writes as long as its truth the majority can understand. Re-inserting choppy edits using terms un-echoed in other references is no way to go about this. We will not go in circles. This is silly - Paris should be a featured article. Once the facts are straight and other people's edits are respected, perhaps everyone will feel comfortable going about this. But not, Hardouin, until your 'backtracking' madness is over. THEPROMENADER 00:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your insulting language ("madness", I'm quoting) can only do your arguments a disservice. Not content with reverting 95% of what I write, which I have grown accustomed to, you now also revert any user who disagree with you (such as user Metropolitan whose edits you reverted a few days ago). Over the last months, most of your edits have been full of botched numbers (e.g. writing 215 instead of 213, just because you don't pay enough attention), mispelled names, in general very little attention to details. Whenever I try to correct your errors or improve on your edits, you acuse me of "revert" which is a tactic that you have used extensively. I see you are using this very same tactic again. You don't fool anyone anymore. Hardouin 00:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks don't improve article quality. You really have to scratch to get anything 'on' me - and now you speak of Metropolitan, who you know full well I contacted personally on his Talk page. You do revert, period. I have been vehement towards you because only you protect your factual inacuraccies and opinions with wholesale reverts. No matter the 'error' claims you make: 'corrections' are not 'Reverts'. Period. THEPROMENADER 01:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? You deleted the tourism industry figure, just because it doesn't fit in your vision of the world. You wrote that most population growth is happening in the grande couronne suburbs, which was true in the 1990s, but is not true anymore in the 2000s. POV, factual inaccuracies, that's ThePromenader. Hardouin 01:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fooishness beyond foolishness. And now you dig some more and waste even more time. The tourism phrase was debunked long before - of course tourism is only a tiny bit of the IDF wealth when Paris, attraction for tourists, is only a tiny bit of the IDF. Tourism is important to Paris - yet your phrase suggests it is not. You made me repeat myself yet again. Thanks for more of your baseless accusations. LOL - if POV is mine then at least it's referencable. I think you've done enough damage for one day. THEPROMENADER 01:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If anybody has been inserting factual inaccuracies, it is Hardouin, who I note has still not provided any evidence to back up his claims as outlined in the table at [2]. Green Giant 01:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Green Giant - apologies as well. I lost it for a minute there. THEPROMENADER 01:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No worries Promenader. As to your question Hardouin, I reverted because the version you prefer still tries to sell the point of view that Paris' boundaries have not changed much since 1860, despite this point already having been made in an earlier section. Green Giant 01:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Green Giant, the boundaries of the city of Paris have not changed since 1860 (except for the annexation of the Bois de Vincennes and Bois de Boulogne parks in 1929). Just check history books. Hardouin 02:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Promenader, it's nice to have pals that will support you without even looking at the figures, but nonetheless you are wrong about tourism. You imply that although tourism is not a significant part of the economy in IDF, yet within the city of Paris proper tourism is a very significant part of the economy. I understand that is the reason why you deleted the tourism figure from the aricle. Yet checking at the tourism figures published by INSEE in 2004 ([3]), I find that tourism and tourism related jobs account for 239,5000 jobs in IDF, which is 4.7% of the total 5,042,724 jobs in IDF. According to the same publication, in the city of Paris proper, tourism and tourism related jobs account for 116,000 jobs, which is 7% of the total 1,656,036 jobs in the city of Paris. Note that these figures are actually inflated because they include all the people working in hotels and restaurants, although they do not catter only to tourists. So even if you take the figures for the city of Paris proper, I don't see how you can argue that tourism is very important to the economy of Paris. If tourism is important, then everything is. According to INSEE, even manufacturing is employing more people than tourism within the city of Paris (8.4% jobs in manufacturing vs. 7% in tourism and tourism related).[4] Hardouin 02:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal jabs aside, why didn't you just say "tourism is not as important to the city of Paris as some would think"? This is an interesting and correct thing to say if it is backed with references. Stating that tourism is a small part of the IDF's economy is so obvious (sheer size, population differences, etc) that it is not even worthy of mention - not to mention yawningly bland. This is why I removed it and will so again if I see it again in its former state. I never said tourism was important anywhere in the article - so stop putting words in my mouth. THEPROMENADER 08:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait a second Hardouin - you've even got me arguing with myself. I said tourism is important for the city of Paris - and to anyone living here, it is obvious it is - yet you say that it is not important to the IDF. Yet the INSEE document you (and Aquarelle) cite begins with the phrase: (ahem) "Tourism represents an essential activity for the Île-de-France region" . Odd discrepency. THEPROMENADER 19:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I know the boundaries have not changed much since 1860, but there is no point in repeatedly asserting this point. The matter is dealt with by the section on the area of Paris. By the way have you found any evidence to support your claims outlined in the table above? Green Giant 02:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't appreciate, Hardouin, your labelling an edit 'Agree with density changes' - only to re-insert your unreferenced phrases for what is perhaps the eighth time in twelve hours. You will respect edits of others - reverting to your own is not this, and for this I will remove any phrases that have been reverted to their original form without a) reference or b) explanation justifying this as improvement. I'm a bit tired of your quite provocating devious behaviour. THEPROMENADER 08:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

What's more, your are reverting to unreferenced phrases that were removed 'because they could be found in no reference' - and what's even more, you refuse to change the existing references links below - you (rather arrogantly, it would seem) left your AU 2005 prediction linked to the AU '99 reference as if it was real. Speaking of (for the third time), where is the reference for the 2005 AU estimation? None exists on the INSEE website. The same for your "double the growth" claim - in fact, INSEE statistics show a very small overall rate of growth. I made an effort to remain as positive as I could in my edit though, as you seem to refuse to see. THEPROMENADER 08:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link regarding tourism en Île-de-France. It's not quite as interesting as reference #9, but perhaps it still has some use, especially regarding employment and tourism there.

http://www.insee.fr/fr/insee_regions/idf/rfc/docs/alapage234.pdf --Aquarelle 15:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - sorry for the riffraff. Your link was indeed very informative - it is cited also above, and was already cited what seems to be a long, long time ago if you care to look through the archives ; ) THEPROMENADER 19:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Aquarelle, as may be obvious to you from reading the above, ThePromenader believes that tourism is a major component of the Paris economy. I have provided figures above, and they show that tourism is employing only a small proportion of people either in Ile de France or in the city of Paris proper. Yet ThePromenader sticks to his cliche image of a tourist Paris, and keeps deleting the real tourism figure from the economy section. That's what I call POV. I am restoring the sentence. It's rather revealing to note that the "righteous" Promenader, who always pretends to act only out of a quest for truth, keeps deleting referenced figures just because they don't fit with his distorted vision of reality. Hardouin 15:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who would say that tourism is not important to Paris is clearly off their rocker - even the INSEE article you yourself cite states in its opening line that it is important! That I say the same is distorted and POV ? You think yourself better than the entire official statistics institute? Perhaps in face of total ignorance. Get real please. THEPROMENADER 18:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You extract one sentence out of a four pages study, totally out of its context. How serious and scientific is that! The figures published in the study are hard fact, they show that tourism employs less people in Paris than business services, state administration, health services, education, retail and wholesale trade, and even manufacturing. To pretend that tourism is a major component of the Paris economy as you do is pure fallacy. The Paris economy cannot be summed up with Eiffel Tower and Moulin Rouge. I'm sorry if it doesn't fit with you vision of Paris, but it's just fact. Hardouin 18:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole paper is on the theme of how important tourism is to the IDF and Paris. It is YOU who are extracting statistics used to support this theme and argument - in ignoring the argument itself? How blind can you be? As blind as you want to, obviously. THEPROMENADER 18:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the INSEE study has no theme. Statisticians have no themes, they only present datas. It's you who believe tourism is very important to IDF. Hardouin 19:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm addressing this to no-one in particular. When the leading line of an INSEE documents says that tourism IS a crucial part of the IDF economy, one must give this more credit than a lone Wikipedian's POV. Harouin's numbers are based on the total GDP (material wealth from a whole line of production from raw materials through sales, not all the result of activity within the IDF) and the INSEE document stresses the employment factor - as this does directly concern the inhabitants of the Paris region. Again, although the numbers cited are correct, their use and representation isn't. THEPROMENADER 16:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the numbers I have writen above are not GDP numbers, they are employement numbers. You don't even pay attention to what I write, and then criticize it anyway. Typical of you! Hardouin 16:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I did mix things up, didn't I? But let's not ingnore the obvious - you placing your POV in importance over an official statistical institution statement, and 7% employment - that's one person out of fourteen - working in tourism is NOT negligable! THEPROMENADER 17:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And WHAT, Pray tell...

Is this? My watchlist tells me that Hardouin was the last person to message the new Wikipedian Aquarelle who I earlier a) welcomed and b) thanked for her correction here (only to make her feel welcome!). There I learn that I am some sort of nutcase trying to impose my POV, that I am comparable to some other person (haven't had time to read), and that I am 'opposed' to many things that I am in fact not 'opposed to' at all.

I really don't see how working so that this article has a) verifiable content b) is comprehensive to a greater public and c) looks good qualifies as POV. If Hardouin published understandable verifiable fact there would be no need to edit anything - yet instead of answering pointed and direct requests for justificative references must instead resort to, sock puppetry aside, low behaviour such as this.

THEPROMENADER 09:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I'm not sure what conclusion to come to from your conversation (nor where to leave an answer to it) so I left the same on both your talk pages. There is no reason to re-instate the old infobox version - the new one does contain useful information, namely agglomeration size info - but I did all the same. I would like as well for us all to get along, fact in a straightforward and commonly-understood manner, and this through civil and unpredjudiced edits - and not reverts.

In all the explanations I read, there still remains the question of the real importance of the 'metropolitan area' to different cities - it is indeed important to a few, but to others (namely Paris) not at all. Also, making an infobox for all France's cities with separate 'metropolitan area' info also means making two versions - as not all cities are 'pole urbaine's, or the centre of an 'aire urbaine' (metropolitan area). The concept is far from being widely accepted and referred to so at present a 'unique for all' infobox is complicated. THEPROMENADER 10:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't have been in such a hurry this morning. After finding the chance to really read both ends of the conversation, I see little consensus on anything: more unanswered questions, rather. But that aside, if we will indeed be having a discussion about what should or should be in a Paris infobox, I will be more than happy to leave this for now.

What did (again) irk me, Hardouin, was your 'slipping some in' in your post to Green Giant:

• I have in no way 'kept you' from doing anything; this article has lain dormant for weeks on end - It is only when anyone tries editing that your 'pounce and revert' fun begins.
• I do not 'irk' at 'metropolitan area', but I do when I hear everyone in it is a Parisian and hear IDF statistics cited as its own.
• 'Constant reversions' is a good one too - I revert your reverts to good-faith edits. Nothing else. I even re-instated your few honest edits when I discovered them.
• There is no "who's side you're on" attitude in editing an article - this is immature and counterproductive.
• You forget to mention that it is you, Hardouin, that added the Metropolitan Area info everywhere, and the Infoboxes as well. Asking one to look at your own work as proof is not what one could call 'unbiased' either. What role does this statistic have to play in these cities - enough to merit such a large place? This you have yet to answer. Also - Lille is a special case (shared by no other French city) as its metro area spreads across the Belgian border and it is only for this it has a real use. You cannot use this unique case - I know you wrote the contrary - to justify "metropolitan importance" to all French cities. If there are more, list them, and keep it short and simple please.
• I will listen to reason, not 'people who are nice to me'. Nice people can be wrong, and mean people can be right. I will listen to reason, consensus, and proof as an answer to questions about verifiability - the absence of this, especially under repeated reverts to that same unanswered-for questionable version, tends to generate feelings of mistrust in other users, and especially those who know better.

THEPROMENADER 18:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: I will not be leaving the infobox issue to stagnate - Hardouin proposed discussion on changes and promised argments - if there are none forthcoming, the question remains unanswered and 'metropolitan area' will regain its newer state. If there is any consensus different than this I suggest that it be stated clearly. THEPROMENADER 18:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

PPS: I read with great interest the Mumbai infobox talk page - again a city inhabitant being told how his home should be presented, and again a revert-imposed POV against all standardised references and logic. Enlightening. A very good question came up there: if the metropolitan area is so important, why not start a separate article, like so many other big cities have done? As for here: why the effort in both articles (perhaps there are more), by the same person, through vague and uncommon language, to make a city's commuter belt look as the city itself? This is beyond reality. I double the weight of the above. THEPROMENADER 08:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And will you look at Nichalp's User page! So many featured articles and awards. Inspiring. THEPROMENADER 19:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

2004 Aire Urbaine estimate

Where does the 2004 aire urbaine estimate in the infobox come from? I would like a source. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 21:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I left the below on Hardouin's Talk page - he/she has yet to answer, yet he/she is back here reverting to hsi/her unreferenced text again.

Hello,

I asked you on the Paris talk page for a source for the 2004 Aire Urbaine estimation in your infobox - I wasn't able to find it anywhere, even on the INSEE site. Could you answer this please?

THEPROMENADER 15:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

... what is one to think of this? The personal attacks have begun again as well. I stand in my defense and will continue to revert any further such abuse, predjudice and disregrd for others. Enough is enough. THEPROMENADER 16:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro edit

Sorry to have jumped on this but 82.35.96.59's edits skewed the meaning of the whole paragraph - the city 'growth' was the 'spread', not the population, and changing 'agglomeration' to 'city' when speaking of 'metro area' mixed the limits even further. The original wording was chunky so I took the occasion to fix it. But facts first. And thanks for keeping an eye on this, Atlant. THEPROMENADER 23:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert Bedlam Revisited

It is really something to revert three days of editing by three people with one's own garbled and factually incorrect text. It is quite another to continue reverting even after the time has been taken to concretely prove on the article talk page why the original text was wrong, and through official sources to boot. It is quite another thing to be called, because of all this, a 'liar', 'paranoid', 'self-righteous' and other similarly unflattering sobriquets - and this doesn't help to answer questions about unverifiable theories and inexistent sources. Nor does it make article reading clear or even comprehensive, let alone interesting. I thought that once the 'fact stuff' was out of the way it would be clear sailing to peer review quality - as then anyone could edit - but it seems that this article's protector's only satisfaction is in garbled and quite personal incomprehensibility.

Sooner or later, as Wiki grows more popular, there will be enough knowledgeable enough to overcome such nonsense and fix them. IMHO any such defence between here and then is a complete waste of everyone's time.

THEPROMENADER 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about yourself here I reckon. You reverted both User:Metropolitan and I, not to mention a couple of other users that you have also reverted even though their edits were very minor. It seems you accept not even a comma change. Then there is your insistence on deleting the tourism figures, despite them being official figures, just because they don't fit with your cliché vision of Paris as an essentially touristy middle-sized city. You constantly flood this talk page with lengthy messages and self-labeled "debunking" theories, you edit the main article more than ten times per day, and that's how you always impose your will, by drawning people and wearing them off. This must end. For one, it would be nice if you could drop the hot temper and avoid reverting people right away only to later realize that you reverted too much and have to back track. You're just making a full of yourself. Hardouin 20:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did make me angry and I lost track, but all is fine unless you've reverted for a (12th?) time. I suggest that you don't push it on the Metropolitan issue - and we both know full well about the messages on the subject on 'his' talk page. As for the rest, it is just baseless and arrogant nonsense. We both know I revert only your reverts, and every other edit I have made has been accompanied by commentary here - contrary to your habits. Every time anyone asks you supply references supporting your unheard-of theories it always ends in stonewalling and personal attacks. I extremely dislike your insults and insinuations - 'ten times a day' like it's everyday. This article - thanks to YOUR reverts and stonewalling - stagnates for weeks on end at a time. Again we both know this yet you insist on your insinuations. Your accusing me of something doesn't make it true - but I'm sure you know full well that those first reading will believe this until it is proved otherwise. This, in addition to your false accusations, sock-puppetry, avoiding or ignoring arguments, and making completely baseless complaints about me to other users is only just another example of your devious and manipulative behaviour, all in the defence of... fact? You have yet to answer one pointed question anyone has asked you. Fog, deception, and incomprehensible details is all you give, most probably to keep your "one-eyed" status above those you think blind. If you can't place your identity in fact, I suggest you find another one. Stop being a waste of everyone's time. THEPROMENADER 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I mean really. I cannot continue to partake in such immature behaviour, and I am embarrassed to have been driven to it. This is more than intolerable. Wholesale reverts without reason or justification, sock puppetry, baseless accusations, all in response to demands for verifiable fact. When I imagine all the time I have wasted researching concrete proof to debunk obviously flawed authoritatively-phrased theories too complicated for the layman to debunk, and think about all I could have done (elsewhere and on Wiki) instead, I can't help but feel something close to... whatever, just imagine. What a waste of time. I will take a different approach.

THEPROMENADER 20:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin's last revert for today (the thirteenth?) - labelled this: "Excuse me? YOU are the one constantly reverting. Don't try to portray this the other way around." - Well, at least i can go to bed thinking that there's someone out there more foolish than I am : ) THEPROMENADER 20:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You're again trying to portray yourself as the good guy, as always. Do you really want me to make the long list of all your factual errors, mispellings, displays of hot temper, rash judgements and rash reverts that I have witnessed in the past weeks and months? More than once, and you perfectly know it, I had to correct your errors (most often errors due to your lack of attention to details), but I have never ever heard one "thank you", or one "sorry for the error". Never. So who is the arrogant guy? You would probably waste less time if you listened more to other people, and worked with others with a more compromising approach. This article will never be exactly the way you'd like it to be, same as it will never be exactly the way I would like it to be, because in the end Wikipedia articles are just a joint effort. Hardouin 20:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, please do. And be sure to state why I got hot in the first place. Bullshit that you never got thank-yous - I have always admitted, left and even integrated every proven error you have found, and how quickly you forget our map exchange. The 'sorry's are there too. I can totally disregard your advice on how to edit on Wiki - it is techniques such as yours that get people heated, especially when they know the wrongs and rights of what you write. This in addition to your general arrogant and devious behaviour (what a mix) - in the name of what I don't know - does not make a good editing environment. If I was just plain wrong I would have to admit it. But I'm not and we both know it - thus your antics. THEPROMENADER 21:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: No, we will not be going in circles once again. Read the archives. THEPROMENADER 21:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Where's enforcing the 3rr rule?

Look at the history of the page. Someone put these kids into a corner. Danny Lilithborne 21:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone has to kvetch about it first. If no one does, no administrators walk by to send the participants to their rooms.

Atlant 21:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

(Waving hand) Look, I'm going to my room. The game's over. Sorry for the mess. THEPROMENADER 21:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: But please feel free to kvetch away. THEPROMENADER 21:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit-war Apology

I do apologise for flipping my lid. Perhaps if one would care to read the reams of talk page discussions one would understand better my cumulating burst of anger - the above reverts were in total disregard for five months of research and reason by myself and those few others who cared or dared to get involved.

As for all the personal attacks, insults and attempts at denigration directed at myself: I'll let the archives speak for themselves. No matter the result and/or consequences of this spree, it will not happen again.

THEPROMENADER 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverting to Inaccuracies

The misconceptions being imposed upon this article were the following:

1. Introduction.
A) Anything even remotely resembling a 'satellite city' is within the Paris agglomeration. 'Metropolitan area' unexplained is vague - it means 'agglomeration' to many North Americans. France's version (the 'aire urbaine' commuter area) is vast and sparsely inhabited, and its "éparpillement" cannot be considered as "satellite cities". This reverted-to phrase does its best to insinuate a 'great something' but in fact lends little to clear understanding. THEPROMENADER 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

A satellite city is not the same as a suburb. A satellite city is separated from the agglomeration (urban area) by some agricultural land, yet it is still part of the metropolitan area. For example, Meaux or Rambouillet are not suburbs, they are separated from the urban area of Paris by agricultural land, but they are part of the metro area, because they send more than 40% commuters daily to the urban area of Paris. Hardouin 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So you do call "éparpillement" "satellite cities". This is wrong. And a town that sends commuters to a city's suburbs can't be spoken of on par with the city itself. THEPROMENADER 19:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, metropolitan area as defined by US standards are also including commuting towns around the urban area. The "aire urbaine" is the INSEE equivalent to the American MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area). The main differences are :

1. US statistics are determined according to counties when French statistics are determined according to municipalities.
2. US statistics define "outlying counties" as those with at least 25% of commuters in the urban area (central counties) when French statistics define municipalities belonging to the "periurban belt" as those with at least 40% of commuters in the urban area.

As such, the 11.5 million people figure for Paris metropolitan area is much stricter than the US figures given for US metropolitan areas. Metropolitan 17 february 2006 04:19 (CET).

All of what you write is correct - but how does it answer the points above it? THEPROMENADER 08:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

On your first post you're saying that according to "most North Americans", "metropolitan area means agglomeration", assuming that US statistics only count urban areas. My point was only to respectfully clarify that inacuracy. Furthermore, Paris metro area doesn't add that many people compared to its urban area (from 10.1 million to 11.6 million), I would understand your concerns about that figure if it would really make a large difference, but that's hardly the case for Paris.

By the way, you often use the word "conurbation" to designate Paris urban area, that's very misleading. Conurbations are in general made of several cities being connected by their urban sprawl. Like in the Ruhr in Germany, they have multiple centers. Paris urban area is simply the extension out of administrative borders of the city of Paris, the single economical center for the whole urban area being at the west of Paris. I hope you've realized during your stay in Chennevières that the administrative city of Paris was only the historical core of the agglomeration, something which is not true in most other European capitals (Berlin, London, Rome, Madrid, Brussels, etc...) which largely incorporate suburban housings in their administrative borders. In the case of Paris, the core even exceeds Paris. If you make a Top 10 of the densest municipalities in the whole Europe, it would be all about Paris and its near suburbs. The densest municipality in the EU being officially Le Pré-Saint-Gervais (a suburb at the east of Paris) with 23,735 inhabitants/km². Metropolitan 17 february 2006 13:23 (CET).

Thanks Hardouin, but you're still not answering the original points. First off, I said 'many' North Americans (not 'most') and I linked to a supporting article in MSN Encarta to prove the ambiguity of this term. 'Satellite city' unexplained is yet another similarily ambiguous term - so is it really informative to use both in the same phrase? Second, I've used 'conurbation' in discussion (and only to speak of "rough comparisons") but never anywhere in the article. As for the 'slight population difference' between the aire/unité urbaine: a 'slight difference' excuse cannot quantify presenting a larger something under the name of, or instead of, a more important and certainly more comprehensive something smaller. Now, to get back on track: why should rural towns that send commuters to a city's suburbs be presented in a city article as the city itself? THEPROMENADER 13:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh... I'm sorry ThePromenader but I believe there is some kind of misunderstanding in here. I am not Hardouin. Actually, I had an argument with Hardouin several weeks ago because he wanted to show suburban trains in the Paris Metro RER infobox when I thought it wasn't a good idea for the sake of clarity (Transilien suburban trains aren't about actual lines but about different suburban networks accross the whole region and even beyond, not really comparable with RERs to me).

Anyway, I don't really know about what we're talking in here. If the problem is about showing the metro area population figure in Paris Infobox, I fail to see any valid reason to reject this. I've just checked and in most other cities the metropolitan area is mentionned in the infobox. For instance, in the 17 million people figure for Los Angeles, there are also many countryside areas which are counted in that figure (certainly more than in the case of Paris). I don't see the problem with this as that's what the concept of metropolitan areas is all about, if there's any kind of misunderstanding, people can click in the link to metro areas and get a more accurate picture of what is involved in that concept. Hope this help. Metropolitan 17 february 2006 18:16 (CET).

I think you'd better check your talk page. THEPROMENADER 19:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

B) The phrase "...and the population of the metropolitan area is estimated at 11.6 million in 2005" Is pure invention as far as I can see. There exists no such estimation even on the official INSEE website itself. The author has been asked even on his/her personal talk page for references to this: We have yet to see a reply. This sort of situation is far from new here. THEPROMENADER 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Always making accusations . FYI check de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris or fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste des mégapoles. Hardouin 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If had made accusations you would have pretty well confirmed them yourself. Wiki as a reference for Wiki? Are you serious? I asked you for a reference to the INSEE's 2005/2004 aire urbaine estimate. Where is it? THEPROMENADER 19:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

2. Economic sectors. The suggestive 'anti' phrase "The tourism industry and tourist related services ... employ ... only 7% of the total workforce of the city of Paris proper [5], ranking as a minor component of the Paris economy." is pure fallacy. First off, 7% is NOT a negligible number, and secondly, any Parisian (and most of others) who heard mention that tourism is not important to Paris would think the speaker insane. What's more, the paper cited by the author of this claim himself, a publication on how essential tourism is to the Paris region in terms of employment (even in its title and introductory first line), is the same's source for numbers "proving" that tourism is not important to Paris at all. Odd to say the least. THEPROMENADER 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I quote: "any Parisian (and most of others) who heard mention that tourism is not important to Paris would think the speaker insane". That is POV, that's just ThePromenader's personal opinion. Please don't impose your personal opinion onto this article. Hardouin 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I tell you that the official paper you cite says tourism IS important, yet you ignore this to skip directly to calling fact and common knowledge POV - just because I say it? THEPROMENADER 19:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

3. Population Growth. Again the invented "2005 metropolitan area estimate". Not to mention that the phrase it replaced, the result of resarch and edits by two (one myself) was much clearer in its meaning, comprehensive and concise. Like most of the above before it was reverted or re-inserted. THEPROMENADER 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

More vague accusations. No phrase was replaced as far as I can see. Hardouin 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history. And don't forget the 'replacing phrase' was your still-unreferenced INSEE estimate claim. THEPROMENADER 19:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

4. Infobox.
Foolishness aside, some other major city info-boxes mention metropolitan area info but they do not have one third of their length dedicated to it. The infobox for Paris and other French cities are unique in this way, most likely because they are the work of the same unique author. Also, the inventive "Aire urbaine 2005 estimates" are still in place - why? If it is not true, it is not publishable, period. The goal of this obstinate disinformation is certainly not reader understanding. THEPROMENADER 10:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: There exists an updated version containing mention of metropolitan area as well as other useful info - but this was also subject to a similar series of wholesale reverts. And "keeping something separate" from another made to look important is a rather non sequitur argument - as is "it looks like the others" when the "others" are all the work of the person reverting. Had to forsee these ones appearing again. THEPROMENADER 10:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

PPS: Intercommunality has absolutely nothing at all to do with the aire urbaine (metropolitan area). THEPROMENADER 11:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

5. Summary.
Most major cities have separate articles on their respective statistical metropolitan areas - I don't see why this article should be any different. Trying to portray distant towns that send commuters to the suburbs of Paris through inexplanation, suggestion, omission, ambiguity, and unreferenced sources as Paris itself is an effort at once ridiculous and wasted: it is a point of view shared by next to no publication and supported by no reference at all. THEPROMENADER 10:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: Thank goodness the problem's almost solved. THEPROMENADER 10:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Paris Metropolitan area map

On the Paris page, we can see a map from Paris metropolitan area, just below the infobox, which is only picturing the city of Paris in red and the metropolitan area in pink and nothing else. Here is a map I've just created with more detailed information. I just propose it to you, you're free to judge if you think it would be a better map to add to the page.

If you like that map, I could improve it in adding the scale. Metropolitan 01:06 19 February 2006 (CET)

The map is great, but I don't know if it's a good idea to show unités urbaines. It's a bit tricky to explain, but basically there are many unités urbaines that you haven't shown on the map, such as unité urbaine of Rambouillet, unité urbaine of Meaux, unité urbaine of Goussainville, unité urbaine of Fontainebleau, and so on. You are only showing four unités urbaines: Paris, Provins, Nemours, and Montereau-Fault-Yonne. To be consistent, we should either show all the unités urbaines, or show none. I think it is better to show none (we already have built-up areas anyway), because showing all of them would make the map unreadable. Also, it would be great if you could show the built-up areas that are beyond the boundary of Île-de-France (if you have data for that). Hardouin 00:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're indeed right, there are several urban areas, but all those you're talking about are encompassed into Paris metro area. Actually, the urban areas currently shown on the map are technically called "pôle urbain" (Urban core). Maybe the best would be simply to rename it this way in the legend. I'll upload a newer version with that correction and also add a scale. Metropolitan 02:50 19 February 2006 (CET)

Okay, it's been re-uploaded. Metropolitan 03:30 19 February 2006 (CET)

That map is more complete than mine, (yet very similar) as it shows both real built-up areas in addition to the limits of their respective communes that complete the spread of the 'unité urbaine'. I have doubts about that table, it it won't be readable unless the plan is shown at an enormous size. I frankly don't see the sense in the argument "show all or none" - especially when showing the real extent of the Paris agglomereration is both important and informative to the article. Has anyone noticed that there's no map of Paris itself here? I may have a remedy for that soon. THEPROMENADER 08:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing changes, the map's orginal title was "Paris urban and metropolitan areas" - yet now it is only "Paris metropolitan area" - again a change in support of the "metropolitan area only" stance? The urban area - the Paris agglomeration - is much more important than any extra-suburban commuter belt. It's quite obvious how things are shaping up. THEPROMENADER 11:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

If you had checked my exchange with Hardouin, you would have realized that I've done such a change for the sake of accuracy. Indeed, this map doesn't show all urban areas in Ile-de-France but only those who have a metropolitan area according to the INSEE. Statistically speaking, those urban area are defined as "pôle urbain" (or urban core) according to the INSEE.

Here is how the INSEE works, they calculate first urban areas according to the contiguous built-up areas of more than 2,000 people. Then, they calculate a metropolitan area for all those urban areas with more than 10,000 people. If the metro area of a city (for instance Rambouillet) is fully encompassed into the Metropolitan area of another city (in here Paris), than it will be fully encompassed into the metro area of the larger city.

I could indeed have shown all the urban areas in Ile-de-France, as Hardouin proposed me, but the main issue is that those urban areas are all touching each others. Furthermore, there are tons of them (Only in Seine-et-Marne, there are 50 of them), imagine how messed up would be the map once picturing all of them. As the urban areas which interested me where actually the urban cores of metropolitan areas, I thought it was more significant to call them this way. A metropolitan area is indeed divided into an urban core and a periurban belt, it's as such a lot more accurate to consider them this way. And once this being said, I've removed the word "urban area" from the title for the sake of clarity, since "urban area" didn't appear anymore on the map.

Now about the table being not enough visible, I agree with you this could be a problem, however I believe the informations which are pictured on it are important. Hence I would personally propose to create a wiki table on the Paris page, just below the map, so that those figures would be more visible. Of course, if we do so, we would have to create a chapter called "Paris metropolitan area", to be sure of what we're talking about. Maybe keeping things as they are isn't such a bad idea. If the table isn't visible on the Paris page, we would simply have to open the map to show it. I could also reduce by 50% the size of the map. I've posted it big because that's how I've edited it. Metropolitan 14:40 19 february 2006 (CET)

We both know that I know how the INSEE calculates its statistics. Yet what does this have to do with eliminating all indication to the the Paris urban area - or in other words, the Paris agglomeration - to present the plan in its entirety as representing only the ' Paris metropolitan area' - and this as a major element of 'Paris'? How can two people on the same day have their attention turned - in ignoring questions raised in the rest of the article - to the same 'metropolitan area' obsession, and in that be 'in agreement' on a glaringly illogical conclusion on a subject that can be found next to nowhere in any official documentation outside the INSEE's own publications - and even there, sparingly? Talk about... coincidence. Again? How many times? THEPROMENADER 15:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh please stop your crap the Promenador because this is really getting way too far. I'm sorry to use words such as that one but there is sincerly no others. The purpose of the map I've presented was to show the BUILT-UP AREAS. Furthermore the concept of urban area doesn't disappear from the map as it's clearly visible under the denomination of urban core. What do you want ? You want me to revert it to the former version. I could do so but this will be less pertinent since it wouldn't respect INSEE official denominations. And stop accusing me of things which don't exist. If you really want to know, I personally like a lot more the concept of agglomeration than the concept of metropolitan area, but that's just my personal opinion. And I won't remove the metropolitan area from this map only to please you because that would indeed only add subjectivity to a map which have as purpose to try to be objective.

Is there any kind of moderator on Wikipedia ? I have to talk about this to someone else because I can't bear it anymore. Metropolitan 17:03 19 february 2006 (CET)

Please do seek moderation. As for the matter at hand: map designed to show foremost an agglomeration is not titled 'metropolitan area' - nothing could be simpler ni concept. Where did I say I wanted to 'remove' Metropolitan area info? Also, there was never any question of changing the title in your discussion with Hardouin - so why the change? THEPROMENADER 16:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, there's no point in having a title anyway so I've removed it from the map. About why I've changed the title, I've already explained it to you. As in the legend I've switched the denomination "urban area" to "urban core", I believed that the urban area thing in the title became pointless. Now there's no title and I guess it's better this way. ThePromenader, you should really relax. And I'm still waiting for your excuses. Metropolitan 18:09 19 february 2006 (CET)

I never asked for these changes - I said simply that it should be clear to people what the map is showing. Actually "urban area" was fine. I am calm - very, actually. I'm sorry but the excuses will not be forthcoming as long as I have doubts - and I told you that the best way to know for sure is judge by the edits you make. If you do indeed participate in making this page referencable and widely understood, they may not be far in the future: in the meantime, evidence and multiple coincidence weighs too heavily against you so I can only wait and see for now. I'm sure you can understand this. THEPROMENADER 17:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh my! Promenader, you're going too far. You really need to walk away from Wikipedia for a few days and quit your obsession with conspiracies and stolen identities. I've already had to take 4 months of your harassment, and now you are also harassing other users as well. Unbelievable!

As for the map, Metropolitan I thought about this: the concept of pôle urbain is a bit mysterious for people not familiar with the nitty grities of INSEE, so perhaps it would be better not to show the urban areas/metropolian areas of Provins, Nemours, and Monterreau-fault-Yonne altogether, and live only the urban area/metropolian area of Paris. Then I also suggest that instead of coloring the urban area of Paris in pale blue you simply outline its borders. At the moment there is a color for the urban area, and a different color for the built up areas, which is quite confusing. You outlined the border of the metropolitan area with a blue dotted line. You could also outline the border of Paris urban area with, say, a black dotted line, and remove Provins, Nemours, and Monterreau. Then the legend would only say: blue dotted line is the limit of Paris metropolitan area, and black (or any color you choose) dotted line is the limit of Paris urban area (not need to mention "pôle urbain" anymore). You see what I mean? What do you think of it? Hardouin 22:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the requested changes. I've also reduced the size of the map, as it was unnecessary big. now if you're allowed to edit the protected page it would be great to do so. After all, I haven't made that map for the only purpose of being discussed in the talk page. Metropolitan 17:58 20 february 2006 (CET)

What's slightly surreal here is that the plan in question resembles almost exactly (minus the chart) one already existing in the Paris article - and this fact has never been mentioned anywhere in the exchange above. Forget that it's me who made it - the goal here is improvement, and I already noted the above plan's merits. Yet I thought this normally next to impossible oversight worthy of mention. I might also add that the above plan looks a lot now like one 'already requested' if one would care to look in the archives. Just more food for thought.

Also, from an objective foreigner's point of view, this map is confusing as its most dominant element is the green Île-de-France region - whose existence is indicated nowhere on the map. An uninformed viewer would ask himself 'why does the colour end there - and in a border to boot? The legend indicates only that this is an 'unbuilt area.'" I kind of like the red-on-green look - and thought the plan much clearer before with one colour for the built-up areas and another for their extension to the commune edges of the 'urban area' statistical arena. Perhaps the 'unbuilt' green can be extended (in a lighter colour?) throughout the whole map rectangle, and the legend inserted into a white field or something of the like. Completed, the plan could have a (geographically) generalistic title such as "Urban Spread in the Paris Region." I think this would make the plan more direct, clear and complete in its purpose.

As for imposing the plan right away: there's a few more important things to get out of the way before the page is unblocked. THEPROMENADER 10:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: The plan's chart, transformed into a text table and placed underneath the plan, could make an informative infobox for the 'demographics' section. This would also allow a title to appear over the plan itself instead of on it - and allow the numbers to be updated regularily. Just a thought. THEPROMENADER 10:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm somewhat confused by all this "metropolitan area" stuff, as it seems to have little to do with the subject of this article, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is about the city of Paris. It may be statistically useful to include all of these adjoining areas when referring to the economy of the region, but most other sources I've seen are significantly more limited in scope. An explanation would be most helpful. Tenebrous 12:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's in that purpose that I've made that map. Simply to show that the city of Paris is only the historical core of a much larger agglomeration. I believe this is an important information to mention. Paris agglomeration is generally an important chapter of Paris articles in encyclopedias. Metropolitan 18:03 20 february 2006 (CET)

And I have to second that. The Paris agglomeration is Paris' natural growth and is indeed mentioned as such in both English and French encylcopedias - especially when speaking of things such as population and immigration; yet unfortunately there are marked differences between the populations of Paris and its suburbs, which makes it necessary to detail each separately before speaking of the agglomeration as a whole. The Paris agglomeration's spread across administrative boundaries can make painting a unique picture complicated, as today individual departments (Paris, Val-de-Marne, etc) are where most economical statistical data (GDP, etc) is taken - yet this could be used to an advantage when locating, for example, different sectors of activity or isolating population density. It is also for this that the Île-de-France is indicated (as a sum of departments covered or infringed by the Paris agglomeration) when speaking of things like Paris' economy. The 'urban area' and 'metropolitan area' (or 'agglomeration' and 'extra-agglomeration commuter belt', respectively), on the other hand, are lump statistical wholes whose limits change almost yearly (especially since recently), and are areas where the only statistical data collected concerns individual activity (place of birth, education, place of work, etc). Hope this makes things clearer. THEPROMENADER 22:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan, about the map I must agree with some of what ThePromenader wrote above (yes that happens some times):

• I think it is better to remove your infobox from the map, we'll add it in the article next to the map
• I also think you should show built-up areas and unbuilt areas beyond Île-de-France. At present it gives the impression that beyond Île-de-France there is just a desert. In particular it would be good to go as far as the built-up areas of Creil and Chartres, just to show how close they are from the metropolitan area of Paris. Of course I don't know if you have built-up areas informartion for the territory beyond the border of Île-de-France.
• I think also that you should have a third category: "parks and forests". Parks and forests are not the same as agricultural land. For instance, at the moment the map gives the impression that a lot of Hauts-de-Seine département is still unbuilt land (people would probably think farms and fields), whereas in fact Hauts-de-Seine is built in its entirety, the rest is only parks and woods. So you could use green color for parks and forests, and yellow for farmland (or any other colors you choose).
• Finally, I wonder whether you could use more distinct colors for the borders of urban area and metro area. At the moment the blue and black colors look very similar, it's a bit confusing. What do you think? Also, in the legend, I think it would be better to say "Paris statistical urban area" (adding the word "statistical") because otherwise there are many English speakers who may be puzzled as to what's the difference between urban area and built-up area (in English these two words are synonyms). We have to make it extra-clear that one is a statiscal territory, while the other is the actual geographical extent of built-up. Hardouin 12:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, many things have been said by both you and ThePromenader and I'll try to answer in details.

• I agree about removing the table and placing it beside the map. Informations on the table are in my opinion important as they give strong indications about the demographic weights of each elements shown in the map. Anyway, I've removed it from the map.
• As the green was obviously too dark, I've switched it to a lighter yellow. It's been actually painful to edit because I work on Paintshop and I had merged all layers without saving them as such. Anyway, I could change colours in editing the palette.
• I've switched the black of the urban area to a green. Maybe you still believe that the colours are too close of the metro area, but unfortunately the dots have to be dark in order to be visible. A lighter colour tend to not be that visible.
• I've changed the organization and the denomination in the legend. Maybe it's clearer this way.
• I can't add built-up informations outside Ile-de-France for the simple reason that I have not those informations. All the informations I've got comes from two maps actually. The first one comes from the Ile-de-France prefecture (showing built-up areas). second one comes from the INSEE (showing metropolitan areas around Paris).

Okay I agree that I could add the woods, but that's a lot of pain you couldn't imagine. Maybe the best solution could be simply to check if we can't post the IDF prefecture map as such. It's maybe not necessarily protected by copyrights (as it's public). Here is a pdf version showing all the different elements very well (built-up areas, woods/parks, agricultural areas). Metropolitan 14:55 21 february 2006 (CET).

Just a thought, what do you think about adding some elements of interests to the map such as the location of the Eiffel Tower, the Versailles castle or the major airports ? If you like the idea, I've uploaded an exemple of how it could look like in here. Metropolitan 16:09 21 february 2006 (CET).

Yeah, I know it must be hard to make such a map, so you do only what you can do of course. About the parks and forests, they are already shown on the IDF prefecture map. How did you create the build up areas? Did your software automatically convert from the IDF prefecture map? Then maybe your software could also convert the parks and forests areas into a special color. I don't know how it works... Otherwise, for borders, here is my suggestion: use your dark green color for département and région boudaries, then use the red color for the unité urbaine, and use black color for the metropolitan area. That way I think statistical limits will be much more visible. Finally, as for the elements of interests, it seems like a good idea, as long as they are still visible when the map is in a small scale. My only comments are: we don't need Chateau de Montmorency, we don't need Parc de Sceaux, and we don't need St Denis Basilica, there's nothing really exceptional about these. On the other hand, I think you should add Rungis wholesale market and Saint-Denis Stade de France, which are key structuring elements of the metropolitan area. Maybe also add Rambouillet? (since it is used so often for international conferences) Maybe also add Chantilly? (an interesting case of a very famous place in the metro area but located beyond the borders of IDF) Hardouin 16:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I haven't simply switched colours. I had actually to recreate all urban areas using polygons, and it took really a lot of time. The idea to start again only to differenciate woods and parks from agricultural areas is really not a great perspective to me. Maybe another approach has to be used... maybe we should simply edit the Prefecture's map. Unfortunately, the thing which annoys me with the prefecture's map is that it shows random names of municipalities which aren't necessarily the largest or the most noticeable. The map looks less clear because of this. Unfortunately, erasing the name isn't as easy as saying it. About the name of things to add, well, you're right about the Stade de France instead of St-Denis Basilique (even if that basilique hosts the tombs of the Kings of France). I could also agree about Montmorency, however, I believe the only way to let the map remaining clear is to not add sites which are outside of Ile-de-France. Chantilly isn't that important anyway. You're maybe right about Rungis however I wonder if it's not better to stick in "touristic" sites. Metropolitan 19:04 21 february 2006 (CET).

Recreate all urban areas using polygons?... Does that mean you actually drew the thousands of little built-up areas by hand? Hardouin 20:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, somewhere I'm a freak... I know. :-p Metropolitan 13:22, 22 february 2006 (CET).

I'd like to know why (and how) you would have do that - polygons? From a database? Or do you mean paths? Perhaps you mean you had to outline the UU's fringe communes... THEPROMENADER 12:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, I found a map that shows the built-up areas beyond the borders of IDF: www.ifen.fr/donIndic/Donnees/corine/cartes/idf.pdf. Have a look at it. I don't know if you can use it to fit in the white areas of your map beyond the borders of IDF. Probably a bit complicated to adjust everything, but maybe it's do-able with a little of experimenting. You tell me. Hardouin 17:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can always try by yourself, but I'm not sure if I'm qualified enough for such a task. Anyway, that Corine map is really great. Do you believe we can edit it and save it as a self-made Public domain document ? I believe it would be important to add administrative borders, probably INSEE urban and metro area of Paris, and to better underline the rivers. What do you think about it ? Metropolitan 19:11 21 february 2006 (CET).

Unfortunately I don't have the right softwares to edit maps, so I cannot do it myself. The Corine map is not as detailed and accurate as you IDF prefecture map, so it's better use your IDF prefecture map. I thought the Corine map would be great as a tool to add the urban areas that are beyond the border of IDF, but that means doing lots of cut and paste with your map, and if you don't know how to do it, well you don't (I don't either). If you come up with something new keep me posted. Hardouin 20:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am equipped enough to do all the needed manips, and make it smooth to boot - I have the entire Adobe CS suite for my work. I could have a go at it if I know where all the original files are - that AU border looks more precise than mine, and the built-up/urban areas are a must-do as well. I have original IDF forest/farm PDF's so these could be stripped and incorporated too - as the vectors are there, it's only a question of scale and colour. I'm all for making a demographic map/infobox - that way we could get all the dry statistical data out of the text and leave room for things more descriptive. This done, and the demographic info grouped on this plan, the 'other' map could be stripped of its AU/UU info to become one purely administrative. THEPROMENADER 21:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've succeeded to make a blank map showing built-up areas, wooded areas and agricultural areas with no writings at all (it took me a lot of time as I had to check to be sure of what I was doing). You can find it here. It's in 256 colours so if you don't like the colours they are easy to edit. Department borders are also appearing on the map, however, the urban and metro areas don't. The size is 1749x1449 pixels. I believe that's enough large for our needs. Hardouin is right, that map is more accurate than the corine map. I believe it's a better basis for what is needed. You can edit it as you want, but I can also do it from that basis, it's up to you. What would be important is I think to show on the map all the areas which would be detailed in the table (mainly departments and urban/metro areas). What do you think ? I could maybe do that on tomorrow afternoon. Metropolitan 02:13 22 february 2006 (CET).

I've remade the map completely from scratch. I think this version is a lot better than the former one. Built-up areas are pictured in a more accurate way, the wooded areas are distinguished from the agriculural areas, the colours allows a better identification of each elements and finally the legend is better made. I've kept all layers in multiple save files so that I could edit things easily according to your remarks. Now I'm waiting for them. ;) Metropolitan 15:32, 22 february 2006 (CET).

(holding head) "Oh! The colors! The colors!"

LOL - Yes, all the info is there but... do you mind if I have a go at it? I have all the files you do, but all I'd need is that AU outline that seems to be more accurate than mine. I really liked the 'original' version - or the 'on green' color - it kind of had a feeling of 'satellite image' authenticity about it. Agriculture/forest/plain could be in earth tones (meaning 'natural' green/brown colors), and I think thin red lines could be used to designate administrative/statistical divisions. I suggest solid lines for administrative boundaries and dotted for statistical - this would make things very clear indeed, especially for the legend. This color scheme is actually much like those used for 'realist plans' much in fashion for in 1960's-'70's textbooks. A look that is not at all counter-actual today. THEPROMENADER 17:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: I would save the 'landmark' info for another plan - the demographic data will be information 'dense' enough IMHO - besides, the words tend to obfuscate/confuse the meaning/role of the department numbers. THEPROMENADER 17:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, I've made several attempts and that's the best colours you can get. The grey for built-up areas with two different greens for wooded and agricultural areas is totally unclear. I can change the transparent lines of the metro and urban areas to dotted lines, but I won't do much more than that. You can still try but I'm skeptic about the possibility to do better than this.

PS: Oops ! I didn't realized it earlier but I've misplaced the Versailles castle ! My bad ! Metropolitan 03:31, 23 february 2006 (CET).

Ah, somehow I prefered the previous version! I feel uneasy to tell you that Metropolitan, because you have spent lots of work on the maps, but the previous map was better at showing the built-up areas. In particular all the small built-up areas beyond the unité urbaine of Paris, especially in the many communes of Yvelines, now they have almost entirely disappeared from the map. In any case, I should have told you that already a few days ago, but there's a much MUCH better map than either the Corine map or the IDF prefecture map. That's the MOS 2003 map (MOS as in Modes d'occupation des sols). Perhaps the best would be to start all from scratch again. I understand if you're fed up with this. Perhaps it's better to leave it for a few days, and then come back with a fresh mind in a little while. The MOS 2003 map is here. Unfortunately right now the link doesn't work. Let me know if it works with you. The MOS 2003 map is complicated, it uses 11 different layers, that's why I didn't mention it before. However, it is simply the most perfect map we can find. We will have to merge the 11 layers into just 3 layers (1-built-up, 2-parks and forests, 3-farmland), but I will tell you more later when you are up for it again, and when the link works. Hardouin 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, on the MOS 2003 website I found some interesting statistics that discredit ThePromenader's "it's-all-rural" idea of Paris metropolitan area. As found here, between 1982 and 2003 the superficie of the built-up areas in Ile-de-France increased 20.4% (i.e. the total built-up area is one-fifth larger now than it was in 1982). This corresponds to an increase of 319.86 km², which is the size of City of Paris plus Seine-Saint-Denis altogether. In other words, in just 20 years it's an area as large as Paris and Seine-Saint-Denis that was built on the fringes of the agglomeration (in 77, 91, 78, and 95). As I have repeatedly stressed before, it's a fallacy to present IDF as "an essentially rural region". All the communes of IDF are interacting with the core urban area, they host more and more commuters, and they are more and more built up. I mean 319.86 km² is really a high number: that's two-third of the total built-up area of Berlin for instance (according to here, the total built-up area in Berlin today is 449 km²). I don't think there is any other built-up area in Europe that grew as much as Paris in the last 20 years. I mean just think about it, between 1982 (how old were you?) and now the equivalent of two-third of Berlin was built in the metropolitan area of Paris. The Germans are always boasting about how Berlin is the "construction site of Europe", yet they are very very far from having built as much in the last 20 years there.

Also for your information Promenader, you always say Paris cannot be compared with American metropolitan areas, it is not dense and packed with skyscrapers like American cities, well, FYI the agglomeration of Paris has the highest number of skyscrapers in Europe: 12 skyscrapers above 150 m (492 ft), ahead of Frankfurt (9 skycrapers above 150m), London (9 skyscrapers above 150m), and Moscow (7 skyscrapers above 150m). In fact there would probably be even more skyscrapers today in Paris if it had not been for the 1974 oil shock and people's opposition after the building of the Tour Montparnasse (note that people also opposed the building of the Tour Eiffel...). Pompidou and urban planners had not envisionned the Tour Montparnasse standing alone, and the Montparnasse area would probably resemble something like downtown LA today (not Chicago!) if their scheme had been completed. However, there are now new projects for skyscrapers in La Défense (perhaps a 600 m./2000 ft skyscraper if the chairman of La Défense has it his way), Levalois-Perret, Issy-les-Moulineaux, and even Paris proper (if Delanoë manages to persuade his Green "friends"), so the skyline of Paris may change again in the near future. Hardouin 02:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, you have at least clearly a common point with ThePromenader, it's that you're both as difficult and stuck on your ideas ! Now that I've added wooded areas you complain about the fact it makes the built-up aeras less visible... Am I dreaming or have I become a character of a Kafka book ??

I've drawn the former one myself, redrawing built-up aeras having that one as model, and it was necessarily more approximative because of this. The current one is more accurate. I've also tried to use a darker colour for the built-up aeras, so that they would be more visible, but it becomes ugly and we can't see anything about the departements of the petite couronne. Anyway, the point is to give a general look of what Paris agglomeration looks like, isn't it ? I hope that despite all you complaints about the colours of the map and the built-up aeras being not enough visible, I hope at least you and thePromenader agree that this map is still an improvement from what we have currently on the Paris page... don't you ? Sincerly... let's have a bit of moderation about this and you should both try to be more reasonable. The thing which is sure is that I won't make a third map. You both made me sick of that. Metropolitan 03:59, 23 february 2006 (CET).

Of course the map is an improvement over the old one, and for that thanks for all your work. No matter who does what, it much of that (and the developments and sources drawn thereupon) that will be going into the final version.

Hardouin, pick up any encyclopedia, and that's where my 'ideas' are concerning this article. My goal here isn't to say what 'is' urban and what 'isn't' - it is to repeat referential definitions of things as they are. My focus is "What can feasibly be called 'Paris' in a 'Paris' article?": the conclusion shared by all factual references is Paris and the Paris agglomeration, with each labelled as such. Simple as that. Comparison does not make truth - a selective comparison of similar aspects of two completely different objects can make them seem the same - so such comparisons are to be avoided unless so established and evident that they already widely present in many references. This is not a place to publish personal research, and certainly not personal research 'proving' the validity of personal opinion. I suggest clicking on 'verifiable' just under the edit window and reading the first line of the introduction there.

As for the plan - thanks for the links, and let's hope the 'best plan' website is up again soon. Changing things in Illustrator is not a chore and I will be back for your opinion on anything I may do - but unfortunately that won't be today as I have another 'location'. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 09:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've uploaded a newer version. I've put dotted lines for Paris metro and urban aeras, it's less visible but it's not that awful. I've also corrected the location of the Versailles castle. Metropolitan 18:46, 25 february 2006 (CET).

Enough already

I vote that Promenader and Hardouin both be permanently barred from editing this article. Your egotistical posing and bickering are a hinderance to other readers who have contributions to make. A pox on both your houses.

Just to inform you that on Wikipedia messages are usually signed and dated. If you don't have any account, well I don't know what you should do, probably post your IP (visible on the History page) as a signature. Thanks. Metropolitan 18:51, 25 february 2006 (CET).

The unnamed user does have a point. What I can't stand are the frequent references to "the archives." As if it's worth one's time to read all that rubbish! What is the matter with recognizing that Paris actually has a quite large metropolitan area? Whether it's an urban area, agglomeration, or conurbation; the nomenclature isn't all that important, just get over this ridiculous bickering. --Aquarelle 21:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing with this article - disproving one oft-repeated misconception (and the reverts and foggy retaliations to this) took discussion 'to the depth of detail' - where it need not be I myself will agree. Yet I don't think the goal here is to publish what "sounds all right." I was the first to question, so if that qualifies me for the "pain in the ass" award, so be it. I am not alone anymore should one care to read anything in the page above - damn the archives. It all comes down to choosing between "Paris has a metropolitan area" and "Paris is its metropolitan area": there's a huge difference, and only one has references. Yet to verify this, one will have to do the research. Pain, inn'it? THEPROMENADER 22:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary Aquarelle, I agree with Promenader on this, the matter might seem trivial but it's important to be accurate, otherwise Wikipedia becomes a Wiki-charade. Nomenclature is vital - why would anyone bother to distinguish between things like New York County, New York City and New York State? No offence to anybody who admires him, but if we allow misconceptions to flourish then we end up with people like President George W. Bush thinking that Africa is a country and not realising that it's a continent of many countries. Green Giant 23:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from comparing such different situations, Green Giant. We are, as they say, "hung up" over the nomenclature with three or four different terms that are incredibly similar, and in my opinion, none of us are qualified to interpret : reference sources, yes. Like many users, I'm sick of the bickering and self-righteous positions of certain users. Amoung many other things, we must stop taking defintions into our own hands and piously sticking to our own personally interpretations. --Aquarelle 17:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with avoiding any 'personal interpretion' of ambiguous terms - and ambiguous terms themselves. I've been over-elaborate in my explanations, but all I've been asking for (as far as fact is concerned) is that this article mirror as close as possible existing references - in speaking of subjects acessible to the majority. Specialty splinter==sub-article - this 'Just Paris' page should be but a very generalist 'doorway root' article! My dumb for getting bogged in the details - when perhaps they shouldn't even be here at all. THEPROMENADER 21:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am the anonymous commenter above. I will not post a signature because I was not making a suggestion on the substance of the article. Indeed, as personal and nasty as discussion on this article has become, who would want to identify herself, or propose any changes with an attribution? Facile perhaps, but it's called a chilling effect. Please swallow your pride, give up ownership of this article, and let others move on to update and contribute. You deserve to be barred from editing this article. Unsigned by 66.255.9.254 12:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your name at the end of comments, and observe our civility policy. Thanks. El_C 12:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a plea for civility. Look at the discussion above; I see little sign of it. Unsigned by 66.255.9.254 12:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (UTC)

I'm all for civility, but content is not 2ndry and no one is barred from this article, including yourself. Meanwhile, I renew my plea for you to sign your comments. It makes it much easier to read as a thread with different editors' comments. El_C 12:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, the incivility was the fruit of a heated but very well-documented revert war - between two contributors. It's over. Please - there's no need to spread this mood to present discussion. THEPROMENADER 12:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to the editing block being lifted. I will be identifiable by attribution with the edits I contribute.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.255.9.254 (talk • contribs)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Paris/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article has been rated B-class, but those who have rated it have not supplied any commentary about its lackings. A bit of input would be extremely helpful. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 07:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 21:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)