Talk:Saint-Denis, Seine-Saint-Denis

France: Paris / French communes High‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Paris task force.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject French communes, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Old text

I think this page is fantastic! I used the page as a basis for a project on Saint-Denis and got the top mark. My tutor wondered where I got all the information as the full history is only known by the most respected professers of Art History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.166.157.77 (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2003 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page is incredible! Quite literally, a fantasy or hoax. We've been had, fellow Wikipedians.... --Uncle Ed 18:10, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

see also: Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense/Saint Denis — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinHarper (talk • contribs) 00:37, 26 August 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reflection of reality

The article does so not reflect what it is like when you actually go there. I would go take a picture so people can look. Jackaranga 09:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heraldry from French page

David V Houston (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quartier du Cornillon et Stade de France - 03.04.05.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Quartier du Cornillon et Stade de France - 03.04.05.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old page history

Some old history that used to be at the title "Saint-Denis" is now at Talk:Saint-Denis/Old history. Graham87 01:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

primary topic

How was decided that this was Saint-Denis WP:PRIMARY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uspzor (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 February 2015

WP:WP:UCRN. See below the most common usage in reliable sources is to the Paris suburb. So at the time you asked that question that was the primary topic for the name. -- PBS (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (dab page pending). — kwami (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin closure)

– The commune of Saint-Denis, north of Paris, with population 109,408, is currently primary for both Saint-Denis and Saint Denis. Surely Saint-Denis, Réunion, with a larger population of 145,238 and the capital and largest city of the island of Réunion, is at least as important as the smaller Parisian commune. Also, the Saint himself, Denis, would be an important contender for these topics. It seems to me that there is no clear primary topic here, and the disambiguation page should be primary and reside at either Saint-Denis or Saint Denis, with the other one redirecting to the disambig. — Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. So would the new Saint-Denis be analogous to fr:Saint-Denis? Eric ^talk 13:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric: yes, that's exactly how it would be. Interestingly the French Wiki has two separate dab pages at fr:Saint-Denis and fr:Saint Denis. I don't think we'd want to go down that route, the terms are sufficiently similar to warrant just one dab page. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, @Amakuru, sounds good to me. As far as I know, French hyphenates saint names when designating a place or structure (e.g. church), but not when referring to the saint him- or herself. I don't know if that's a rule or just a custom. So if we could confirm that, it might make a case for emulating fr.wp and having both. Eric ^talk 21:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric: my preference is still for one disambig page for both terms, to be honest. Yes, that may be the French custom, but it's not one that our English readers will necessarily be familiar with. In English, "Saint Denis" and "Saint-Denis" would be indistinguishable... we wouldn't know that one is a saint and one is a place. Per WP:DPAGE, the two terms which differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks, so could be combined. Thanks! — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support all variations should lead to the disambiguation page, or the saint's article. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support these moves 76.120.162.73 (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@kwami before you decided to move this page did you do an analysis of common usage in reliable sources? As no analysis was done what was the justification based on At policy for the move? There are many dozens of links to what is now a dab page. Why did you not first move all the links in the articles from Saint-Denis to Saint-Denis, Seine-Saint-Denis before redirecting Saint-Denis to the dab page? -- PBS (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, though experience suggests the city on Reunion is the most common. But the discussion was unanimous in addition to being reasonable. As for changing links, anyone can do that: I merely closed the discussion. It's quite likely many of the original links were misdirected in the first place -- it would have been inappropriate to move them all to the new name en masse. — kwami (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@kwami. Google books searches: Saint-Denis Paris about 30,100 Saint-Denis, Réunion about 2,500. Saint-Denis Paris -Réunion About 34,600, Saint-Denis -Paris Réunion About 2,000. So with a simple search metric which takes a few minutes to do suggests that Saint-Denis Paris appears more than 10 times as often as Réunion in reliable sources based on a Google Book search. At the very least as an experienced editor before you closed the discussion, you ought to have had a look yourself at this sort of metric and presented the information on this page so that other editors could make informed decisions based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. What you have done is made a move that appears to be away from one that already reflected the wider consensus as contained in the AT policy, because you counted local votes without giving any guidance to those editors who took part in the discussion about what a search of Google Books appears to reveal and what wider consensus is (based on Wikipedia AP policy and naming conventions).

You did not "merely close the discussion" you moved articles and changed a redirect, from an article to a dab page (history). In changing the redirect you broke the links in many articles in a way that a simple move does not and I think as a responsible editor you should clean up after yourself. "It's quite likely many of the original links were misdirected in the first place" then even more so that you should have cleaned them up before you altered the redirect. If you consider that to be too much work, then the responsible thing to do was not to close the requested move, before finding someone willing to make the necessary changes -- for example asking user:Amakuru (who proposed the move) to alter the incoming links to Saint-Denis and then and only then changing the redirect to link to the dab page. -- PBS (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: Protocol and clean-up tasks notwithstanding, do you think the end result is ok? It seems to me in keeping with general Wikipedia practice that Saint-Denis should be a dab page, and that both cities' articles should have titles that include their geographic location, either after a comma or in parentheses, analogous to fr.wp: fr:Saint-Denis, fr:Saint-Denis_(Seine-Saint-Denis), fr:Saint-Denis_(La_Réunion).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric (talk • contribs)

@PBS Being part French (other half being British), I can tell you that, within a French context, Saint-Denis just north of Paris is the overwhelming primary topic. The city in Réunion only has anecdotical importance, and the saint would seldomly be referred to in everyday use (on top of being written without the hypen and with a lowercase s, in French, that is). But knowing the French situation, I'm biased. I don't know how non-French people might perceive this. --Midas02 (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"It seems to me in keeping with general Wikipedia practice that Saint-Denis should be a dab page". It is not general Wikipedia practice, see PRIMARYTOPIC. At more than 10 to one Google Books indicates that there is clearly a primary topic and to date nothing has been shown that to be untrue. This is inevitable as many people visit that area of Paris, not only for other sites but for sporting events such as Rugby Union's Six Nations games held annually at the Stade de France (so it is a tourist destination for English speaking people), but more significantly from the point of view of reliable sources it has been fought over twice during the last two years of the Napoleonic wars, and was also the scene of fighting in the 1871 wars and has been a significant place in most French revolutions (Including the Paris Commune (1871) and the student unrest in 1968), as well as the district Seine-Saint-Denis (often shorted to "Saint-Denis") being the locaiton 21st century rioting.[1][2]

But that is not the main point (there can always be another RM to fix the move), it is that the move was made in a disorganised way that broke links in many other articles unnecessarily. -- PBS (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's revert it then. It's clear the move procedure was flawed, as the Primary Topic requirements weren't being considered at all, and a case wasn't built for stripping the article of its status as a primary topic. --Midas02 (talk) 06:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no passion about this topic; I merely offered my opinion that Saint-Denis as dab page seemed reasonable to me. I will add that as someone who has lived in Paris and passed through the city of Saint-Denis many times, the primary topic I associate with the name Saint-Denis is not the city, but the royal abbey that played such a large role in French history. This is partly why the fr.wp approach makes sense to me. It would be nice to see more editors weighing in here. Eric ^talk 12:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passing through—the dab page is a bit of a mess. I'd expect the primary topic to be either the city or the church itself, though I lean towards the former (i.e., the St. Denis basilica is in St. Denis). More often than not, I'd expect St. Denis to link to the city and definitely not a dab page. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]