User talk:ThePromenader/Archive 1 2014 November

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paris, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Second Empire. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

GAR

Paris, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Tim riley talk 14:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Paris

Good luck with it. Way too much editing going on with it, which is why so many issues have cropped up. I'm completely distancing myself from it now. A lesson learned to avoid editing core high-traffic articles. Way too many differences in opinion and problems to make it worthwhile. The best thing you could probably do would be to get it to FA status and try to get it protected.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I only really started looking at it a few days ago, so I don't really know who did what - all I can do (as I already suggested to someone else) is look back to how the article was when it gained GA status. I don't see the utility in pointing fingers though, although our recent troubles haven't helped things. My changes have been relatively minor, but I'm sure that those will be conveniently... well, whatever. I'm already working on making the correction the admin (?) noted. Can I still count on you to have a look at the article to see whether it 'passes' (either GA or FA)? I don't have much experience in judging that. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

I realize this is not the intervention you wanted, but I have blocked you for 48 hours for your conduct in the Paris issue. With this [1] posting, at the latest, you were back exactly at the level of hostility where you were some weeks ago, and this is exactly what I asked you all to avoid. Metropolitan, in contrast, was trying to work out the content issue, making the self-correcting edits he promised, and other editors seem to now have settled on his restructuring as a suitable version to further work from. This may come as a surprise to you, but I actually do see your conduct as the largest problem in the article right now. You should serious consider modifying your approach to this topic, or if you can't stay away from it for a while. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I was kind of expecting it, but your comment would assume that there's no motivation for my conduct. I have stayed away from it for years already, only to find the exact same situation as before. You don't think there's anything to that, nothing worthy of looking into, it's just me getting all angry for no reason? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

"other editors seem to now have settled on his restructuring as a suitable version to further work from." That by no means whatsoever means that this is a good thing. Even Tim riley has recently commented on how ludicrously bad the article has become. Promenader is one of the few here with his head screwed on. What is really worse for wikipedia, let them walk all over it and degrade it even further or one editor who cares about content defending it? If you've recently come out of a Jimbo convention Fut it's probably the latter you'd opt for.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr B correctly represents my view. When I reviewed the article for GA last year it met all the criteria, in my view. Since then it has been turned into a pig's breakfast, and as far as I can see the only editor doing anything to repair the damage has just been blocked for his pains. Madness! Tim riley talk 14:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(wiping tear) Dawwwww, guys ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 16:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

SiefkinDR's last question[2] was very pertinent. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 06:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about the bad block by Fut Perv, he has a history of doing those. Cassianto^talk 15:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't being an admin amount to a little more than opening doors where there's noise and shouting "shhhhhh!"? ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Hello and Wow

Hello. Thank you for your kind words!
Well, I'm not a professional cartographer, but as a former helicopter pilot I used to use them a lot. So, when I saw 7-8 years ago how poor the maps were here on WP, I decided to create my own ones to illustrate some articles I was writing. After that it happened that I turned, like you say, mapaholic and it became my main contribution here.
Unfortunately I've got now less time to give to WP and I’m for now in a sleeping state for what concerns contributions.
Greetings. Sting (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, Sting. For me it started when I was a kid - "improving" city maps, and that led to architecture school... I'll love to know more about how you got/treated the topiography data. I've been just taking whatever tidbits the IGN will throw me, and I've got tons of urban map data, but topiography has always been a hole I've wanted to fill. And your maps are beautiful! Is the colour scheme/typography yours? I always end up using Illustrator in the end. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm completely autodidact in map creation. Back in 2006 we were literally drawing our maps, copying free printed maps available on line, mostly US gov maps. That was a tough work and leaded also to too many approximations in my taste. Then I came on topographic maps created by de:user:Captain Blood using GIS data. That was completely new for us and opened a whole world of possibilities so I started digging that direction. He used GMT software but it was too complicated for me because it used command lines and wasn't Win friendly. Then I found a free and easy to use little software, 3DEM, which isn't supported any more but it allowed me to create my first maps using GIS data: political style maps with only shorelines and borders, as well as relief maps. When the SRTM data came out it was a huge improvement with really precise data, allowing to create small scale maps: good free GIS data was scarce at that time. Creating more maps, with bigger data, I needed a better software. WinGRASS was excellent but also very complicated to use, Quantum GIS wasn't what it is now, so I eventually purchased Global Mapper which is powerful yet easy to use and at a reasonable price. It's the one I still use.

As a map user, I knew what information I wanted to see on maps and how it should be represented. Right at the beginning, the representation of the shadow of the relief was a problem. It was too dark and didn't allow to easily read the labels, or it was almost invisible, or it made the colours of the whole map look really dull. So I started to work on this for weeks and came to what I was looking for, using alpha channels on the brightest tones. That's the result you see now on the maps.

You can see the evolution through which I passed over one and half year looking at the three following maps: File:Via Egnatia-en.jpg, File:Battle of Delium detail map-fr.svg and File:Crete topographic map-fr.svg.

Yes I created the colour scheme which became the standard for map creation on the French cartographic workshop and which is now also widely used through WP. Back in 2006-2007 there was no standard on map creation and each one made it the way he felt it, for the best or the worst, basing his colours and style on the printed map he used as source and his own taste. It was a mess and there was also a problem: colours schemes (as well as several other things) of printed maps are fine on paper but usually not on a computer screen. So in order for all of us work in a same direction and ease the exchanges and rework (corrections, translations, etc.) of maps, I started to elaborate standards for map creation with tutorials and colour schemes which would be adapted for the Web, easy to read and pleasing to the eyes. For weeks or even months I created the schemes, tested them on new maps, showed them to the other contributors, asking them what they thought, reworked the schemes and so on. After that it turned the standard on WP-fr and eased a lot the map creation. A nice consequence of this, but it was on purpose, is that when you see a map from WP on an other site on the Web, you can directly say “That's a map from WP!”. I think that's nice to have our own specific touch.

It seems the schemes were well made because they are now used for over five years without problems or alteration. By the way, they even spread outside WP as at least one French hobbyist uses our exact schemes and creates very nice maps (unfortunately I lost the link to its site).

Since that time and with the development of Quantum GIS, fr:user:Yug and others wrote tutorials using that software. They are here but there's also a link to its English translation. Sources for data are listed on that page (English translation available too).

I don't do city maps. I tried once or twice but I'm really not good at that so I prefer let other better skilled contributors make them. Integrate the relief in a city map will be a difficult task. I made some tests but didn't find a satisfactory solution. The problem is to be able to keep each data clearly readable and I think there are too many overlapping information in this case to do it. You'll have to make tests and find a way to get a good and long lasting solution, if it's possible. Sting (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your story sounds a lot like mine Sting, but I've concentrated on the city part of things - our respective obsessions seem quite complimentary ; ) I'm using GlobalMapper too, but only to compile the data I want to show (and its projection) before exporting it as layers into Illustrator (through PDF, a roundabout way, but hey). For the city of Paris, I've got data (through my work with the city) down to the streetlights and letterboxes - but making a comprehensible city map is also about only including the data needed for the purpose of the map.

My graphic design and website design trades (and neuroscience research ; ) have also helped me a lot in 'map ergonomics': if a human eye can attach a certain color scheme to a certain 'purpose', it will - in fact, it's automatic. So, for a simple example, if you use yellow text to indicate elevation, black text for annotation, orange for city names, and black italicised text for footnotes, the 'attention' can 'switch' from one 'task' to another depending on what aspect of the map the viewer is focused on. Of course it's possible to be more subtle than that; that was just for the example.

Illustrator is great because it gives a whole spectrum of subtle 'text-pop' tools: for example, adding a wide black quasi-transparent 'outer glow' around text 'pops' it towards the viewer: one couldn't even tell that it's there in just looking at the map, but in illustrator, when you're setting up the 'outer glow' effect, just clicking/unclicking the 'preview' checkbox will show you the enormous difference it makes.

I just made a map a couple days ago - rather simplistic, but it's here (and it uses the 'outer glow' technique - without it, the inner-city text would be unreadable). I've done a few more maps for the Paris article, too. I also have a website dedicated to Paris, that I stopped updating over six years ago -because- of the map-making difficulties - I have to look into getting it going again (with modern technology). I just keep it around because it's referenced for particular topics not often covered in English. Topoiography entered the picture for me when I was trying to make a map of Paris' hydrography (and the implantation of Roman/renaissance aqueducts on it), but the best I could find was 19th-century elevation data. Perhaps that has changed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Elevation map of Paris' valleys and highest buttes (altitude in metric and imperial). Also included: Paris' existing and defunct, major and minor rivers and waterways.

I use GM too only to compile data, like you, and export them in tiff and svg because it's much easier to control the visual aspect (line thickness is an example) in dedicated software.

Yes, it's important to follow an organized and long lasting pattern/scheme because it will ease the readiness of the maps for the user. That's also why the process of creating the scheme took so long years ago. You can find our template for maps here, but I don't know if there's one specific for city maps.

I use in some photographic applications outer glow or drop shadow to pop-up text but never did in maps. That's a good idea, specially the way you did, which stays invisible.

You made a nice map, clear and clean. Congrats! Just one thing: for this type of map avoid the jpeg format and prefer the png one to keep quality up if you want to stay with bitmap, but a svg version would be of the highest interest for the project, allowing easy translation, corrections or modifications. Also, don't forget to add categories. Sting (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right - I actually wanted to upload it in several versions, but got sidetracked while looking at how to do that - thanks for the heads-up and the kind compliment. ; )

I'll have a look for sure! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: If you really want control over the map details as long as possible, keep it in vector. If you're using image topiography, you can 'place' it into illustrator without modifying it, load all the vector layers on top of that - you'd then have control over everything, plus have a better typography library, plus you have access to all the photoshop gizmos (if you need them, because some of them (like outer glow) are availabel natively in illustrator). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:24, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, mom, I made another one! I'm having some problems with the svg renderer, though - it's either Wiki or my browser - it won't render certain styles at low resolutions. Have you ever had this problem? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep! A nice map!

MediaWiki's engine isn't always accurate to display svg files even if everything is fine in their code. This happens mainly on fonts and patterns. That's why I usually upload also a jpeg (when it's a topographic or relief map with shadows) or png version to use in articles' pages, the higher quality svg one being kept on Commons for translations and modifications purpose. That way I'm sure the visitor will see the map as intended. Sting (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Okay, will do - three formats?! Why not. For my .svg's, after a bit of experimenting, I ended up converting all fonts to outlines... more load, but less headache. And it stays puuurty ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Two versions: 1 svg and 1 jpeg OR png, depending on what is represented on the map.

And yes, I forgot that one: transform the text into paths. I used that trick once or twice, here for example, for the text following a path which was incorrectly displayed. In that case do not forget to keep a layer with the original text as text beneath the other layers (= hidden on display), that way you keep the ease of translations. I know I repeat that last point, but if I do it's because I think (and I'm not alone) it's a very important feature for the WP project. Sting (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Paris PC 1859 jms.jpg

Hi ThePromenader! Who is the author of this map?--Paris 16 (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! That is a map from the BNF (Bibliotheque Nationale Francais), and I did the colouring. Is there a problem? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Paris 16:? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@Paris 16: - is there a problem? Yooo hooo! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry ThePromenader! There are no copyright problem but can you add some informations: author, date, source. Thanks!--Paris 16 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's all there, but I'll elaborate a bit. You mean the BNF origin? Okay, I can add that. Cheers! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

History Style

User:Blue Indigo, jus' writing you from my little cage here ; )

There's many ways to go about writing history.

There is an 'overall place, event and effect' method: imagine coming into a shantytown and asking a local how it got that way: their answer would tend to be generalistic and mentioning only key characters ("There was a drought, then a famine, then a riot, and the King kicked us all out, and now we're starving outside of the walls of the city.");

Then there is 'chronicling' which, in describing the same thing, would be much much longer: "The drought had lasted all summer, and the hungry people were clamouring around the town square. The king had gathered his guards to protect him from a possible riot, but when the people grew too unruly, he set his guards against them and drove them out of the city. Banished from their houses, they were forced to gather what supplies they could and camp there." This wouldn't make sense if you cut half of it, and I think that's what's happening here.

I guess one must keep in mind the overall 'place, why' context when concision is primordial. For example, the Louvre was built to keep Vikings out (well, inhibit a similar attack techinique as theirs) from the west, and the Bastille was built to keep rioting Parisians in from the east: in placing the context first, we've already indirectly described the general city ambiance at the time. (scratching head) I hope that was clear. That example could almost be funny if it was said right... anyhow. I hope you get the idea. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear embastillé Promenader,

Thank you for taking the time to give me your view, with two "cinematographic" ways to describe it, with my preference going to your second script :), and please accept my apologies for not acknowledging your note before today.

Taking time from my own personal work, I was following yours last Sunday with much appreciation, as I thought it was constructive. Now I am left not understanding the workings of Wikipedia putting you under house arrest...

à bientôt out of your little cage!

--Blue Indigo (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hehe - so nice of you to visit. ; )

I was saying that I think the first 'scenario' is the one to follow for the paris article - it's the only way to describe a lot of events in an understandable, informative but roundabout way. The text will still be long(ish), but the 'chronicling' (the second scenario) could begin in the 'main' History of Paris article, and go even further into detail in the 'main', say, 'French Revolution' article.

In the second scenario, if any text is cut, the rest won't make sense, and as I didn't see any heed paid to the content at all in the latest cutting, the result is, and will be, just... incomplete and weird. All I see now is a 'making room' for... something. Or perhaps it's there already, I haven't really looked, but there's no mention of any planned additions on the talk page, although there should be. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

... we simply can't let you wither away in your bastille! How much longer are you there & should we bring you apples or oranges?

I understood very well what you wrote above. Even with the first scenario, there will be argumentation because events will have to be left out, which will not please everybody. I am beginning to think that Paris being Paris - check its history, if you have nothing else to do :) - its latest battleground is Wikipedia.

If you are still embastillé next 14 July, we'll come & liberate you!

Courage! --Blue Indigo (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

This is becoming funny. I'm going to be out tomorrow morning ; )

I don't think anyone would complain if the events are lain out better than they are now... it may seem like a 'glossing over' though, yes. But the inattentive cuts probably means that each section has to be rewritten anyway. Would you mind if I gave it a go for the 17th century (because there's nothing left of that multiple amputee but a hand anyway - it's dead.) ? That's the best way I have of explaining, and if you like the result, maybe you can go forward from there. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and a file-shaped cake would be nice ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ça, c'est la meilleure! You certainly are free to work on the 17th century, whether I would mind or not! If you have noticed, my contributions consist mostly in correcting errors in dates, events & French spelling.

Right now, I do not feel like touching the article & discover the following day that all has been reversed or my contributions hacked off. But I will support anyone who does a good job at it, so that the article is not an "amputee" or a "fingerless hand".

File-shaped cake... en chocolat?

--Blue Indigo (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Mais oui, c'est gentil! ; ) Forêt Noire, s'il vous plait - avec un ~soupçon~ de cognac.

That's usually what happens - the dissuasion. No, I didn't notice - I was busy translating (the urbanisme section from the French article) in my own corner, but I did notice your talk page messages and assumed that you were working on it. So the text you were citing wasn't your work? Sacrébleu!. But don't give up, I'll be leaving some notes about editing habits tomorrow and hopefully things will get better. But wait, if you didn't contribute any content, how was your text 'hacked off'? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(rolling eyes) This reads like a for-American (air quotes) "culture" film. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 18:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah! I did not express myself very well: what I mean is that I have not written whole paragraphs in articles, although whole sentences one after the other: yes! Have been doing mostly corrections on facts & dates. One example: la colonne de Juillet place de la Bastille where it was stated that it was built by Louis Philippe to honor the patriots who died in the 1830 & 1848 revolutions... which my eyes caught. Somewhere I put a note that yes, LP had built the Juillet colonne to honor those who had died in July 1830 during the revolution that brought him to power. But 1848? Really? Before or after fleeing France incognito, with the fear of being caught like Louis XVI at Varennes? That's the kind of stuff I look for, and naturally, rewrite; but I am not writing whole articles like some of you do. As I said, I did extensive editing on Paris, plus adding to the arrondissement: that's the work that has been removed. But it is not lost as all can be retrieved by rolling back to the B.C., i.e. Before Cutting era.

In fact, why did not you revert where you had stopped? That would have put your work & others' back... or would that be considered beginning an edit war? No matter what, you are now under house arrest... For some reason, I am smiling!

Up to the time I joined "l'équipe de Paris", I never had any of my work reverted or removed, but I have not been with Wikipedia very long. However, I do not take badly or personally what's happening at "Paris" because I see that it is a game some like to play & it has nothing to do with the exactitude of the work. It is interesting to follow.

Hope you're enjoying yourself in your prison. Except for the fact that they were not free, the Bastille was not bad for all prisoners, some had forêts noires & champagne.

Only "un soupçon de cognac". Pourquoi pas deux? En fait, ce sera toute la bouteille!

Salut! --Blue Indigo (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

"In fact, why did not you revert where you had stopped? That would have put your work & others' back... or would that be considered beginning an edit war? "

I did - twice, after warning three times that the blanket rewrite had erased an afternoon of work by three contributors, but it was reverted all the same. For the 'win', I guess. I even got an edit-war threat after my first revert and warning about the erasure, and that was acted upon, but after the second I ended it and opened an ANI. You can read it all there, but it's probably been archived by now. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bastille column thing is partly true: they added the 1848 revolution dates to it after that revolution. But yes, it was erected for the 1830 "Trois glorieuses". THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

D'accord with you on the remains of those who died during the 1848 revolution; however, when I read the piece, I was left with the feeling that something was not clear, giving the reader the impression that the column first intent when built was for both the 1830 & 1848 victims. Anyway, it does not matter anymore because the column has been made to disappear...

Wishing you a nice return to the battlefield! By the time the day is over, you may wish you still were embastillé

--Blue Indigo (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I was a busy boy, though: I finished this today: I'd been working on it on the side since a couple days now. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

SeifkinDR, I'd also suggest reorganising the history section into regimes (not centuries), as each ruler 'family' left their 'own' monuments and lived in different parts of the city (if in it at all). And yes, the revolution would have a section of its own (like the French article). That also would bring some coherence.
I know that you and Blue Indigo's suggestions are being ignored on the Paris talk page, but we can always throw some ideas back and forth here in the meantime (tonight). Cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 10:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Blofeld, I don't think he means 'talk about the buildings' in the history, rather just give a passing reference to them in the text. Something like: "Paris began to prosper again from the early 12th century: one of its first colleges, today the Sorbonne university, was recognised from 1160, and it became a full-fledged cathedral city when the construction of Notre-Dame de Paris began from 1163."

Monuments could be mentioned again out-of-context in a 'key quarters' section that would 'group' them in another 'what, where' perspective. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's OK, but he plans on merging the entire section into history which is a really bad idea. There's lots of notable buildings which need to be mentioned which obivously don't belong in the history. If you want it kept as a GA you're going in the wrong direction.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh no no no no... But are you sure he's planning that? It could be read that way... but somehow I don't think so. Seifkin? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Bonne apres-midi, tout-le-monde! ! Promenader is right, I didn't really want to merge the whole architecture section into the history section, I just thought we could include a small sub-section for each century mentioning the prominent buildings of that period; but if that's not a good idea II'll drop it. My main goal is to keep the history section at a reasonable length, about the same as the French article; and also to try to get a dialogue going with the editors who seem to have such different views about this article. SiefkinDR (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The way SiefkinDR is explaining sounds good (to me) because, without going into details, which I think we agree with, it would give the chronological order of "arrival upon the scene" of the major monuments, thus give the reader an idea of what Paris looked like in the period he is reading about. That idea fits in the history of Paris because it is an important part of the history of Paris. Also, you have to consider that some readers have no idea of when things were built: for instance, the history of Les Invalides is so identified with Napoléon I, that a lot of people believe that he is the one who built it.

Good day to all of you! --Blue Indigo (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome! I love having guests. I'm sorry that the decor here is not very (sniffing, looking around, adjusting lace ruffs)... appropriate.

I don't think it even has to be a sub-section, perhaps a last (untitled) 'other monuments from this era' paragraph that remains consistant across all eras... practically all of Paris' monuments are the "print" left by some royal family or event from that era. I won't go into a detailed explanation about the ergonomics of this, but it would work for the reader (looking for monuments - plus they'd get the context too if, when they find the monument they want, they look to the paragraphs above). Plus, everyone coming to the article is looking for something, so 'each something' has to be at least an outline... but it also has to be good for those reading about the city for the first time. But I digress.

But the 'monument integration' would free up the 'key quarters' section (if we make one) for describing only the function of that quarter (and were a quarter to say something like "tons of tourists come to see the Eiffel tower here", that monument could be mentioned again in that context (another reference to ergonomics) - wouldn't that be permissible?) Am I making sense? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's OK in the history to say in xxx the xxx cathedral was established and it became the seat of the diocese of xxx. In 1519 the University of xx was founded. But the landmarks section or education or whatever would be the one where you discuss architecture and more detail. The idea though of merging the whole landmarks section into history is ludicrous though. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: by 'monuments' do you mean 'as architecture' ? For me they're not at all same thing... but that's just me. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(afterthought) "Space-taking pretty 'we were here' for tourists", I say... they have no real function in the urban tissue (architecture) that is the city; they're rather an obstacle, even. I guess the history section could be an answer to "Who left that there? (It's blocking everything! ; ) " THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(after afterthought) Actually, monuments are an obstacle to an article - where do we put 'em? They're not functional city architecture, they're not always touristy (porte St-Denis? Not.)... they almost need a section of their own, and that could be bloated if their context is to be described (again)). Thoughts on this? THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I'm working on a map of Paris' successive walls... that should eliminate the need for a lot of text. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Bonjour! Thanks for the invitation to join the discussion here. I apologize for causing confusion, I was trying engage the other group of editors and see if I could find some common ground. I was happy with the length of the history section before the last big wave of slashing and cutting; I just want it to return to that level, without further major additions. I would like to have in each section a description of the major landmarks that were built in that period; just two or three, as it was before. Maybe there are ways we can avoid duplication between the history and architecture/monuments section, since we have multiple mentions of buildings like Sacre Coeur and Notre Dame.

I did make one recent addition to the 20th century, in response to what I thought was an unbalanced entry about the "massacre" of 1961, the tragic killings during the FLN demonstration. I didn't want that to be the only item of its kind, so I added three other examples of terrorist attacks and bombings during the 1980s and 1990s just to show what it was like, and why VIgipirate came along. If you think it should be cut, I'll go along with that. The only period I think needs to be a little longer than it is now is the 18th century. I'm glad to write additional text if needed, if the very ever watchful Bleu Indigo can help with the fact-checking. I hope we can all work together as a team. Marchons, Marchons! SiefkinDR (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Will be happy to follow with my loupe, if it can be of any help. Will also try to keep my 'wit' in my pocket... In the meantime, returning to Timeline of Paris. Au revoir!

--Blue Indigo (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

No need to justify any addition, your edit comment should be enough. Removing things, on the other hand, should be on the talk page, and definitely so if it was recently added. I'll answer you there soon, I really want to clear up this monument/architecture 'amalgamme', I see this problem everywhere (in other Wiki articles and even in encyclopaedias). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Chers tous!

The more I read comments, ideas, suggestions & watch bagarres about the article on Paris, especially 'when & if' to mention monuments and their location in Paris: in the history section? at architecture? on top of Montmartre or by the Seine? certain books keep coming to mind: I would like to compare the article on Paris to books on composers & artists in general. Composers, painters, sculptors did not live (history) then die (history), then created a work of art (monuments). They composed mazurkas, sonatas, operas, painted daisies, sculpted statues (monuments) during their lifetime (history) - some of them very young (Mozart). Running quickly thru some of these books, where do you find mention of some of their works (monuments)? Within the biography (history). That's the first part of the book. Then, in the next part, come the description (architecture) of the works (monuments). Unless a very important detail in the creation of that work, i.e. detail without which the work would not have seen the light of day, at least in the form we know it, no more mention of the biography (history), just the description (architecture) and the popularity these pieces enjoy or not nowadays (monuments still standing & those gone). Then there are books that are only on the works (monuments) by opus numbers, dates (chronology) where details of creating the work (architecture) are given, sometimes with reference to an event in their life at time of creation, when that event is extremely important (Chopin in Stuttgart, composing his Revolutionary Étude upon learning of the Russian invasion of Poland & the fall of Warsaw has to be mentioned in the 'architecture' part because the violence of the piece reflects the violence of the event that inspired him.) I find the same manner of handling both artists, such as Monet/Rodin/Eiffel's biography (history of Paris) and their creations (monuments) with description (architecture) and where these works can be seen/visited (Orangerie/Marmottan/Rodin museum/Gare d'Orsay/Champ de Mars, Axe historique from the Louvre all the way to La Grande Arche...). And of course, we do not need to list all the monuments in Paris, but have an interesting choice including those that cannot be ignored. I am thinking of the Louvre whose first construction as a fortress has been transformed & extended throughout the centuries up till the addition of the glass pyramid in the cour Napoléon.

A mention with date here (history) & something more detailed there (architecture or whatever section is decided upon) should be workable.

I hope you see my point...

Wishing you a nice end of the day or beginning of a new one, depending on where you... hang out!

--Blue Indigo (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

0.o

I kind of get what you mean... I think... (scratching head). Some movies you gotta see twice; I'll read that again over coffee tomorrow ; )

Many seem to be caught up in other-article 'technicalities', and if it stays that way, that's what the article will be: a copy of them copying other because other and maybe even we. Ironic, no?

But if we treat the article like a story, we have to keep the whole story in mind as we write it: Is the haunted castle the centre of an architecture study where its every nook and cranny should be described, or is it simply a sad place where the ghosts of whatever events remain, or is it the ghosts themselves - their lives, their deaths, their hauntings - that we should describe in detail? Paris is like a house that has had many wings added by many occupants over the years, and each of them has left behind a curio or two to mark their passing, but there's no way we can talk about each curio and each ghost... perhaps describe the addition of each wing and its author and its look and the general ambiance around its construction.

Hehe I'm emulating you ; ) Where do I hang? Paree, bien sûr ; ) Bonne nuit! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Short version for Paris article for history & monuments:

• Pretend you are doing an article on the life & works of an artist, write the lede as usually done, then go on with:
• Section on biography, which I meant by (history) with mention of a few major creations (monuments) that show his uniqueness, throughout his life, thus in chronological order,
• Section on his works, with blah blah on his invention, as his artist has a different approach, which makes his uniqueness: Monet is not Picasso; that is what I compared to (architecture),

If you go that way, you cover it all in, first section (history), by mentioning the most important works, but not dealing with describing them, just the name & date, which sets the chronological order of the article, and, in second section (architecture), by picking the most original, important, admired, best or less known, and explaining the technique, very lightly since there is probably an article that deals with these pieces. I believe that all can be covered without having to go deeply into everything, which is the reproach made in some parts on the article on Paris.

(By the way, I have no problem understanding what I wrote! Maybe your coffee will help! And, please, do not transfer this on the Paris talk page! Delete after having read it.)

Bonne nuit to you! --Blue Indigo (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Good morning!

Life and works of an artist... okay... already "Paris" is the sum of many artists in many trades over many periods, and we somehow have to sum all that up into one short intro without diluting it down to a "many things happened: there were good times, and there were bad". Context is everything... and the intro is like (scratching head)... describing something you see from a distance. Or a zoomed-out picture itself comprised of individual pictures. A city is something that can be observed in that way, too... observed as a 'thing', observed from a distance and over time (imagine time-lapse photography of one image a year) it seems to have an almost mindless will of its own, growing, creeping, sending out tendrils... it's not until we zoom in that we see that that 'mindlessness' is the sum of many individual minds and actions.

The "most important" events and activities have left traces in all that... and how deeply you go into each depends on its presence in the city function today. Not completely, but that thought should be there. Paris is an ancient and complicated creature, and she's hard to please. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks so much for your visits today. When we're not fighting in Paris, do drop by anytime ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 00:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I like very much both of your metaphors, the house with many wings and ghosts, and the life and work of an artist, both very true. I have to agree.that I made the history piece too long, so I wll begin to cut it back.. I am a bit baffled by the concept of over linking. Does that mean that, outside the lead, we can link only once to the Louvre, even though it's mentioned in articles on history, architecture and Museums? Or Notre Dame? That seems silly. By the way, Blue Indigo, are actually in or near Paris? It would be good if we could all get together to talk about this.

No, Blue Indigo does not live in or near Paris... which does not keep BI from knowing it "comme sa poche" y compris son histoire. If I ever go there, I will let you know. Bien cordialement, and "keep the faith!" --Blue Indigo (talk) 22:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope keeping the faith ith nothing like thaving faith. There thoud be no need to ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is becoming a... monument ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Jus' gigglin' all by meself here... THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 23:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Bon courage! SiefkinDR (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit baffled at that, too! That seems more of an obstacle than anything... if the history section links to Notre-Dame, and the education links to there too, what if the reader came because of an "education, Paris" google? That needs looking into, for sure, but quite honestly I haven't had the time to research further. Will do that over coffee this morning (just waking up here ; ). And I ~love~ making metaphors... that was the first that came into my sleep-addled brain. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 07:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think its going to be a big problem- imagine all the sections that mention the Paris Region, the Louvre, the Hotel de Ville Haussmann, Napoleon. The first mention gets the link, not the others? By the way, do you know how to put a link to a subsection of the article? I would like to link the section on medieval Paris in the main article to the subsection of the History of Paris" article, but I don't know how to do it.

Enjoy your coffee. it's cold here in the Gatinais. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sir, you're going to have pay attention to your indentation after line returns... when I opened up this page this morning I saw a "Bon Courage!" sitting there unindented that looked like an "I've had it, adieu" placed like that ; )

Linking to a subsection? Link to an anchor, which would be the name of that subsection (Wiki code makes into one), like Blocked. Hehe ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: It's cold here too, although all the pollution and concrete does warm things a bit. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not clever about these things. How would I link to the section on the Middle Ages within the Timeline of Paris section? I don't know what an anchor is, except in the naval sense. Cheers! SiefkinDR (talk) 11:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Have a look at the code in this: Blocked - it's the section title (must match exactly) with a hashtag in front of it. Everything to the left side of the " | " is the link (in this case, anchor), and everything after it is what will appear in the text. Just like your signature. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 11:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Blue Indigo:, you removed your comment? Well, here's your answer.

Well, there are also some suburban people who are mad as hell at the idea of not being included in Paris. But you have a point (you've had quite a few of these, lately) - perhaps they don't have the reality of taxes.

In a nutshell: Paris' administrative limits haven't changed since 1860. In France, once you're outside of one administrative limits, you're in another. Paris' urban tissue can be referred to colloquially as 'Paris' in conversation with someone ignorant about the area (like someone from New Jersey would say 'New York' to a foreigner), but that fails when any precision is required: either you state the name of the commune you're in (Montreuil is right across the péripherique), or there the term 'Paris intra-muros' (meaning 'really Paris') comes into play if vagueness is still required; 'intra-muros' can also be used only after it's understood that we're talking about the entire Paris agglomeration ('things happening in different parts of Paris' urban tissue').

To the precision end, the common 'in the Paris area' terms (in addition to that one) is, most commonly, 'Paris agglomeration' if talking about something in Paris' urban tissue or the whole urban tissue itself, and "la metropole" is an even vaguer recent apparaition, too; 'Paris region' if 'near Paris' is required (and it's not in the urban tissue); 'Paris region' is also a 'local usage' term to refer to the Île-de-France région, because that's what it was actually called before 1968. But none of these are ever called simply "Paris". And all statistical data (economy, population, etc) is taken in communes, departments, and regions, so that's where references (and Wikipedia text) should point too.

But to add confusion (but only if we wanted to), the lack of a precise means of measuring urban tissue (hampered by France's 'you're in one commune or another' system) led the INSEE statistics institute to create a statistical tool called the aire urbaine - an urban tissue and the commuter belt around it - but nobody here knows what the fuck that is (not even the journalist who interviewed me for Le Monde).

Yet our bullying and dissuasive friend, statistics-guy he is, knows about this obscure tool and has used it to invent the 'Paris metropolitan area'. This is only his inventive 'translation' of aire urbaine (the official translation is 'urban area'), and this translation can only be found on Wikipedia. Not even cherrypicker-Googling can overcome this fact. This also explains the WP:OWN over the Paris article - it is a successful soapbox to for this invention (it was on wiki, it must true!).

Yet when other English-language France-unaware parties (have to) get involved, the fact that a French 'Metropolitan area' doesn't exist is confusing, as most English speakers know what that term is and use it everyday, but again, nobody in Paris (or France) knows what the fuck an aire urbaine is.

And of course "metropolitan area" is an easy sell to the skyscrapercity forum and their dreams of Manhattan-like cities: that's why they were canvassed in the first place. Highly manipulative.

So the skyscraper forum guys are trying to take advantage of (foreign) ignorance to transform that local colloquial vague usage into "proof" that (insert whatever size to your taste) is 'really' Paris, but that's both dishonest and a cognitive dissonance that fails as soon as pen hits paper and/or and precision is required. And this is an encyclopaedia; it's not a bar-room conversation with ignorant tourists.

Oh, and this invention is actually going to create problems for Wikipedia when the metropole du Grand Paris is created[3]. But neither this, nor the aire urbaine de Paris, will ever be called simply "Paris". Not in our lifetime, anyway.

Today's nonsense made me late in my work, Must get some sleep. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 02:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, but don't bring any of this to the Paris talk page; of course some would like the (since-long closed) debate to fire up again, but that will be just a distracting mess of repetitive sophistry. I'm more concerned about the repeated, repeated repeated bad behaviour that no-one seems to be doing anything about, and look at the state of the article because of it. One would have to be blind not to see it. That well-intentioned but short-sighted and heavy-handed admin keeps turning up just like magic whenever a certain someone's behaviour is being complained about - I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is behind the scenes manipulation going on here.THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 02:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Promenader,

In my way of thinking, the article on Paris should be on Paris intra muros, not beyond. Beyond is not Paris and, whatever names are used, Paris region, Grand Paris, Île de France region... these articles deal with outside the walls of Paris, which right now is the périphérique.

Here is the definition of intra muros & Paris intro muros given in fr.wiki:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intra-muros

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intra-muros#Paris_intra-muros

Hav a good working day, --Blue Indigo (talk) 13:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually beg to differ - mentioning Paris' suburbs and dependencies is more than fine, almost essential, as long as we don't try to say that they're "in Paris". All I've ever asked is that we use a proper terminology (so that references match), but there has always been resistance against this. For example, I saw today that the Economy section says that Paris' aire urbaine has one of the biggest GDP's in the world, and this makes Wikipedia a laughingstock to anyone knowning any better. "Paris region" would be the correct term to use (since economy figures are taken, as I mentioned above, in departments and regions) and that's what the references indicate. But it always becomes "metropolitan area" again not long after it's fixed. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: You too! THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(after re-reading last comment) Wait a second, we agree! All we ask is correct terminology. BTW, that 'intra-muros' term ('translated' to "Paris proper") is often out-of-context misused to insinuate that there is a "Paris" outside "Paris". But you are right, it's Paris suburbs, Paris agglomeration, Paris region, 'in the Paris area', etc. etc. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 13:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

We just had an edit conflict & the following was written before I read your last note (above).

Actually, I was going to leave a much longer note, but decided to spare you what I call my "idiotic nonsense". There are on fr.wiki articles, not all treated in en.wiki, which familiarize readers with the different subjects related to Paris, whether intra or extra muros, and with the very different appellations you are mentioning - and one can go beyond Wikipedia.

If in a Jules Verne not too distant future, a business/financial Paris megapolis ever encompasses an area deliminated by Tours, Strasbourg, Lille & Brest, that would not be Paris. It would probably be run by a Parisian political clique, but it would not be Paris.

Also, does not that Grand Plan go again the desired décentralisation?

And will not it eventually be the cause of an increased désertification of the French countryside, which is well on its way of being accemplished?

Like said above, this is only "idiotic nonsense" on my part.

Good day to you! --Blue Indigo (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't be so down on yourself, you should have seen how naiive I was when I first came to Wikipedia - it's actually thanks to all the 'proving that nonsense is nonsense' that I learned so much about demography. My work with the APUR has taught me even more; they think the English Wiki Paris article (and all the goings-on here) is both fascinating and hilarious, and that article in Le Monde became a 'joke' in an office memo ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 14:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh! I am not down on myself! Just being my witty self because, not long ago, and too bad that I will not take the time to find the comment, one contributor defending his work & criticizing that of others, used the word "idiots" (in the plural) to describe other wiki contributors... I took it to mean that we all are idiots, hence my "idiotic nonsense".

Hoping the earth does not change its rotative spin during the night: we'd all be "reversed... or maybe that would clear the tableau! --Blue Indigo (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I must have missed that. I tend to avoid generalisations, and I don't take things personally, and I don't hold grudges - someone who makes mistakes and owns up to them is a better person in my books. How else could I put up with all this? A sense of humour is not a novelty option; it's a survival tool ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@Blue Indigo: About your work being reverted (not by me), please don't be dissuaded by it - I'm actually counting on your participation in the article, it needs a point de vue français. All others have been chased away, but I get the impression that you're a little more tenacious than those. Hopefully all this mess will be over soon. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 09:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello ThePromenader. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 25 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Wikipedia:Paris/Sandbox page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Réponse tardive à ton affirmation

Bonjour Promenader. Il y a quelques temps, tu as mis en exergue la qualité supposée de la Wikipédia anglophone sur les autres. S'il le constat que la en:WP est la plus relues des WP par ses lecteurs naturels, il est très abusif d'affirmer quoique ce soit quant aux autres version. * Plusieurs phénomènes sont à constater :

• S'il existe de nombreux rédacteurs de l'anglais, ses lecteurs sont éminemment plus nombreux. Nombre de relecteurs ne corrigent pas les versions anglophones des articles. C'est particulièrement vrai de la part des rédacteurs d'AdQ ou BA dans d'autres langues - Français, Allemand, Espagnol - qui traduisent les articles anglais, mais - traduttore traditore - les corrigent et les améliorent sans nécessairement reporter leurs modifications sur les articles anglophones. Ce phénomène se produit en cascade. Il m'a été donné de travailler sur un article d'un peintre catalan, qui, depuis une première version GA en anglais avait subit des améliorations en catalan, en espagnol. L'article en Français que j'ai rédigé s'est basé sur la dernière version, doublée des apports de la version en indépendante en Allemand. Finalement chacun ajoutant sources et commentaires, la version en français est très nettement la meilleure, non parce qu'il y a plus de lecteurs, mais parce qu'elle a bénéficié des corrections successives et cumulées de 4 autres versions - plus les miennes - qui lui ont valu le titre de BA. En réalité, sur WP, le meilleur article n'est pas le plus lu, mais le dernier écrit - en tout cas dans les WP qui ont des méthodes de travail communes es, fr, ca, de, it et en pour ce que j'ai pu pratiquer.
• Le titre d'AdQ et de BA n'est pas délivré de la même manière dans toutes les langues : un BA en français subit peu ou prou le même processus de relecture et de vote que l'AdQ. La seule tolérance est sur la complétude ;
• Ensuite, j'ai eu l'occasion de travailler sur un autre article d'un peintre (AdQ) en coopération avec des personnes travaillant pour le principal musée conservant ses œuvres ; inutile de préciser qu'avec une bibliothèque pléthorique sur ce sujet, du temps dédié et les originaux des œuvres à disposition, l'article est sans contexte une référence, non seulement en français et espagnol, mais au niveau mondial.
• Par opposition à ces trois personnes travaillant en totale synergie, le bor***l de la page de discussion de l'article en anglais sur Paris est éloquent : ce n'est sans doute pas le nombre qui fait la qualité. Pas tout seul en tous cas. v_atekor (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind, sir, I'll answer in English (as others may be interested in reading this too).

Of course there's more readers than writers - and many of the former take for more or less true whatever is written here without correcting it if they see something untrue - this is just bad for Wikipedia's reputation. This is also rather dangerous, because it make the article a magnet for POV-pushers... and what makes things even harder is the fact that very few English Wikipedians (readers and writers alike) know anything first-hand about Paris. For this, the French Wikipedia article on Paris is eminently better than its English counterpart - more knowledgable editors and readers (perhaps more ready to point out obvious errors that English wikipedians wouldn't catch).

Toutefois, the rules on the other much-less-read (and I guess staffed) Wiki languages are looser because of less readership and contributors... too many rules tend to dissuade (all-too-rare) contributors. I'm looking forward to the day where a decent translation software could translate edits in any language into any other... then people speaking any language could work on the same article as other-language contributors. I've spoken about this with... a prominent Wikipedian. Something of the sorts is in the works, but, in a (IMHO) misguided direction. Anyhow. Decent translation would overcome both the language and knowledge barrier.

I think that working as many on an article does a lot to make it better, because other people's comments not only fill in for our lackings, but they remind us what the article will/should look like from a reader point of view (a point of view not that of the writer)... objectivity, what. Or almost.

But for the time being, the few of us trying to make this article better (and useful, even interesting if possible) are facing opposition from the phenomenon mentioned in my first paragraph - and quality isn't even a goal, there. Yes, it's a mess. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 19:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course you can (should, must) answer in English, not only because we are on en:WP, not only for other people but overall because that is the language you better manage. You can use a fine brush or coarse wood when necessary. I am not sure my English allows me to develop clearly complex ideas, once passed the subject-verb-complement structure I prefer using a language I am better at.

I globally agree with you, I add en:WP has a bad reputation in several area because of the POV-puhers ; well others version have them own pushers. I especially hope one day we can merge easily corrections from other languages. I think that will be a hard but reachable goal for languages with a common structure (Catalan, French, Italian, Spanish for ex.). I am not that sure that is even possible between languages too different (saying Russian with Arab), and well, I have some background behind me to think my pessimism can be justified. At least we can have tools to help us in this process. For the Paris article in particular, there was pov-pushing, but I am not that sure there are so much now. We are facing a simple classical problem : the city is very different for people living in the town and for people out of the town. There are 2 realities, absolutely foreign to each other.

Well, I will try to do my best, carefully. nous verrons bien... v_atekor (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree - here's the section I've section been working on since a while now (translated from French): Paris' suburbs disconnect is a mix of France's outdated commune system, political power hogging, and neglect for the rest (plus some f*cking bad urban planning)... this should be explained. I would like Paris to be a modern, tower-filled city too, but pretending a problem doesn't exist doesn't help much to solve it, au contraire, actually.

If you have something in mind for the article, I would be all too happy to translate/touch it up (if you want it), and so would the others. I'm good at making historical context for something clear for an 'ignorant foreigner'  ; ) point of view (big picture, then fitting in the details), and the others are strong in other areas (history, culture, concision)... and there will be lots of others to choose from soon ; ) Together I am damn sure we can make something great. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 22:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Promenader. I will try to translate parts of the french article, and try to adress this points. I will store it on a draft page. That will be much better for the health of English teachers reading this page! v_atekor (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I am working on a canvas of paragraph for history, using the same rules than for biographies, then putting the art/sciences/architectures main event for Paris for the concerned century, in them context. I am only adding items directly related to Paris as town, Paris because it was Paris, and not only because people making it was living in this city, but it would have happened elsewhere if people were not living in Paris. For example in Science, that is the definition of the meter and metrical system (but not Lavoisier research on water). For architecture : Gothic movement ; and for plastics arts the main movement that happened in Paris after Paris replace Rome as capital of arts in the XIX century (reference to be copied from French articles about Art nouveau). I copy that on the PDD of the PAris article. Use it if you want. It wont be ready quickly because I have too much work IRL. v_atekor (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, SiefkinDR did a lot for history, I edited that, but now it seems we're going with Dr. Blofeld's (slightly edited) version... but you have some good points in there, perhaps we could put something together between us. No, there's no hurry, though ; ) THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 08:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)