Talk:Paris

Paris Talk Archives
Main Paris talk page Talk:Paris/structure_discussion Talk:Paris/archive_01 Talk:Paris/archive_02 Talk:Paris/archive_03 Talk:Paris/archive_04 Talk:Paris/archive_05 Talk:Paris/archive_06 Talk:Paris/archive_07 Talk:Paris/archive_08 Talk:Paris/archive_09

The Paris infobox

The first thing that needs to change is the Paris infobox, which is pointless because it serves only one article. I am going to move the information directly into the article until there is consensus on a generic infobox to be used. Green Giant 13:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL - I was working on something of the sort - something resembling the infoboxes present for most every of the world's other major cities. Doesn't matter though - Green Giant, are you on it already? I would love to give a 'graphic touch' to it if I could - nothing heavy, but lightly 'French' - lightly, I said : ) THEPROMENADER 13:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: I stress again that I consider having an entire section of a city infobox dedicated to the development intricacies of its commuter belt qualifies as 'needless'. Most every other city in the world has one line for such info in their respective Wiki articles. Since the Paris agglomeration is a special case compared to other cities (unchanged city borders), I suggest compiling population into three lines in the same cell: city limits, agglomeration and urban area; this will define each quite clearly for what they are and lighten detail overkill. Hey, that reminds me of something... THEPROMENADER 14:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox 'template' present within the Paris article was imposed without any regard at all for consensus and earlier discussions on the matter. It also anuls the efforts of another contributor to slim it down and make its statistics and information more credible. I do not find it suitable for a 'city' article, as it resembles none other for other 'big city' articles. These have separate pages for much of the info it contains.

This aside, I have one major question concerning the object in question - why does the infobox contain nothing about the Paris agglomeration? I really don't see the logic of jumping directly from the recounting of Paris' population to that within the limits of its... commuter belt. Where is Paris' natural growth in all this? It's as if it doesn't exist. Also, the inclusion of the second box as it is would have the layman believe that these numbers are those of Paris itself - They aren't. One last question: If the argument would be that, with the added info, that the box would be 'too long' (as I seem to have heard before), why is the commuter belt favoured over the agglomeration? This to me is neither logical nor credible. THEPROMENADER 16:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is good that the new template Template:Large French Cities is being used in Lyon as well as Paris, but it needs to go into more articles and it needs some trimming. The title at the top says Ville de Paris so the infobox should contain information on the City and not the metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Area section should be moved to a new Paris metropolitan area page. The City proper and Miscellaneous labels should be removed as well. The population estimates need verifiable references and should not be inserted until the references can be found. The (Ranked 1st) bit should be removed unless a list can be found to back up this. Green Giant 05:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree on all counts - I in fact will begin the Paris metropolitan area page today. I do hope you understand what a chore it will be extracting the information that is to go there from this article - the infobox is simple, but for the rest... well, it should be simple as well, but it will have to be done coherently. There will be much rewriting to do. To a more positive end, since the metropolitan area is simply a statistical unit used only for statistical purposes, this will make its role vis-à-vis French administration and culture very clear (in its article) to all, as well as making room (in this article) for information a greater audience can relate to. THEPROMENADER 11:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Some ideas

As an outsider to this, here are some thoughts I have had in reviewing the page:

• Intro: This is a little long, in comparison (e.g.) to the New York City article. I think the best place to shorten it is to move the detail of the "financial/business center" para be moved into the "Economy" section lower in the article;

In its former state, the article was a very cliché touristy and outdated presentation of Paris. I think it is important to leave the economy information in the introduction, otherwise we simply revert to that cliché image of Paris. Mention of economy in the introduction is not unusual on Wikiepdia: check the second paragraph of London's introduction. Hardouin 14:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but let's not go overboard on pushing that one. Paris is known to the world for many traits deemed 'touristy', but true that these need not be 'gushed' about. Yet trouncing anything 'touristy' with trumpeting economical statistics is not a solution either - and if these are secondary in Paris' reputation, pushing them first is POV. We are here to recount Paris' existing reputation, not to make a new one for her. THEPROMENADER 03:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Intro: while devoting a whole para to the population seems excessive, in light of the argument that has been going on, the three-way split (city, urban area, metro area) is probably the best answer;
• History: The NYC article has this above geography/climate, and I would propose to follow that model. While the article should be a little shorter, I am surprised that the discussion of the Napoleon III re-configuration of the city is so brief both here and in the History sub-article.

There was nothing there at all on that subject at one point. As it is, it can be lightened of some "history of France" items. THEPROMENADER 03:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Geography: This is the place to concentrate the definitions regarding city, urban area, metro, etc.

Do you suggest merging the demographics section under a unique 'geography' heading then? THEPROMENADER 03:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Demographics: It is my opinion that large graphic in that section is not beneficial to the article -- even with a large screen size the text is not legible, and the high level of detail in the graphic makes it confusing. Also, many of the statements at the end of the first para of the "Density" subsection seem unsourced (though I am willing to be informed here).

About that first paragraph in density subsection, the "balanced distribution" part was added by ThePromenader. I agree it is a bit subjective. Different people may have different visions on what is a "balanced" distribution. The fact that population decline in the central city is much less severe than in other western cities, and that density in Paris is unusual in the western world, more akin to Asian cities, was added by me. I thought it was a well known fact, and uncontroversial enough, not to necessitate references. Probably any scholar book about world urban issues would mention that. If you mistrust the information, try to find a western city with a higher density than Paris. Good luck!. Lol. Hardouin 14:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The gentlemen said 'to the end of the first paragraph' and the phrase you yourself single out is not there. Stay on topic please, and don't ignore the points of an argument or suggestion to answer with your own.THEPROMENADER 03:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Administration: It is the interplay of this section with "Demographics" and "Geography" that is problematic. This section feels very long for a section of the article that, while encyclopedic, is perhaps of less than universal interest. See below.
• Cultural Centres: I think this section should be shortened just a little, as there are already good articles for (e.g.) the Eiffel Tower.

More than a little! This whole area needs cleaning. I would even suggest eliminating incomplete sections such as 'parks and gardens' and 'cemetaries' - I am working on something to this end, a 'physical description' of Paris that will generally merge/replace this sort of information.THEPROMENADER 03:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I have some ideas about these things I could try to implement, but I wonder if there is any agreement on this or a similar (or completely different) list of things to do on the article? -- Gnetwerker 01:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it's shocking that Paris population has a paragraph in introduction as it's an exception. I don't know many other cities in the world having their main CBD outside the city proper. Hence, I don't believe this paragraph should be cut. As for the demographic map, I've just made a quick edit to better integrate it. Furthermore, I think it's important to have a map to visualize things better. However, I agree with you that it's unreadable. I'll simplify it now to make it better readable and you'll tell me what you think about it afterwards. Metropolitan 02:45, 24 March 2006 (CET)

It would be nice though that Paris' 'overgrowth' be explained in a more pedagogical way than with numbers - and while we're there, wouldn't a description in square metres, or a 'three times the width' language, be a better way of describing Paris' girth? THEPROMENADER 03:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

• Paris' 'three levels' of urbanisation (City limits, UU, AU) is of course the best way to describe its size and growth, but we seem to have some sort of problem on agreeing how to name them. First off: Paris is different from other major cities in the way that nothing outside of its administrative limits is ever called, in English or in French, simply 'Paris'. 'the Paris agglomeration' most commonly describes the built-up area, and the 'Paris region' is the best English translation for 'Région Parisienne' most commonly used to describe everything within the Ile-de-France. All references, both English and French, apply this naming convention - I don't see why this article shouldn't too. This article's language is ambiguous in many places (through one-sentence phrases joining two normally inassociable items, references to ill-defined statistical regions) and creates 'grey zones' where we're not sure what is being talked about. I also see a great effort here to make everything between Paris' administrative limits and fringes of its commuter belt a unique 'grey zone' indissociable from, and named simply, 'Paris'. Paris may be backwards in its hesitancy to embrace anything outside its administrative borders as its own, but this is how things are and no Wiki article can change this. Attempting to alter this reality will make this article unreferencable and a laughingstock for those who know better. There is nothing wrong, on the other hand, with naming things how they are and pointing out how they are different. THEPROMENADER 10:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If they have well-established names in French, then we should probably use those initially, and then come up with some agreed-upon short definitions in English. I recently went to an academic lecture about the riots last Fall, originating in the housing projects outside the peripherique, and the lecturer used a term which I cannot remember. I will try to get a copy of his book to check. In the meantime, are there French terms you guys can agree on? -- Gnetwerker 19:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been busy with another article but having just read Gnetwerker's ideas, I fully endorse them as a means of getting a better article. I would propose that the Cultural Centres section be reduced in size and excess images should be moved to other sections or eliminated altogether. The Sports subsection could do with some expansion as many articles have this as a separate section. Green Giant 02:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well, save perhaps for the position of the History section - I think this should be below geographical data, Paris as a city (size, etc) should come first in the article - besides, Paris' history is long. Speaking of riots, the anti-CPE demnstration is passing just outside my door - at least it sounds like it. All the shops are closed along this quarter's main artery. Yikes. THEPROMENADER 13:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Demographics Table proposition

Demographics within the Paris Region
(according to the official INSEE 1999 census)

Items	Population	Area	Density	1990-1999 growth
Statistical Growth
Urban area (Paris agglomeration)	9,644,507	2,723 km²	3,542/km²	+1.85%
Metropolitan area (agglomeration and commuter belt)	11,174,743	14,518 km²	770/km²	+2.90%
Administrative Limits (Ile-de-France départements)
City of Paris (département 75)	2,125,246	105 km²	20,240/km²	-1.26%
Inner ring (Petite Couronne) (dépts. 92, 93, 94)	4,038,992	657 km²	6,148/km²	+1.27%
Outer ring (Grande Couronne) (dépts. 77, 78, 91, 95)	4,787,773	11,249 km²	426/km²	+5.93%
Ile-de-France (including Paris)	10,952,011	12,011 km²	912/km²	+2.73%

...the map's still missing the departement numbers but you get the idea. Any thoughts? THEPROMENADER 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

A substantial improvement, but still too much visual detail, IMO. However, if it is the best that can be done, it should be OK. -- Gnetwerker 20:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'visual detail' - too loud? Could you elaborate? Anything can be improved. Thanks for your input. THEPROMENADER 23:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There are 6 different colors/shades for non-urban areas (agricultural or forest) -- I would argue that this is either 5 or 4 colors too many. Reducing this make the image less detailed and thus more effective in communicating its point -- the shape and boundaries of the Paris urban area. -- Gnetwerker 00:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I sincerly wonder why the current display bothers you so much. The fact there's a large map of Paris agglomeration in Paris article doesn't disturb me personally. But anyway, I don't totally discard the side thumb solution. Some quick observations though :

• I didn't like at all ThePromenader's table display. I've edited it to propose you a clearer version. I don't think we need all those explanations lines which were taking too much space for nothing (and which were also wrong as inner and outer rings aren't Ile-de-France departments). Furthermore, inner and outer rings should be displayed below city of Paris as they represent the three general classifications of Ile-de-France departments. It was actually impossible to understand what those things were in the first version from ThePromenader.
• The Numeric codes of the departments (75, 92, 93, 94, 77, 78, 91, 95) should be displayed on the map so that they become easy to identify. Furthermore department borders should also be emphasized so that we could understand fastly what are the inner and outer rings described below.
• I agree with Gnetwerker in the fact there are too many colours on this map. I personally consider using blue to describe built-up areas as counter intuitive since that's not a regularly used colour-coding for those. Especially that those built-up areas are awckwardy pictured in several shades of blue... giving the feeling that this described the density of urbanized developments when it's not the case. We could actually sincerly believe the lighter blue built-up areas are actually lakes and not even built-up areas.

Honnestly, I don't understand what's the problem with the current version. If displaying legend on the bottom would be better to decrease the image's width I can always do that. If there was really an improvement in that new map, I wouldn't complain, but I hardly see how this is the case. I'm enough open-minded to hear the reasons why you think otherwise though. Metropolitan 03:03 26 March 2006 (CET).

Map colours are readily modifiable, and numbers are easy to insert. The difference? Starker contrast between urban/rural areas, and a more intuative colour scheme, and land information beyond the IDF borders (as the information we are trying to relay goes past these).

As for the table information: by the way, it would have been nice to point out what's wrong with it while leaving it here - we already know what the existing version looks like. That aside, Metropolitan, yours is understandable by people already familiar with Paris, its surroundings and French adminstration - some sort of explanation is indeed needed for the layman.

• In exactly what way are the petite and grande couronnes not departements? And how do these relate to Paris - no information to this end is present in the table - by the titles alone, one could think that the 'inner ring' is within Paris! Yes I know the numbers state otherwise, but you see what I mean. Clarity should begin from a first glance - the whole point of a table.
• If the table is about demographic growth, why should the urban area/metropolitan area info be at the top? This best describes, if anything, Paris' natural demographic growth undivided by any administrative boundaries. If anything, I would consider eliminating all other information save the Paris/UU/AU. Simple, short, straighforward. The only supplimental information the existing schema brings is a pinpointing of the largely rural character of Paris' Grande Couronne départements.
• i think I pointed out that I had yet to add numbers. While I'm at it I'll add the above changes - come to think of it, I'm going to 'white out' slightly all rural info and eliminate rural table details altogether - we get the idea by the colour methinks. I'll let you all be the judge of that though. THEPROMENADER 09:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, petite couronne and grande couronne are as much departments as Ile-de-France. They are groups of departments, not departments in themselves. I agree with you that this should be clear at first sight, that's why I think we have to put the figures of the departments in the map and show in the legends how those are grouped. I don't see any other way to make things clearer. As for the order of the table, well, that has been a long problem to me as I want it to be short and clear. As a result, I think it should be ranked by department groups from the core to the border(Paris, Petite C., Grande C.), then the overall statistics (the region first as a transition (grouping of all depts), then urban (narrower) and the metro). Okay, I'll give it a shot and we'll see how this will look like. Metropolitan 16:29 27 March 2006 (CET).

I think even a dividing line between the two sections would make things much clearer - paris/petite couronne/grande couronne (dividing line) Paris agglomeration/Paris Metropolitan area - these are two different means of defining Paris' population - selon existing administratve divisions/selon actual growth. As for the plan - apologies for my tweaking on my end at the same time as you, but it is not a problem for me as my work provides me with all the tools I need. Anyhow, only the end result matters to me so do as you like. THEPROMENADER 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. We should give it a shot... Unfortunately I don't know how to create a dividing line, so feel free to do it next time you're around. :-) Metropolitan 14:57 28 March 2006 (CET).

I'm not going to be with you for a bit as I've a site to upload and activate - but in the meantime, what did you have against the secondary titles? I mean, why not call a cat a cat and add a descriptive title above each means of grouping population numbers? This would make things sparkly clear. It would also make the box longer, I know, but in this case this is relevent information, isn't it? THEPROMENADER 13:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the only problem is that your titles weren't about calling a cat a cat as the inner and outer rings aren't properly speaking departments. They are made of departments, but aren't departments in themselves. The only department which was appearing on the table was the city of Paris but it wasn't even in the category "departments". Sincerly, I believe the titles of each row are enough self-explanatory. I still agree with the line idea though. Unfortunately, I don't know how to put it. I'll check on Help:Table to check if there's any answer about this. Metropolitan 16:22 28 March 2006 (CET).

Never mind my titles if they weren't fitting - how about making some new ones that are? I still think some further sort of explanation is needed to make things clear. I've modified the talk page table layout as a suggestion. THEPROMENADER 18:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind me saying, I'm starting to like the look of the above table. Numbers added (as clearly yet as 'quietly' as possible), legend colours reduced to almost nil, color scheme lightened from its former 'saturated' look. True that it read like a Hawaiian shirt before. The color scheme was the hardest part - every detail in there has got a barely-detectable border around it that is same colour as the 'background' - but it makes all the difference for clarity. Details, details... Please let me know what you think. THEPROMENADER 21:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Streamlining

Ville de Paris

City coat of arms (City flag) (City coat of arms)
City motto: Fluctuat nec mergitur. (Latin: Tossed by the waves but does not founder)
Administration
Subdivisions	20 arrondissements
Département	Paris (75)
Région	Île-de-France
Present Mayor	Bertrand Delanoë (PS)
Geographical Characteristics
Area	105.397 km² 1 86.928 km² 2
City Population   Urban area   Metro area	2,144,700 (1999) 9,643,880 (1999) 11,173,886 (1999)
Intercommunality	- -
Density	24,450/km² 1 (1999)
Coordinates   Latitude   Longitude	48°52′00″ 2°19′59″
Time Zone	CET (UTC +1)
Notes
Twin city	Rome (Italy)2
1 Excludes Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes 2 Plus partnership with 32 other cities

I suppose I should introduce this while we're at it - the result of the infobox discussion we left some time ago. The present version is a mix of Hardouin's original, Green Giant's slimming and my modifications that bring it closer to the model used by the New York City article. This one's fresh from Green Giant's Paris sandbox so perhaps you'd best brush the grains off before playing with it further. THEPROMENADER 14:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ile-de-France images

I would like to suggest that Image:Ile-de-France jms.png and Image:Paris metropolitan area.gif are redundant, and that the first is the one that should be used in the demographics section. Thoughts? -- Gnetwerker 06:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am the author of the first one - I had originally made it to quell/satisfy misgivings about defining Paris' actual reach so for that it contains even 'metro area' info where none is needed (in the administration section). It's true that as it is, it is redundant. What I had thought to do was eliminate the 'metropolitan area' info and title (along with brown urban growth) as soon as the final 'demographics' plan was complete - this should make two completely different plans. I could do this later on and upload it as a new version for perusal if you like. THEPROMENADER 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I trust you to make the right decision. If you want feedback, fine, but don't upload/wait on my account. You know my complaints about the second, busier, graphic. -- Gnetwerker 17:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a question of waiting; more of time. I'd already begun the transformations that account for former criticisms - have yet to finish. I'll leave a word when it's done - tonight or tomorrow I hope. THEPROMENADER 18:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, since I moved them side by side, I would be the authour of the 'second' one or the one to the right. As for the 'demographic' plan whose publishing means a simplification of former, I've just completed and uploaded very simple and 'less busy' version that does its best to show urban growth and statistical borders without being too crowded. I suppose I should best ask for an opinion in its section, but just to let you know the updated version is up there. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 20:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Moi j'suis d'paname

I'm from Paris but "moi j'suis pas de Paname" as it's said in the record. It's funny, but a little exagerated, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonray (talk • contribs)

Not sure what you mean by 'in the record' - could you elaborate on that please? Sounds interesting all the same. THEPROMENADER 07:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC

Pardon my english, it's the little recording in the section "name" (Traditionally, Paris was known as Paname (/panam/) in French slang, but this vulgar appellation is gradually losing favour ("I'm from Paname" (help·info)). ). It's sounds very strange! Only comedians could pronounce like that!

LOL! That's the first time I listened to that. Sounds like a very nasal John Wayne : ) THEPROMENADER 20:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The guy copied the accent of Maurice Chevalier, and if I remember correctly his intention was to illustrate the fact that "Paname" is an old term of the past losing currency. I think, however, that we should change the sentence and the recording, because I have noticed in recent years that young Parisians are using again the name "Paname". So the name had become old-fashioned, but now it is being revived by the newer generations. Hardouin 10:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

External Links to Photos

Hi, I had added a link [1] to a website that has an amazing amount of pictures of all the most important sights (> 900) in Paris. Now somebody deleted the link and added < !-- links to official and standard-reference sites only please. -- > Does everybody agree with this? I believe that if a website shows interesting, related and not yet covered information it should stay there. With this site and its >900 photos you can practically plan your visit and decide in advance which sights you want to visit.

[1] http://rso.mine.nu/gallery2/v/Paris/

Comment Links such as these are often removed as they tend to be either ad-linked or somehow promotional. While I'm sure there are exceptions, it's less of a gray area to just stick with official/highly notable links. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 15:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Economy

Metropolitan asks, in an edit summary, what was wrong with the prior version of the lead sentence in the Economy section. Here is what it was replaced with: "Economically speaking, Paris makes only one with the surrounding Île-de-France région, which approximately represent its metropolitan area (see the demographics map above)." I do not know what was meant by this sentence, but it is not English. The even older sentence was also utterly incomprehensible gibberish. I have tried to retain what I think is the intended point, while phrasing the sentence in correct, grammatical, natively-spoken English. -- Gnetwerker 15:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Metropolitan, please say why you keep adding this ungrammatical fragment to the lead sentence of "Economy": ", which approximately represent its metropolitan area (see the demographics map above)". First, I am not sure what point you are trying to make (that hasn't been made already in the article), second, the verb tense is wrong, as it does not agree with the subject of the sentence, the singular "Paris". -- Gnetwerker 14:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Simple. Check the map, Paris metropolitan area corresponds to the borders of Ile-de-France : 96% of the population of the Paris metropolitan area is located in Ile-de-France, and 99% of the population in Ile-de-France is located in the Paris metropolitan area. Ile-de-France is not to Paris what is California to Los Angeles. And your way to rephrase constantly that sentence is extremely ambiguous, so I'll try to give it another shot to make this point clear. Metropolitan 18:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no argument about the congruence of the metro area and Ile-de-France. Your sentence: "The Paris metropolitan area is the only relevant scale at which we can talk about the Paris economy. As pictured on the map above, ..." is argumentative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia, when the simpler wording says exactly the same thing -- that the "Paris economy" means the economy of the whole region. Why is it necessary to belabor this point and to refer to specific maps, which are clearly in evidence (both above and below!)? There is nothing in the maps specifically about the economy, and the congruence of the greater Paris metropolitan area with Ile-de-France is, AFAIK, undisputed. -- Gnetwerker 19:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The similarities between the Ile-de-France region and Paris' aire urbaine are pure coincidence - these are two entities of completely different origin and purpose so cannot be compared or exchanged for one another. Hardouin made the same 99% so/and same argument but believe me it is no justification for a like substitution. Encyclopedias that speak of the 'Paris economy' must refer to the Ile-de-France and its departments simply because that is how and where service/industry occupation/economical wealth information is collected - any description outside these standards is unreferencable.

The aire urbaine (metropolitan area), on the other hand, is very applicable when speaking of places of work/residence/birth/education - that's exaclty what it was made for. This is called putting things to their proper use, and putting them into context. THEPROMENADER 01:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Boutiques, Department Stores and Hotels section

The Boutiques, Department Stores and Hotels was removed and replaced with an image of some place called 'The channel'.

Why? Kevin Breitenstein 06:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It was vandalism by an anon, now repaired. -- Gnetwerker 16:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Photo additions

Personally I think this sort of contribution (made by Tonio94, of a La Défense image addition) better for Wikipedia Commons than as content for an already photo-laden article. Am I alone in this? THEPROMENADER 10:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: And the places chosen for the inserts weren't the best, either! THEPROMENADER 10:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Other suggestions aside, I will definitely be removing these photo contributions later today. They are already in the wiki Commons where they were uploaded. THEPROMENADER 17:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should not become a photo gallery, but where have you seen these pictures in Commons ? On the contrary, he has apparently uploaded them separately to fr-Wikipedia and en-Wikipedia (compare http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Parispano.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paris10.jpg). I have asked him about it on his French page. Thbz 05:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the article should not become a photo gallery. There is a link for the relevant category in Commons at the bottom of the article. I am removing them now. Green Giant 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you beat me to it - I in fact forgot! Overworked these days : ) You're right, I should have made more than a cursory glance before commenting. You can trust that I would have checked properly before eliminating anything though.

BTW, what the (expletive) is all that mess at the bottom of the page in the references and bibliography section? There seem to be some WikiCode changes afoot... THEPROMENADER 13:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)