From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject France / Paris  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Paris task force.
This article is supported by WikiProject French communes.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Cities (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Olympics (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Paris is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

Employment (sector) map - any other additions?[edit]

Île-de-France 2012 INSEE employment, population and unemployment statistics, organised by arrondissement (national) and department
Employment by economic sector in the Paris area (pétite couronne), with population and unemployment figures (2012)
Employment situation in Paris, 2012. Employment by economy sector; unemployment and population; INSEE 2012 numbers published Jan. 2015.

I'm working on a Paris-region 'Employment by sector' map that shows the percentage of people working in each job sector in each arrondissement; the inner departments are easy enough, but I found that just listing one value for the entire department is overly-simplistic, so I'm arranging it by arrondissement of each department, to give a more even Paris-to-suburb transition over smaller areas. It's a bit of a chore.

The data part of it is easy, though, as the statistics come straight from the INSEE: basically every arrondissment is going to have a pie chart showing the percentage of jobs in each sector (which should give a pretty good indication of what each quarter does), and I'm considering accompanying each with a number indicating the unemployment percentage in that quarter, as well as the percentage of fonctionnaires (as they are a large share of the labour market) in every given quarter, too. Would that be overkill? If anyone would like any other data (while I'm there), do let me know, too. Cheers. THEPROMENADER   16:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, though it will need regular updating. It would be a single map where you click on different areas and see the numbers? SiefkinDR (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
LOL I don't even know if that is possible here... I wish it was. And I wish we could link directly to the latest data (no updating)... I'm dreaming. I'll see what I can do, though. THEPROMENADER   17:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
SiefkinDR, do you know something about clicking/number showing that I don't? All I can see is an option to show tooltips over an image... sure, that could be used, but the code will be extensive ; P THEPROMENADER   16:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Test version up (to see how Wiki renders the finer details) THEPROMENADER   21:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
That's about how it's going to look - now that I have all the data up, I've two other versions to do: zoom in on future 'Grand Paris' (and Paris' arrondissements, detailed), then just Paris herself. If there's any comments or suggestions, now's the time... cheers. THEPROMENADER   12:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
All three versions (mostly) done. THEPROMENADER   16:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Article improvements?[edit]

Any suggestions as to what can be improved in the article? @Tim riley and Dr. Blofeld:, your input would be especially welcome. THEPROMENADER   06:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Fix refs 222-3 and avoid formatting the dates like 2015-11-28.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
What is the proper format? There are several 'accepted' on Wikipedia... THEPROMENADER   12:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Keep the formatting consistent. Which ever is used most in the article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Why not format all existing, then... noted. THEPROMENADER   13:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
A lot of thing should be improved in this article. A far too long history section, with a lot anecdotal events that don't give a lot of information about the history of Paris as a city. A cultural section that is more based on outdated stereotypes than on the real aspects of Paris' cultural life.
Paris article should become a real encyclopedia article rather that a tourist brochure. There is a lot of work to do. Editors should forget the all preconceived ideas they have on Paris. If something confirms a stereotypes, this is most likely a wrong information or a minor information that does not have its place on Paris article. Do not use tourist guides as source, half of the things there are either wrong, biased or outdated. Minato ku (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
While I would agree that the culture section should differentiate between 'historical culture' and present culture, it is not wrong, and I'll skip the bit about accusing contributors of using tourist books to edit the article (for my present edits, the idea of sending tourists to the INSEE is a fun one ; ), as the 'bias' accusation. And I don't agree with your (unmentioned) revert yesterday, by the way, as the contributor presented a very valid rationale for their correction. Let's see what they have to say about it, though. THEPROMENADER   06:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
-Wikipedia is not a tourist guide, WP:NOTTRAVEL what vistors want to see or hear do not matter . My mention to not use tourists guide as source was not an accusation, it was an advice. There are numerous source that come from tourists guide in this article. Do you know what is Lawrence & Gondrand 2010? It is the Insight Guides of Paris. And yes, guides do often have inaccurate information.
-Do you agree that most of what is written in the cultural section does not have its place in the main Paris article? What should be seen in this article is the current culture, not the history of the culture in Paris.
-About my revert, this contributor edit was also unmentioned. Why did only my edit bother you? Almost every city articles on wikipedia use the metropolitan area population in the lede. New York City, London, Tokyo, Rome, Madrid, Milan, Los Angeles, Toronto... I don't understand why this editor has deleted the mention of metropolitan area in the introduction of Paris. Why did this contributor only do that in Paris' article and why not in every other cities articles if he does not agree with the concept of metropolitan area? Minato ku (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Reverting a just-contributed edit without providing a talk-page rationale ('others do it' is not this) bothers contributors. And a talk-page rationale would have gotten an answer to a question only asked now... that is what the talk page is for.
I partly agree with your 'cultural' point, and I'm sure other contributors might, too, but I don't think many will sympathise with a tone like that. THEPROMENADER   20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Links fixed, will have to go over the entire page source for the date formatting, though. THEPROMENADER   07:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to move the history section down with the Culture section, and perhaps merge these somehow (as most of the culture discussed is 'heritage' culture, anyway), but before that happens, there should be something about 'modern' culture... it won't be very long, methinks. THEPROMENADER   16:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree about moving the history section down. It's the first section in the articles on London, New York, Tokyo and other major cities, and seems to be the standard format. What's gained? I do agree that we can improve the cultural section by adding more on on culture today, but a little historical context in each section is also helpful. We should be looking at having separate articles on each aspect of Paris culture, as there are now separate articles on each period of history, and several other topics. SiefkinDR (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I've never used other articles as a reference... every city seems to have its own 'method', and 'appeal to popularity' is not really an argument... 'what works best' should trump all, and it is that that should be tested (and copied ; )
I'm just mulling over the role of this article: most of its sections are a 'gateway' to other more detailed articles, so I'm wondering what the most-consulted 'go no further' sections in this regard would be, and I would think it would be basic info about the city, although I'm sure Paris' history gets a lot of hits... in other words, I would think that people wanting just basic info would stop at this article, and those wanting history would move on to the more detailed one. Trying to think from a reader point of view here, and throwing out some thoughts about that. THEPROMENADER   22:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Why Image of Palace of Versailles in the montage?[edit]

I noticed that an image of the Palace of Versailles has appeared in the montage at the top of the article. The declared topic of the article is the Department and Commune of Paris; there is of course a separate article on the Palace of Versailles. The image is also so small that it's difficult to recognize what it is. I don't have any problem with mentioning in the article that Versailles is one of the important sights to be seen in the Paris Region, but I don't see any need to include it in the montage; its simply misleading. I suggest that the montage be limited to monuments actually in the City of Paris. Comments? SiefkinDR (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That image has been in the montage since 2011. I think (if it is indeed Versailles) that is should be replaced with an image taken in Paris. Plus, it has a watermark signature by the photographer (bottom left), which is unacceptable. Coldcreation (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Paris. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)