Talk:Paris metropolitan area

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Paris Metropolitan Area)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject France / Paris  (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-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.
WikiProject Cities (Rated Start-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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Demographics" section table. History repeating.[edit]

The unreferenced table removed was suspiciously WP:OR, as no data of the sort existed before the 1990's. Now that the table-creator has reverted to his original creation, we see that the 'source' is a single experimental study (in French), which was probably why it wasn't presented in the first place: one cannot present a single study as actual statistics, this is both laughable and borderline plagiarism (as such experiments are the authour's invention; statistics aren't). Also questionable is the merit of presenting the 'demographics' of a demographics tool.

It's funny to see complaints to administrators about removers 'not talking about' their removing beforehand: if anything, it's the reverting to removed material that merits most a talk-page entry, but none was made. I've seen this sort of behaviour around similar 'contributions' a thousand times in the past, and although I'm back to editing after a five-year hiatus, it seems as though that contributor never went away. THEPROMENADER 20:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

After a second look, User:Der Statistiker has reverted to his first table without providing a reference at all, so, instead of removing it again (we all know it will only be re-reverted), it has been tagged 'no sources'. The second 'reference' to a single study has also been accordingly tagged with 'single source', with an additional 'verify source' tag because the numbers are an 'approximation' creation of a single person, they are not data from any statistics organisation. Wow. THEPROMENADER 20:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
…aand adding a 'verify source' tag (to the same source as above) to the (again) reverted-to-as-is "At the 1968 census, the earliest date for which population figures were retrospectively computed for French aire urbaines…" phrase. Why the convolution? One can simply say that 'urban growth in the 1960's was smaller than (an existing area)…' (and there are many sources for that) without retrospectively reinventing a 1960's statistical area that didn't exist before the 1990's. That's more than enough for one day. THEPROMENADER 21:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
By the way, it was my bad for not mentioning the fact that the tables were unreferenced and possible WP:OR in the edit summary where I removed them - I thought I had. THEPROMENADER 21:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Wait a second: I ~did~ properly summarize the reason for my removal. Why make it look as though I didn't by selectively providing this diff in post-revert 'complaints' to administrators? Really. THEPROMENADER 09:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
When some content is not referenced, we don't just delete it, otherwise we could delete half of Wikipedia. If you think some content needs to be referenced, there exist some tags for that. There is no justification for deleting some content just because you don't like it. As for your repeated personal attacks, I won't even respond to them. You're just discrediting yourself in the eyes of everybody by ranting about "his first table", when anyone checking the history of this page can see that I am not the editor who added the urban area table to this article in the first place (user DerBorg did). Der Statistiker (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It was a question of 'unreferenced', and we both know very well that kind of data couldn't exist before the 1990's. I don't care who wrote it, I just assumed it was its creator who was protecting it so ferociously (reverting without source or comment?) THEPROMENADER 21:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." THEPROMENADER 23:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Der Statistiker, removing tags already - without discussion - again? "From the INSEE website" does not mean "by the INSEE". Either way, it is not data, it is the work of a single author, an issue you are not addressing. THEPROMENADER 21:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your behaviour is so 'beyond flashback' that I'm going to ask you flat out: Der Statistiker, are you User:Hardouin? This would help shorten any dispute. THEPROMENADER 21:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet more personal attacks. Sigh... You placed a verify tag claiming that the reference didn't come from INSEE when it did in fact come from INSEE. Are you doing this on purpose? or do you not even take time to read the sources and just placed a verify tag for the sake of it? Either way, keep in mind that people are watching you and that this will not improve your reputation. But then it's up to you. Der Statistiker (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
(Pointing upwards) 'single study by one authour' != 'data'. Read before reverting next time - and straight to ad hominem? I don't think you've answered any question at all tonight. THEPROMENADER 21:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

From Der Statistiker's complaint to an administrator: "User:ThePromenader… has deleted large swaths of the Paris Metropolitan Area article (which I had just enriched with detailed content)". Interesting, because the table in question was introduced (as mentioned above, along with the misplaced 'Couronne' sections) by DerBorg [1] who is strangely absent from this issue (although his protectionism and 'sources' aren't). Der Statistiker's only involvement in this article was the reverting over the past days. The first table still has no source, by the way, and I can't find any similar 'information' anywhere - with reason, probably. THEPROMENADER 07:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Second largest?[edit]

The claim about being "second largest urban region in Europe after that of London" is not sourced and sounds unlikely. Istanbul is certainly larger and on the top of my head I'd say Moscow is as well. The important thing is that a proper source is needed.Jeppiz (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Concur. List of metropolitan areas in Europe has about 6 different sources, and 5 of them do NOT have Paris as the second largest metro area. --Jayron32 01:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Two sources there has Moscow bigger than Paris, while others have "No data" for Moscow. Istanbul is bigger in 4 sources, one having "No data". However, Istanbul article says about a third of its population living on the Asian side of Eurasia, so the European population of Istanbul is smaller than Paris's. (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I changed the claim to 2nd largest in the European Union. Batternut (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds rather awkward. Still being used to understand "European Union" as a political entity rather than a (static) geographical entity, I'd prefer "2nd largest established, (and/or whatever), in the European Union". --Askedonty (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Being "2nd largest in the EU" is indisputable, though "3rd largest in Europe behind Moscow and London" would be more informative. I agree with Istanbul being discounted due to only 1/3 being in Europe. I don't quite get your suggested 'established' or other qualifier... Batternut (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
"In the EU" is not exactly the same than "in the European Union", and that form would be very fine with me. I'd just prefer any kind of distanciation that will not be sending the Front National (France) amok being left out just behind Angela Merkel. As I wrote above, the term "European Union" is not generally understood as defining primarily a geographical area, otherwise the change would have been acted probably sooner besides. I do not suppose that "inside the European Union" would be grammatically correct ? --Askedonty (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2017[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: No move. It's clear there is no consensus for any of the options specifically, or that the current title is problematic in general. Cúchullain t/c 20:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Paris Metropolitan AreaParis aire urbaine – article is about a little-known-by-the-public INSEE statistical area; conflicts/creates confusion with the widely-publicised 2016 Métropole du Grand Paris [2] government initiative TP   18:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A disambiguation hat-note should suffice (since added). Oppose the use of "aire urbaine", (a) this is the English wiki, (b) INSEE sometimes uses the term aire métropolitaine (according to Metropolitan_area#France, and (c) it translates to "urban area" which we understand differently. Batternut (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Btw, it should really be "Paris metropolitan area" (ie lower case) rather than "Paris Metropolitan Area". Batternut (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
That has always been the dilemma: the aire urbaine concept only begins to resemble a metropolitan area on larger-size agglomerations; yes, the INSEE (the statistics institution inventor of these concepts) began to use aire métropolitaine to describe larger these since around 2009, but they translate it to... 'urban area' or 'large urban area'.[3] They must have a reason for this; they made the concept/term. And yes, this use does not 'sit well' with those familiar to using the term, but I don't think reader 'comfort' trumps fact (and remember that its use, in France, is not familiar or common), and the article explains the concept-area quite well and in detail.
The Aire métropolitaine term translates literally to 'metropolitan area', but most all English resources using this term are referring to the Île-de-France or a vague 'in the Paris area'... because, remember, even the aire métropolitaine is but an INSEE statistical concept used, for the time being, for census data only. But if one can find an English reference actually referring to this statistic-use using that term, one could argue that using the term as a title is not WP:OR or WP:SYNTH... but this goes against the official INSEE translation.
And it's because of the self-contradicting mess above that I'm persuaded that aire urbaine or aire métropolitaine would be the best way to go.
But at a minimum, I'm fine with setting it to lowercase as you indicate; the to-capitalised move (already years ago) was plain wrong. TP   15:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
PS: the hatnote was a great addition. TP   15:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
PPS: The Metropolitan Area (France) article was moved to Urban area (France) back in 2014 [4]. TP   07:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The INSEE definition of "urban area" is not shown explicitly as a translation of "aire urbaine", and to use it as such is OR. Independent writers equate it to "metropolitan area", eg Reddick, Power et al. Batternut (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Your WP:OR argument doesn't make sense; the translation is the INSEE's own in their own website: what higher authority can there be than the very authors of the term?. And it's been that way even through several website updates (so it's not a 'mistake')... I even wrote to them about it some years ago (I can forward the original email with ID transcript, everything); their UNESCO reference is highly important, too:

Au sein de l'Insee, le choix de "urban area" a été fait pour être en cohérence avec la plupart de traduction institutionnelles qui existent. Par exemple :, p.16 : "An ?urban area? is a group of touching municipalities, without pockets of clear land, made up of an urban centre and its periphery."
ou encore :
La traduction sous la forme "metropolitan area " est rarement rencontrée.

Nous sommes à votre disposition pour de plus amples informations.
Cordialement, ..."
As for your examples, Both are 'definitions of terms' specific to each work ("when we say metropolitan area in this work, we mean...")... those aren't translations, either, nor do they represent a preponderance of translations (as the 'linguee' link in the INSEE's explanation does), and, as I mentioned above, those examples are chosen just for their usage. TP   13:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
INSEE's definition is little more than an explanation of their own terminology, a Humpty Dumpty "it means just what I choose it to mean", ie a primary source. The Reddick and Powers books are independent works by established academics, ie secondary sources as favoured by WP. The Unesco ref starts with "The views and opinions expressed in this booklet are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of FAO, UNESCO or of the IIEP", rather undermining its worth.Batternut (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I've heard these exact same arguments many a time before. As they indicated in their explanation, the INSEE chose their translation to correspond to their usage with other organisations. Your 'It's little more than an explanation' claim is founded on nothing at all (and the evidence they presented counters it - and your claim assumes that they are English-illiterate and have no contacts or statistics-sharing (collaboration) with other countries at all?)). And, again, one can't cite only the references that fit one's desires/argument (no matter how X they are), one must consider them all, and, like the INSEE themselves said and demonstrated themselves, that translation of 'aire urbaine' is rare. TP   15:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
PS: The above is just to demonstrate that your claims are misguided. Again, aire urbaine is absolute factual (and no-confusion with the 'Métropole du Grand Paris'), but it would be fine if the article were moved to a lowercase Paris metropolitan area, as that would be a literal translation of the aire métropolitaine terminology that the INSEE has been using for larger agglomerations since a few years now... and there are several published instances of it being translated that way. [5] And again again, this capitalised version is just plain wrong. Cheers. TP   14:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Well let's do the uncontroversial move to "Paris metropolitan area", and further discussion of the understanding of aire urbaine might best take place at Talk:Urban area (France). Batternut (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, that's fine. (Done, Batternut, 16 Sep)
As for the other article, it's been where it is since years without complaint, and in light of the above, there's really nothing to discuss. TP   15:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
It's odd that the French wiki links fr:Aire urbaine to Metropolitan area, and fr:Zone urbaine linking to Urban area. Might they be the wrong? Batternut (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The article on the French aire urbaine is at fr:Aire urbaine (France) (and 'translates' to Urban area (France), and your 'zone urbaine' example is a non-sequitur (but while we're there, a French Urban unit is close to many other-country Urban area concepts). That's just the way it is in France. TP   17:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
If fr:Aire urbaine corresponds to Metropolitan area, then fr:Aire urbaine (France) (if it is really needed at all) should correspond to Metropolitan area (France). Batternut (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
One could just as easily argue in the opposite direction, if that was actually an argument for anything.
But all the same, there are two distinct fr:Aire urbaine and fr:Aire urbaine (France) articles, one a 'general notion in other countries' (because France has nothing comparable), and the other is on the INSEE concept precisely (like the article here is). TP   19:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
But alas, the reverse argument fails - fr:Aire urbaine cannot correspond to Urban area because fr:Zone urbaine already does! Batternut (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Right you are No, it does not 'fail': 'Zone urbaine' has nothing to do with anything: the only Zone urbaine the INSEE uses is 'Zone urbaine sensible'[6], and the French-Wiki 'zone urbaine' article doesn't even cite any definitions (so who knows where it comes from, out of someone's ass for all we know, that's not our problem... and moving the INSEE statistic article there (and all the problems that would cause) is 'okay', but moving the throwaway 'zone urbaine' there is not?!). But the 'France' section of the English Wikipedia 'urban area' article it 'translates' to explains the aire urbaine quite well, and links to the aire urbaine (Urban area (France)) article, which is quite correct.
Anyhow, the other non sequitur French-wiki aire urbaine two-article distinction you didn't address in your reply demonstrates itself (and that still is not an argument for anything here): I'm just answering your argument-for-I-don't-know-what-from-non-sequitur replies now, so can we put this to rest, please?
By the way, according to the template, we were supposed to wait seven days before deciding concensus. No biggie, but rushing it like that was kind of odd. TP   20:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
The upper/lower case issue seemed like a distraction, better to get it out of the way. Batternut (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Accepting as the UN WUP report says, "no common global definition of what constitutes an urban settlement", let's try to organize our urbanization terms with a simple table. You might help fill in the blanks:

Anglophone term approx anglophone definition Francophone term approx francophone definition
Urban area built-up area, contiguous fr:Unité urbaine?? un territoire défini par la continuité de l'habitat ou du bâti
Metropolitan area built-up core + commuter belt, non-contiguous  ?
Urban agglomeration built-up core + suburbs, contiguous  ?

Batternut (talk) 06:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

No, such a debate would be pointless, as the result would be pure WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. The INSEE is formal about its practices, and any article concerning these has to conform to them, and that's it. And as a nail in that particular pet-idea (why?) coffin, the idea of a Biscarrosse metropolitan area is frankly hilarious. TP   07:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I was hoping you had a clear understanding of these terms... And this is not article space, it is a thinking/talking space, OR etc doesn't apply here. Batternut (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I am aware even of the United Nations' definition of terms, which is yet again another set of term-criteria (that is theirs, not the INSEE's). This isn't a forum, either, and I never implied that WP:OR applies to talk-pages (why would I even do this?). TP   07:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
You never implied? But 37 minutes before you said such a debate would be pointless, as the result would be pure WP:OR, only 3 comments above... Batternut (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and WP:OR is unpublishable as article content here. What's not to understand in that? TP   13:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
You love your straw-man arguments! "Article content here", "Biscarrosse metropolitan area". Whatever next? Batternut (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
You implied that I said something I didn't; that's the very definition of a 'strawman'.
A 'metropolitan area' with a population of ~14,000 is indeed ridiculous (and is an actual, testable demonstration of why the term 'metropolitan area' is inapplicable for all 'aires urbaines' in France (and why the INSEE provides 'urban area' as a translation)), so your tone of ridicule is unfounded.
I don't see how throwing empty accusations is contributing anything to anything. TP   14:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Is Biscarrosse considered an Aire urbaine? On the face of it, it doesn't seem to meet the Insee definition. Batternut (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
AU2010 au 01-01-2017.xls TP   20:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Nice file, thanks! The Insee has defined both an aire urbaine de Biscarrosse and an unité urbaine de Biscarrosse. As they are both contain the commune of Biscarrosse and nothing more, I doubt anybody is going to start referring to the place as anything other than "Biscarrosse". Batternut (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

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

Other move discussions[edit]

Spin-offs from the above discussion follow... Batternut (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternate proposal[edit]

Move to aire urbaine de Paris, currently a redirect with no significant history. Current title with or without capitals is highly confusing to English speakers, and without the capitals it's inconsistent with other descriptive phrase titles. Andrewa (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

No. That's still French in an English wiki. What is confusing about "Paris metropolitan area"? Urban area says "Unlike an urban area, a metropolitan area includes not only the urban area, but also satellite cities plus intervening rural land ...". This area includes satellites (eg Chézy-en-Orxois), so in English we say "metropolitan area"! Batternut (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
French in an English wiki is not a problem if the French phrase is what would be most commonly used in English, as in Notre-Dame de Paris (or the article on INSEE itself I notice). The problem is that in this case that's a difficult call, as unlike Notre-Dame, this aire urbane is rarely mentioned at all in English sources. Eight of the thirteen references currently in the article are in French, but the five in English are all from the English pages of the INSEE website, which mention Paris metropolitan area only seven times in total.[7] So that's really only one English source, and perhaps not a very reliable indicator of English usage at that.
But see below regarding confusion, that's a good question. Andrewa (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The paucity of use in their website is also due to the fact that the term was only coined in 2011, just after the 2010-census 'reattribution' (recalculation) of France's 'aires urbaines'... that hasn't been updated since then (a great sign of its importance). And what's worse: doing just a general search for "Paris metropolitan area" will turn up tons of US-centric publications using the term to define anything from Paris' Île-de-France region to its 'petite couronne' (Paris and neighbouring departments (as a 'definition of terms' particlular to a study, or as a vague reference to 'in the Paris area', etc.), and almost none use it to refer to the aire urbaine.
Final note of clarity: the 'Paris metropolitan area' is technically an aire urbaine, as there is only one method of caclulating this statistical area, and the INSEE calling it aire métropolitaine since 2011 changes nothing in the statistical-tool's makeup or methods; 'metropolitan' is just a more 'modern-sounding' 'largest of the aires urbaines' name-designation, that's all. TP   18:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewa: Well, aire urbaine de Paris is certainly more elegant, but I do share Batternut's 'English' concerns (although their example is misguided/'essay': Paris qualifies for 'metropolitan area' simply because the INSEE (creators of the 'aire urbaine') have recently begun calling larger-city aire urbaines "aires métropolitaines").
I also would like to know your reasons for finding the term confusing (and I'm wondering how commonplace that confusion would be). TP   09:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Good question. It does seem consistent with New York metropolitan area, but probably the naming of New York related articles isn't a very good model to follow, see wp:NYRM. Andrewa (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Hm, I'm not sure that's the best example. Perhaps try to explain in so many words? TP   18:02, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternate proposal #2[edit]

Move to Metropolitan area of Paris. This seems actually to be a subarticle of Paris, (like Landmarks in Paris etc). There is no corresponding administrative structure. The subject of the article is just the measurement of the spread of the Paris commuter belt. Batternut (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I like your rationale, but also consider its similarity to the real-administrative 'Métropole du Grand Paris' entity and the confusion that may cause. TP   09:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternate proposal #3[edit]

Merge into Demographics of Paris. Akin to the Paris urban area (unité urbaine de Paris), which is sufficiently covered there. There is already much overlap between the demographics article and this. Batternut (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This too I like, but I'm not so sure that it's possible at this point (overly-interlinked even to templates (thanks to one rather WP:POINTy contributor).
Actually, this is a really intelligent idea, but it would take a lot of work to enact. And I'm divided when I think of the WP:NOTABILITY (article worthiness) of the aire urbaine de Paris... an INSEE statistis-tool unkknown to the greater public, it has been used in recent years by the press to reflect election results (in certain agglomerations), but I did not see that trend occur in the last elections. TP   09:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Certainly possible. This article would become a redirect to a section in the Demographics article, as would the other redirects Paris Metropolitan Area and Paris aire urbaine. I'd be happy to update the better articles that point here, but I'd ignore the 70+ Lycée stubs. Batternut (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention the 'Paris Metropolitan Area' template. I like this idea more and more (it would allow a more comprehensive and in-context explanation of Paris (French) demographics all in one page (it is split between several articles today), as well as all the statistics resulting from these methods... and it would avoid confusion with the Métropole du Grand Paris. But give me a bit more decide-time to think of it from an 'uninitiated English reader' point of view? TP   22:31, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course, no hurry. More views / ideas may arrive over the next week. I think that Template:Paris Metropolitan Area will be fine as-is - it will be OK for it to link into the Demographics article. Batternut (talk) 14:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose move - this seems to be a solution looking for a problem. We have numerous articles titled "X metropolitan area", and it's clear what they mean. Most people are familiar with what a "metropolitan area" is, and moving to a French title that isn't WP:RECOGNIZEable to most English readers won't help us. And why should we merge it into another article? All major world cities have dedicated metro area articles, so I don't think it's sufficient just to cover it in a a demographics article. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't have any preference one way or another (the article is fine where it is), but I am opposed to 'arguments from ignorance' (and 'conform uber alles') arguments like this. Yes, most English-speakers 'know' what a metropolitan area is, but if they were to 'transpose' their 'local' assumptions to French demographics and French popular usage, they would be wrong. Not only is the aire urbaine statistical tool not built in the same way as other-country 'metropolitan area' methods, it is hardly known to the public and not common usage here.
What does justify a 'Paris metropolitan area' namespace is references using this term to describe it (referring to the same thing)... the INSEE does this. All that remains to consider is whether the statistical tool (and its non-economy, population-only statistics) is important enough to merit its own article. TP   10:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
PS: sorry for my tone, perhaps that was unwarrented. I do see many trying to make other-country-culture articles (and concepts) conform to their own understanding... often in error, and that teaches us nothing about how other people do things. Pet peeve of mine. TP   17:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The GEOLAND section of the notability guideline says "census tracts are usually not considered notable". This statistical area seem very similar to a census tract. Batternut (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Where were you ten years ago? ; )
Usage-wise, yes, it is very similar to a census tract (used for nothing outside of statistical data (no political, administrative, economic or historical identity/use)), but it is different in the way it is based on one of the smallest existing administrative entities (the French commune). The statistics concept is not very notable, for sure, but the article (or section) can be useful for sharing the statistical (census, employment place) data taken therein. TP   18:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paris metropolitan area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)