Talk:List of universities and higher education institutions in the Paris region

Merge of charts
I propose that the chart (which one is also to be discussed) is removed from the University of Paris article and put into this one only, since there already is a link. --Ransouk (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't do any wrong of there are both the table and link, as it'll make easier for anyone to understand the division. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It does, it can create disparities. What wrong does it do that there are two charts the time we settle which one is the most appropriate? --Ransouk (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It won't create disparity. It will make it easy if someone doesn't need to click another article to know about the full division. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It is easy. For example, how "Paris 8 University Vincennes-Saint-Denis" is a former name? It is not. "Former name" does not mean much. The chart is inaccurate.

Besides, the other chart is more complete. Why should not it be there?

--Ransouk (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The chart doesn't mean that. There are two rows shown *only if* the university has a former name. If there aren't two rows, that means there's no former name. (like Paris 8, whose name isn't divided in 'former' & 'current' name) Ragnarvrollo (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Who is supposed to know your interpretation of the chart? Why not putting the accurate chart? Ransouk (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

If the former chart wasn't accurate, it wouldn't there for years. It would be removed by administrators long ago. I've explained your concerns. I checked French versions of pages too, to see if there are any error about info, there isn't.  Ragnarvrollo (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, I put back the template about the merging discussion, as you wished. So now, there are both the table & the template you made. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * French Wikipedia and "if the former chart wasn't accurate" "it would be removed by administrators long ago" are not arguments. By the way, it WAS removed one year ago and the chart you are trying to remove was put instead. So please explain why the accurate chart should not stay. Ransouk (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

It was removed by *you*, so it's basically you, who is pushing your own POV. I can mention the precise date - 9 May 2021. I've also explained why the table isn't actually 'inaccurate' Ragnarvrollo (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I put a better chart. Under "former names", there are things that are NOT former names, it was inaccurate.
 * No, you did not explain anything. In particular, why the accurate chart should not be put, other than "no need". Ransouk (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, Your linking of UPEC was wrong. When clicked, it didn't show the university's page. But you constantly made that mistake. So I had to change that repeatedly. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok for UPEC. What about the chart? Ransouk (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The perception of 'better' is subjective. It's about accuracy. The chart doesn't imply 'all' of them have former names. Except you, none have complained. So it's you who are getting that wrong. It doesn't mean what you're saying. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * You still did not answer, three times, why should the accurate version that you changed should be changed.
 * If it is written "former name", it is not subjective to say that a reader expect that under there is a former name. Ransouk (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I'll edit that & make two rows, so that 'former' & 'current' names will be two seperate rows. So no confusion. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Please contribute to the discussion in good faith. You are not answering my main question: why shouldn't the accurate and complete version be there?
 * It took 4 times asking a question for you to admit a very simple fact. The whole chart you want to put does not belong here. "Former name" does not mean much. It does not suit an encyclopedia. Ransouk (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'll add the former name of Pantheon-Assass too. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your chart confuses name and merging, it is two different things. Ransouk (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * With the accurate chart, but merge "name in the 1970s" and "in the 1990s" to "former name/structure" and write after "current name/structure" (choose one if there are two), AND only in this page and not University of Paris for clarity, perhaps I would agree. --Ransouk (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Just above the table, the information about merger is given, to avoid the confusion. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it'll be better if the chart is given in the page of University of Paris too. As it's about the division of that specific university. Let's keep the table in both page. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, former name/structure" and "current name/structure" will be added instead - to avoid clarification. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

sorry, to avoid *confusion. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to keep both of our contributions, in one table. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it will be ok as you propose, but we have to agree first. Do not edit war this time and normally it will be fine a simplified version if you remove the mistakes. Ransouk (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Request of third opinion
There has been an edit war and the other user has been temporarily partially blocked. He proposes a simplified chart that was, imo, false and now he accepts to correct the mistakes. Providing that the mistakes are corrected, two questions I do not have a definitive opinion on:

1. should the chart be put in double in this article and the other article as he wants and I did not want?

2. It is better an precise chart or a simplified chart or both? He wants the simplified?

Providing that there is no mistake, just ambiguity (between change of name and merger, and between the date of what is "former" because some names were in the 1970s and others in the 1990s), whatever the third opinion says. --Ransouk (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Ransouk I'll post an updated & correct version of the chart, peace. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Ransouk I propose the chart to be posted in both articles (University of Paris + this article). I hope that you would agree. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just realized that my answer in (2) depends pretty heavily on screen size, so reducing the table's size might not be as relevant. — LauritzT (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you, so the result is 1/ in both article. Could you do a template, I don't think we know how to do this? 2/detailed table. I am happy with whatever, as long as it is not inaccurate, and just I would be strongly against reducing the former name of Paris 2 to an acronym: that acronym has never existed so it would be misleading. Also, since there has been a edit war, could you yourself put the table in University of Paris and remove the templates on both articles, so that the change is neutral? Ransouk (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to create the template. Do you have any suggestions for a name? I'm thinking something like . I'm a little unsure about the last part – should place the table on both pages using the template, or something else? — LauritzT (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was in favor of only on one page, but you and the other user are for both, so let's do that! And please remove the templates because it closes the discussion on merging. Yes, that name seems great. It could be more specific but that is more simple. Ransouk (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you're referring to removing the merge discussion templates? — LauritzT (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes! Ransouk (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, a way to make it clearer would be to align on the right for current name/structure fro the three first lines and Nanterre? How to do that? Ransouk (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have moved the table to a template and removed the merge discussion templates. I'm a little unsure of what you mean. You can edit the template on Template:Successors to the University of Paris. I'm not familiar with table markup, but you can ask on Help desk if you need help with that. — LauritzT (talk) 18:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you! Ransouk (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I've edited the Template:Successors to the University of Paris and posted a new & reformed table. If all agree with it, then we may post this chart in both articles (as per third opinion). Ragnarvrollo (talk) 09:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Let me know, if you agree with this chart. I've corrected the previous table. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As you know, I was open to everything without mistake but asked for a third opinion. The third opinion agreed with putting on both pages with the idea of a template, but was in favor like me of a detailed table. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Successors_to_the_University_of_Paris --Ransouk (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Ransouk "it will be fine a simplified version if you remove the mistakes" - As you said, I've removed the mistakes & made a simplified & correct version. Now why was the complex table posted again, which started this edit war at the first place? No consensus still. Ragnarvrollo (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)