Talk:Paris/Archive 7

"metropolitan area" template
I know that I and others have noted many times that this template is 'more noise than information' and that Equendil also voted for its removal, but all the same I'd like to leave a note here before doing so. It should go because of : a) its sheer size and b) in spite of this, the utter impossibility of its containing the names of/links to all the 1,584 communes included in the latest consensus aire urbaine, and this in turn c) makes its very raison d'être moot. There are a few other reasons that have more to do with the particularities of France's "MA" (aire urbaine), but probably the most important remaining is the futility of this template as an endeavour, which is probably why nothing of the sort exists anywhere else on Wiki. I vote to remove this immediately - there is too much template clutter in this article.  T HE P ROMENADER  13:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No offence but metropolitan area really should be in IdF and or an article for MA itself. Paris article should really concentrate on the city. Captain scarlet 14:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a silly comment. When people are checking this Paris page, they want informations on the whole thing, not simply the historical center. Even in the smallest dictionnary, Paris agglomeration is at least mentionned. Why pretending there's nothing around ? I really fail to understand you by moment. Metropolitan 13:51, 3 june 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't understand the first part of the comment myself, but the latter is quite clear. Look, I'm getting tired of this forced border-pushing ambiguity, there's no excuse for it. Paris is no bigger than Paris, and using descriptions such as 'historical centre' when you speak of the entire city is in itself quite silly. Or were you describing pre-1860's Paris? In any case, even the 'smallest dictionary' may speak of the Paris agglomeration, but they certainly don't call it Paris - even this part of your statement is wrong and misleading. Just keep to existing references please - the government may one day make 'Paris' bigger, but Wiki can't do it first.  T HE P ROMENADER  15:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Metropolitan but your reply lacks tact. I'd like it if you could source your comment stating that they are looking for more information than just the city, if so, create an article on metropolitan area, sparis suburb or whatever pseudo imaginary area you wish to discuss. No end of adding off topic information will change the fact that an article on Paris should speak of Paris and only refer briefly to other terms such as the Parisian region, not possess an entire chapter, template or half a dictionary on it. It is getting tiresome that some contributors are putting the article down of proably one of the most important articles in Wikipedia when articles on other capitals and large cities have done without. I'd appreciate a little clairvoyance and less personnal comments, thanks. It can't be difficult to link regional, suburban information from the introduction, nicely set up with more links in the city infobox, aruying about an off topic is an utter waste of time. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No offense taken. Another problem is that this template is present in I-don't-know-how-many other commune articles - but certainly not all communes in this year's AU, as I doubt that articles for all communes even exist.  T HE P ROMENADER  15:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This template is not "more noise than information". Thanks to its information given, this template is usefull in this article. Moreover, this template is at the end of the article. It does not bother anyone and does not interfere with all the information given before. That is the reason why we should leave this template as it is today. Pedro carras 13:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - 'the information' means what information, and how? Please elaborate as your comments don't comment any points precisely.  T HE P ROMENADER  16:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The information given is clear though: the template lists the communes in the metropolitan area of Paris and gives their population size. If we consider that:
 * - a metropolitan area is a large population center consisting of a large city and its adjacent zone of influence, or of several neighboring cities or towns and adjoining areas, with one or more large cities serving as its hub(s),
 * - Paris is one of the 100 largest metropolitan areas in the world,
 * this template is more than interesting in this article. That is the reason why we should leave it as I said before.
 * Pedro carras 00:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Paris' MA definitely exists, but this has no reflection on the existence of template itself - we could have a template for everything then. Point is, the PMA template is pointless simply because it cannot list all of the cities contained in Paris' AU. A category would fulfil the same purpose, be more complete (all concerned communes listed) and take up much less space - in fact, no space at all. T HE P ROMENADER 07:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * At least we both know Paris is a MA. There are several articles like Chicago which have as many space as the article of Paris has (or even more) and the MA template is still belonging, even if it cannot list all of the cities contained in the corresponding MA. Pedro carras 23:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean Paris has an MA : )  T HE P ROMENADER  23:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I mean is. Pedro carras 02:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing outside Paris is 'Paris'. We will not be debating this again; I suggest re-reading the archives. T HE P ROMENADER  08:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not remember having debating any point. I just remember trying to answer to your questions. But I read all your archives and I still disagree to remove the template. Sorry. Pedro carras 10:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm - In reading the above, I don't see that you've answered any of my points or questions. I am sorry though that you are alone in wanting to preserve the template - perhaps we can find some other solution. Why not a category?  T HE P ROMENADER  11:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * One should also consider the importance the government gives the subject of each template: Communes, Departéments, Régions are all often commonly referred to by both government and public, but Prefectures are not very commonly referenced, and the Paris aire urbaine or Paris metropolitan area is referenced by next to none, even internationally. If you want proof, just google each with "Paris". This template may be 'interesting' to a very few, but it's not interest but common information value that holds the most weight here.  T HE P ROMENADER  22:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I still really want to lose some of those templates, and this one most of all for its pointlessness. I would like to have a final round of thoughts on this before removing it. T HE P ROMENADER 08:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Still pushing your anti-metropolitan area agenda I see. Some people never change and never learn. Users Metropolitan and Pedro Carras above have disagreed with your idea of removing the template. I also disagree. That's already 3 people. I'm sorry but this time you are not going to force your way against three other users. I've been busy lately, but I'll keep an eye on this. Metropolitan and Pedro Carras, please also keep an eye on this, and re-state your disagreement with Promenader again. Promenader has this habit of interpreting a lack of answer to his very many messages as a "default agreement". If you don't answer him again, he'll pretend people agree with him and he's entitled to remove the template. I've seen that happen before. Hardouin 01:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hardouin, the whole point of any discussion page topic is to reach consensus, and if consensus says that the template stays, well, too bad for me. Insinuating that I have somehow previously bypassed this procedure is very underhanded - and on this note, "no answer" means "present consensus stands", nothing more. And if there is one thing you cannot accuse me of, it's dishonesty, so stop. I suggest you rely on fact rather than insinuative denigration when addressing content issues - your present attitude is inconsiderate of other contributors, and frankly disruptive to any real discussion. Remember WP:NPA, or appear in WP:PAIN.  T HE P ROMENADER  06:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for mentioning WP:PAIN. I didn't know there existed such a noticeboard. Had I known it earlier, I would already have reported your numerous personal attacks and slandering of my name on several people's talk pages. I still haven't forgotten your "Hardouin is a wily little creature" . Now that I know about this noticeboard, I will make sure to report you if you ever resort to personal attacks or name calling again. Hardouin 14:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

To keep to discussion on topic, my whole argument against this template is that a) the "aire urbaine" is not a concrete region commonly referred to by public and/or state, but a statistics-use-only statistical area that changes every year, and b) it is impossible to include all communes within, difficult to maintain the yearly changes - also what communes are 'most notable' is a question of opinion only, which is just another mark against making depicting this sort of vaguely-defined info into a template. Although based on an adminisitrative area little-referenced by any public, even the "Préfectures" template's place here is more justified as this region is a) often referred to in state matters and b) is a solid and rarely-changing list. T HE P ROMENADER 07:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fallacious arguments, as usual. No, the metropolitan area of Paris doesn't change every year. Its limits are changed when there is a new census. Between censuses it remains stable. Besides, the metro area has now absorbed pretty much anything suburban around Paris, so there is absolutely no new commune with more than 25,000 inhabitants that is likely to enter the metro area anytime soon (except perhaps Creil). So the communes in the template will remain pretty much the same for at least a decade or two. But then, we both know that this is just a pretext. The truth is, you don't like the concept of metro area, and you just want to remove it from the article. So why not making clear your aversion for metro areas, instead of hiding behind pretexts? Hardouin 14:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * From this year, there is a census every year, and a complete census every five years. This is not a place to make 'likely' predictions on what will or will not grow, it is a place to re-publish published fact. The rest of your statement is a personal affront on a 'fault' of your own invention - if anything, it is obvious to all and by much in this page that I have even worked to preserve AU info in this article.


 * Any further personal affrontery will be removed from this page as per WP:NPA, as it is disruptive and dissuades contributors. If you want to argue fact, use fact and references, not inventive accusations. If you insist on the personal affrontery, please feel free to vent away on my talk page, not here.  T HE P ROMENADER  17:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not from this year that the yearly censuses started. They actually started in 2004. But then, you're not a statistics' specialist, so how would you know? The current census campaign will take 5 years to complete. This means that at the earliest the limits of the Paris metro area will be changed in 2009. As for your other comments, I'm sorry if you feel that disagreeing with you is "personal affrontery", but you don't own this page and if you don't like to be contradicted, then don't edit on Wikipedia. Hardouin 18:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The 2004 results will be officialised this year, so this begins to count from "this year" as we both know. Adressing "as usual" comments to me precisely is not a simple disagreement. You have yet to address the main issues presented, that is to say why a "préfecture" is more referenced in France, by both government and public, than any aire urbaine statistical area.  T HE P ROMENADER  18:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm not going to start arguing with you over pretexts again. Suffice to say that three users oppose removing the metro area template. As for the census, you'd better not talk about things that you're not familiar with. Briefly: 2004 results for small commmunes have already been disclosed in 2005, and 2005 results have been disclosed 4 months ago. As for large communes, results will be disclosed in the end of 2008 or beginning of 2009, at which time census figures for both small and large communes will be officialised by the French Parliament. There will be no change to the limits of urban or metro areas until 2009 at the earliest. Hardouin 21:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Forget discussing nonexistent pretexts, rather let's stop spending hours on semantics - yes, 2004 communes of less than 10,000 habitants are already official, anything larger are only 'sampled' by portions every year. Nevertheless, they are counted, and the results are far from 'fixed' as administrative regions are. Some regions are solid, mapped and oft-referenced, some are purely statistical, rarely spoken of and, unexplained, are of little comparitive value. That's it.  T HE P ROMENADER  21:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

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 : )  T HE P ROMENADER  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...  T HE P ROMENADER  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. T HE P ROMENADER 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.  T HE P ROMENADER  11:25, 16 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.  T HE P ROMENADER  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.  T HE P ROMENADER  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.  T HE P ROMENADER  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.   T HE P ROMENADER  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 : )  T HE P ROMENADER  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.  OhNo itsJamie 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.  T HE P ROMENADER  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)

The InfoBox
Before you go and change the infobox, here are some ideas: Think about who it's for. The info box should contain the basic information so people can glance at it and immediatly know some information. The Basic Stuff is the

1. Country

2. Continent

3. Location (Coordinates)

4. Population

5. Total Land area (this includes every bit of Paris!)

6. Climate

7. Time Zone.

I think this is what's needed, then students espically will know the information they need. I know the Paris infobox doesn't have all this, that's why I'm saying it needs this.


 * I'm sorry Akid - I didn't see your message down here until just now. This is exactly what the goal is here - instant comprehensibility even for the uninitiated. I hope the newer proposition meets your criteria - you may note that the infobox now contains 'urban spread' info that goes well beyond Paris. Climate - would it be possible to put this in one line, and is it really useful? Please feel free to join the thread above. -- T HE P ROMENADER  06:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Streamlining
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. T HE P ROMENADER 14:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You may have noticed a slight update in the plan - it's an image I concocted from bits and pieces of NASA satellite images and an administrative map of France. I've introduced here the 'floating point' system I elaborated for the Paris Streets Project - with this only one 'base' image (map) is needed and the pointer can be moved (through template specs) to any position needed. All thoughts welcome.  T HE P ROMENADER  19:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: Will upload a pointer whose matte (fringe colour) is more adapted to this plan later. T HE P ROMENADER 19:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Any proposal which tries to reduce the width of the infoboxes will get my support... But I like the map in the current infobox better: it's easier to read and we don't really need a satellite image here, don't we?Thbz 05:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do we really need to have the twin cities in the infobox? olivier 10:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am in favour of this more streamlined infobox and I agree with Olivier that the Twin Cities doesn't have to be in the infobox. However, I like both the current and the proposed map, so I can't say which I prefer at the moment. Green Giant 22:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just 2 notes: I have linked the coordinates to allow access to the kvaleberg page. Also I think when we have some consensus, this infobox should be modified into a generic template so it can be used in Lyon, Marseilles etc. Green Giant 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Other users should be aware that this is yet another attempt by ThePromenader to negate the reality of metropolitan areas in France. For those who missed the previous episodes, in a nutshell ThePromenader believes that metropolitan area is a concept that is best applied to North America but that makes no sense in France. For months now Promenader has fought a battle to have references to the Paris metropolitan area removed from this article, or at least underplayed. The latest trick now is to change the infobox itself, so as to remove most metropolitan area info. Please compare the infobox as it exists now, and the infobox as Promenader intends to change it. Not surprisingly, what disappears is the information related to metropolitan area. I (and others) have explained to Promenader hundreds of times that in France communes are very small and do in no way offer an accurate portrayal of French cities. It is important to include metropolitan area information in the infoboxes to reflect the reality of French cities (size, administration, and so on). It is also important to clearly mention and disambiguate the city mayor and the intercommunality president, who are often two different persons. Yet with Promenader's new infobox this information disappears. Please check yourself. Hardouin 23:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A much nicer looking infobox than the former but it is still insanely huge, try cutting its height by a third and remove data that can easily be contained in sentence. I think User:Hardouin|Hardouin]] should calm down with his accusations once more, and think of what goes around comes around... Like they say in France: C'est l'hôpital qui se moque de la charité! The best move would ultimately to remove all infoboxes and errr. Do this age old thing of typing information sentences, it is more likely to be remembered than a random and arbitrary number chosen by one or another. What's important isn't what you or another wants to include in your poxy population stats but just what is behind that line that is a comuune boundary. Captain scarlet 23:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So basically you're in favor of removing all infoboxes. I doubt the majority of people on Wikipedia share your opinion. Hardouin 10:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically yeh. Infoboxes are a poor subsitute for text and a source of arguments from people with too much time on their hands and a large ego. Captain scarlet 12:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly, we now have two votes (with my own) for the infobox slimming (and I do remember two from before - attempts from Stevage and Green Giant to slim things down, but these need not count for now). Fine for nixing the satellite image.


 * As for the overly preponderant 'metropolitan area' info: no other Wiki 'big city' article, not even that of positively huge New York City, gives such emphasis and space to its metropolitan area in its infobox - so why this article? French cities are French cities and each has its own jurisdictional and administrative particularities, and no amount of factual cherrypicking will make them seem like greater international 'others' (that themselves do not give themselves such 'importance'!). Have a look at the other French city articles (even American ones), and explain why even they do not speak of French cities in this way - there are good and obvious reasons for this, and these I have stated hundreds of times before. Even so, the 'metropolitan area' info is still present in the infobox - but this in its proper context. By the way, "intercommunality" has absolutely nothing to do with the Metropolitan area, so it has no place there. There are in fact no organisations, save to my knowledge for one 'cross-border' city (and this loosely), based on any 'aire urbaine' - so this inclusion in its present form is more than misleading. All of these counts together completely justify a modification of the infobox into a more streamlined and 'info-important' version like that proposed here.


 * Hardouin, I suggest you stick to the facts and leave the 'who' out of it. Thank you.


 * T HE P ROMENADER 23:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In the case of Paris, there is a region (Ile-de-France) of eight departements including the departement of Paris. This departement has a unique status in that it comprises only one commune (Paris). There are 20 municipal arrondissements in the commune of Paris. At each of these administrative tiers, there is a formal structure of government. The aire urbaine is a statistical concept but there is no administrative structure for the aire urbaine of Paris. Therefore the Paris article snd the infobox should be about the departement and commune of Paris and not about the metropolitan area. Green Giant 01:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright then for the infobox's thinning and its shortening by the removal of impertinent and non-essential information. As for the map, it is true that the proposed version is more than a tad 'heavy'. Yet I find the present version a tad bland - I'll try to find a happy compromise. Should the twin city info really go too? In looking at Lyon and Marseille, It is space-filling for sure - perhaps is there another means of including it in the article? I've applied (save for the map) the above changes, including Green Giant's reference corrections. T HE P ROMENADER 23:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the old map until I find the time to ready another suggestion - if someone else doesen't provide one first. The template presented here incoporates all suggestions made above. In its essentiality it is Hardouin's - this version should simply be an update of that its creator has already spread throughout many 'big French city' articles. I don't think there is a need to make a new one.  T HE P ROMENADER  17:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: I've left in the 'floating pointer' system - with it there only need be one 'France' map needed for all template pages - as it stands every city article needs its own because of the dot displacement. Coordinates for the pointer are entered into the template data just like the rest. Already tested for all browsers and present in other Wiki pages.  T HE P ROMENADER  17:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what you pretend, your infobox is not "essentially Hardouin's". You have removed most information concering metro area. Again I can see no justification for that, apart from a desire to dwarf and misrepresent the size of French cities. Land area of the metro area is gone. President of intercommunality is gone. Number of communes in the metro area is gone. Annual population growth rate is gone. Density of the metro area is gone. Even the mayor's period in office is gone! On the other hand, you have added little needed or confusing info, such as urban area or time zone. So don't call your infobox "essentially Hardouin's" please. Hardouin 11:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The design is yours, Hardouin. This is not an article about remote towns inhabited by a percentage of commuters to Paris' urban area, this is an article about Paris, so of course most of the info about this is gone - as agreed above. There never was any president of any intercommunality in the Paris infobox (a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with any metro area, by the way). The urban area is the city's natural growth, and is an information much more relevent of what Paris' 'city spread' is than any sparsely-inhabited commuter belt (also present) - but we can remove this too if you like - but personally I don't think this a good idea. How is a time zone 'confusing' ? I also suggest that a photo be integrated into the top of the infobox like other North American city articles - a photo of Paris though.  T HE P ROMENADER  00:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To Hardouin. You have to make a choice. Is this article about Paris, or Ile de France. Off course some notions of outside Paris should be mentionned, but the bulk of it should be in regional articles rather than the Paris one. Is this an article of the La Ville de Paris or La banlieue parisienne ? What  T HE P ROMENADER  is trying to do is remain focused on the subject. I agree with your point concerning the time zone, although it is off course important to know that, it may not be a hot topic'. Perhaps Delanoe also deserves to get himself back in the box ?
 * It might also be cunning to move some information to Paris related articles, such as History of Paris, Buildings in Paris, Geography of Paris, Economy of Paris, List of famous people in Paris, Sport in Paris, Culture of Paris, create an array of Paris articles, and maybe even portal to try and lighten up the main article rather than trying to cram in as much as possible. Regards, Captain scarlet 01:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delanoë is in the box, Captain Scarlet, it's just for how long he's going to be there that is not. : ) One more note: There are coordinates both in the infobox and at the top of the article - one must go. (open question) Which do you prefer?  T HE P ROMENADER  00:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer the coordinates being in the infobox. Green Giant 00:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

All other city infoboxes contain metro area population and do not include urban area population. Why should this infobox include both? Just to please Promenader's vision that (I quote) "the urban area is the city's natural growth, and is an information much more relevent of what Paris' 'city spread' is than any sparsely-inhabited commuter belt" ? Metro area is metro area, period. To add the urban area stats and present it as the "real" city spread is just confusing the mind of people and having them believe that somehow metro area concept makes no sense in Paris. Only Promenader has this warped vision of reality. Even INSEE has moved from urban area to metro area in all its analyzes of French cities. Check Eleven criteria to define big cities or The influence of the large French cities is speading: these INSEE studies discuss metro areas (aire urbaines), not urban areas (unités urbaines), or even less administrative cities proper (communes). Hardouin 11:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that Promenader's argument that there is no president of intercommunality in Paris so there's not need to include that information in the information is not valid. Here this is not a Paris infobox, this is a large French cities infobox, and absolutely all other large French cities have intercommunality presidents. Martine Aubry is the mayor of Lille, but Pierre Mauroy, the former French prime-minister, is the president of the intercommunality, and in many ways wields more power than Martine Aubry. Same in Toulouse where Jean-Luc Moudenc is the mayor, but Philippe Douste-Blazy, the current French foreign minister, is the president of the intercommunality of Greater Toulouse. Hardouin 12:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cherrypick facts all you like, but a city's commuter belt is not the city itself. Let this be the end of this silliness. Other city infoboxes 'have MA info' but none have one third of their length dedicated to it. The other arguments are again but an attempt at distraction: 'Little-used by any administration or reference' != 'no sense'. The insee has analytical info for ALL divisions - city, departement, region, UU and AU - and makes no mention at all about which is more than important than another - so, Hardouin, your declaration is at once false and misleading. The intercommunality box is still there: so when a city has something to put in it, it will be filled. End of story.


 * I do remember asking something about the coordinates. Oh, yes, thank you Green Giant. If there is no further ado we can go ahead with changes - which won't be an easy task as the existing infobox template was integrated before this discussion was even completed.  T HE P ROMENADER  15:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whenever you don't like something that disagree with your personal vision, you call it "cherrypicking". I'm sorry but you can't get away from facts like that. Your dismissive attitude is very condecending. Hardouin 16:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know who could describe citing widely known, used and respected references and government sources as 'a personal vision'. Nor do I see the use in posts such as the above - filled with insinuative adjectives that have nothing to do with fact, and certainly not an answer to questions and points about fact. I'm sorry that you see my impatience with such posts as being 'dismissive', but enough time has been wasted beating around your unshared and untenable personal point of view. User:Hardouin is no longer alone in editing this article, and today is accompanied by contributors who can clearly see what is referenced fact and what isn't. It's time to move forward.  T HE P ROMENADER  17:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here's the new template. There are a few 'space saver' touchups to be made (not tonight; I'm dead tired), but this version takes into consideration every point made above. After taking a few steps back and thinking about how simply to explain the particularities of French urban delimitations to those not already in the know, I came up with this (to the right) idea - it makes it obvious what is and is not the city, and what is its growth, and all this in context in a way easily remembered for later reference while one reads the text. Unfortunately the extra title adds some length again... but hoping that lowering the line-hight (motto;coordinates/time zone) will shorten things again. Some simple design would be nice, but let's get the content set first - what do you think?

PS - I would have liked to simply worked on the existing version, but the fact that it is already present in many articles makes this very difficult. Too bad about that.

T HE P ROMENADER 23:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is better in content, but you have pointed oput that it is rather tall. My concerns are regarding the Urban Spread information which seems a bit off topic, I don't see why additional information shouldn't be in the intorduction to the article, and keep strictly Paris information in the box, like strictly remaining on topic.
 * The problem with infoboxes in general is that they prevent images being added to them article in sections at the beginning of articles. That's my main problem. Ths box would do me fine simply by deleting Urban Spread.
 * Cheers, Captain scarlet 09:00, 5 May 2006 (GMT)
 * Concerning Urban Spread, I recon that it should be mentionned in the article, not in the Paris box. BUT be in the Ile-de-France box, if it has one. (thanks to my cup of tea at my desk for this). Captain scarlet 09:04, 5 May 2006 (GMT)

Promenader, once more I see that you didn't listen to a word of what I said. Your infobox does not contain intercommunality president, so when someone will read the Lille infobox for instance, they will see the name of Martine Aubry, but they won't see the name of Pierre Mauroy. This is a bit like having a London infobox that would have the name of the Lord Mayor, but would make no mention of Ken Livingstone. More fundamentally, I don't understand the need for your infobox. If all you want to do is delete metropolitan area information, then there is already a template which is Template:French communes. The reason to create Template:Large French Cities in the first place was to include metropolitan area information for those large French cities where the commune is only a small part of the actual physical city. Now if you want to re-dedicate the infobox to the commune, then simply use Template:French communes. I don't see the logic of changing Template:Large French cities simply to end up with something quite similar to Template:French communes. Hardouin 11:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you might have answered to your own question there. Captain scarlet 11:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My question? There was no question asked. Just the expression that I find it illogical and absurd to remove metropolitan area information from the infobox, which deprives it of its reason to be in the first place. Hardouin 11:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

For those new to this discussion, one of the major arguments raised in favor of changing the current infobox was that it is too long. I find this argument particularly fallacious. If you compare with the USA or Germany infoboxes, you'll find out the length of the Paris infobox is slightly shorter than the length of these two country infoboxes. And if you compare with the Toronto or Shanghai infoboxes, then you'll find out that the Paris infobox's length is significantly shorter than these two cities infoboxes. Check for yourself. Hardouin 12:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The intercommunality box is there. What goes in it depends on the article. Didn't I mention this once before?


 * "The reason to create Template:Large French Cities in the first place was to include metropolitan area information for those large French cities where the commune is only a small part of the actual physical city "


 * Misleading use of the passive voice aside, Hardouin, you alone decided, and this against every existing reference and every common usage in existence, that a city's commuter belt is equal to the city itself and should be spoken of as the city itself. The 'plain wrong' of this is proven several times over even in this talk page, so consider this an end to this sort of wishful inventon. If you wish really to speak of an agglomeration as a whole you must, for example, begin a Paris agglomeration or Paris urban area article, or refer to an existing wider administration appellation.


 * The fact that France's 'commune' administrative map conventions do not account for real demographic growth is a French administrative particularity that must be explained as other references do - not glossed over or ignored like it doesn't exist. No French commune, under any circumstances, has ever been called by the same name as a neigbouring commune; for speaking of activites encompassing more than one commune, new apellations are invented or the name of a higher administrative division is used. Show some respect for this reality please: We are here to re-publish documented fact, not to display originality.


 * Cherry-picked comparisons do not reflect fact - an infobox need only be as long as the information relevent to its namespace. Referenced reality makes the "Paris" infobox shorter. -- T HE P ROMENADER  12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, all of the above, plus new plan proposition. Plan still needs some work (alignment) but that's about the gist of it. Also activated, the 'movable pointer' system modifiable through template input variables. Enjoy, and please comment. T HE P ROMENADER 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I must admit that I am quite surprised, and even slightly entertained by the discussion about the urban area. Anyway, I will not throw oil at this fire. I like the compact infobox, and if more info needs to be displayed into a table format, then why not create a Paris portal? I would like to correct a slight misconception raised by Captain scarlet: images can actually be added to infoboxes, and that's one thing that I have been doing recently for a number of the French communes. My comments to the current infobox:
 * if there is no intercommunality, could we just add "none"?
 * why are there 2 figures for the land area? (I guess that it is about the forests areas, but the note does not seem to link anywhere)
 * is Paris actually technically a "commune"?
 * there is a typo at "Cooridinates"
 * Otherwise, good job folks. olivier 03:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's probably entertaining to watch for somone who knows something on the subject, and confusing for someone who doesn't. Things need not be made so complicated, as fact of it all is so basic it could be explained in a second. Everything throwable has been thrown and batted, so now it's just repetition. To answer your points:
 * 'None' can be done. Done.
 * One number is the land area without the forest parkland. True that only one of these is needed; an annotation could link to the second in a footnote. The link would be on the Paris page itself;there is none here.
 * Yes, Paris is technically a commune, also a département. With absolutely no change of borders at all between the two. Odd, isn't it?
 * Oops. Fixed.
 * Thank you, your input was very helpful.  T HE P ROMENADER  07:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: There is a Portal:Paris - begun, but unannounced as incomplete. Please help!  T HE P ROMENADER  08:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was thinking more like infoboxes prevent inserting images in the article, not the box. If the box has the height of say the first 4 sections, then these sections will more than likely not have an illustration next to them. But yeh, nice follow up Olivier. Captain scarlet 07:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. That's a good point, and actually supporting the slim infoboxes. olivier 09:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Olivier, if slimmer means misleading, then slim is not a good idea. I see that in this discussion nothing that I say is being seriously considered. So let me repeat it again once more: if you find a Lille infobox that mentions the name of Martine Aubry but does not mention the name of Pierre Mauroy, what kind of informative value is that? And the presence of urban area population in the infobox is unjustified (there's already metro area population). Urban area population was only added because of Promenader misconception that somehow urban area reflects the real "growth" of the city, but metro area does not. I already brought some INSEE studies that prove the opposite, so why is it that Promenader's personal opinion should prevail over INSEE? Hardouin 11:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, it is incorrect to say that the infobox has the height of the first 4 sections. The infobox has the height of the table of content, the Name section, and, depending on your screen resolution, a part of the Geography and Climate section. It is unlikely that the name section will ever require any image, so to pretend that the infobox prevents inserting images is simply fallacious. Hardouin 11:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hardouin, will you please stop trying to make a distraction by trying to make a 'question' out of irrelevent arguments and trying to 'wriggle' them into completely other arguments please? I've already explained twice that if you want to put a president in the intercommunity box you have but to replace "None" with whatever namespace and president you want - the place is reserved for that. As for the 'unimportance' of agglomeration info: the above argument is too silly for words. To answer the question "how wide is the city growth?" we should answer with "as wide as its sparsely-inhabited commuter belt"? Get real, please.  T HE P ROMENADER  11:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean we have to manually add the president in the infobox instead of having a line of the template dedicated to it (such as )? That defeats the point of having a template. As for urban area, can you answer this simple question instead of your usual hot-blooded dismissals: why do no other city infoboxes mention urban area population, and only the Paris infobox should? NYC infobox mentions metro area population but does not mention urban area population, same about Montreal, Rome, Berlin, Los Angeles, Seoul, Copenhagen, Toronto, Athens, etc. And don't call this "cherry-picking" because I can make a very long list. So what's so special about Paris that the very technical urban area figure needs to be included? I thought you wanted to make an infobox accessible to all, but then you include this unneeded distinction between urban area and metro area which is only accessible to people with good knowledge of statistics. Hardouin 12:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Manually put it in... yes. Not having one item line automatically filled at the behest of one wiki contributor does not 'defeat the purpose' of a template. Personally I think that putting the intercommunity president in a city infobox is a bit too much - I don't know what you others think. If someone is interested in the the intercommunity he has but to click on the link that will take him to a corresponding article. Or are we going to say that 'intercommunality' is one and the same with its central commune too?

No, wrong fruit - apples to oranges. How many of the other cities you choose are comparable to Paris in their administrative makeup and demographic growth? Also let me remind you that to many countries "Metro Area" and "Urban Area" are one and the same - I know that we both are fully aware of this. The French 'commune' system deserves to be explained as it is, especially when a French city's urban growth spills past what is considered to be its central 'city' commune. Each element (Commune, UU, UA) has its own definition, space and importance in French demography/administration, and if one is interested one can click or read further to learn more. You suggest removing both mention and access to an information altogether to better favour what you alone think is important. Clarity is the goal here, not ambiguity or omission. T HE P ROMENADER 13:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're wrong Promenader. In every country the metro area and urban area are two different things. Urban area is the continuously urbanized area, whereas metropolitan area is the urban area PLUS the commuter towns beyond the urbanized area. Only in some rare cases, such as Chinese provincial cities, would you find urban areas and metro areas to be exactly the same, because there people don't have cars yet and there exist no commuter towns beyond the urbanized area. But in the developped world, metro area and urban area are two different things, yet no city infobox chooses to include the urban area figure, only your Paris infobox does that. For example, the Berlin infobox clearly says that city population is 3,396,990 and metro area population is 4,262,480; this infobox doesn't include the urban area figure, which is 3,764,000 in 2005. Same with all the other cities I mentioned. Your insistence on urban area only reflects your long-held and oft-repeated belief that somehow metro area concept does not apply to France, or does not accurately describe French cities. As I have often said before, one user's personal belief should not influence the way we report things on Wikipedia. Metro areas exist in France, INSEE has been using almost exlusively the concept of metro areas (aires urbaines) since the 1990s in all its analyses of French cities, that's fact. Hardouin 15:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Enough with the squirming arguments and putting words in other peoples mouths please: If one says different countries give different definitions to different things, this does not make him 'wrong' about anything; again, the idea that the INSEE is favouring the aire urbaine over any other measure is but pure invention. The only thing that counts here is France's definition of a commune, UU, and UA, and how these definitions - explained - apply to the subject of this article: Paris. End of story.  T HE P ROMENADER  16:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I must admire your art at always finding something to retort, even when you're wrong. You should have been a lawyer. In any case, art or not, the fact remains that INSEE has only been using the metro area concept since the 1990s, and only you insists on including that urban area figure. INSEE continues to calculate urban area population, but that's only used to yield a urban vs rural ratio, as when the UN ask INSEE what's the percentage of rural people in your country for instance. Urban areas are practically not used outside of this context. I have provided several INSEE studies that prove that INSEE refers only to metropolitan areas when discussing cities (here again:, , ), and you have provided none, yet you continue to claim that INSEE does not favor metro areas. It feels like talking to a wall. Hardouin 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hardouin, I suggest strongly that you stop these muddling and personally-slanted diatribes whose only seeming goal is ambiguity. The French have their own administration, map, statistics and ways of using them, so other products from other countries, no matter how 'similar' they are, need not apply. You are talking to yourself as far as the INSEE 'preference' is concerned, but all the same: of course they have articles on metropolitan areas, but in those articles about metropolitan areas they have never said that metropolitan areas are cities. To say that Paris' agglomeration has lesser importance than its commuter belt éparpillement, and especially in an article that is supposed to be on the city itself, is just plain foolish. We will not be making one thing look as another here, nor will we be blurring the lines or omitting detail to that same end. Thank you very much.   T HE P ROMENADER  20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * PS: Again your 'proof' is selective and misleading - this selection of articles describe in their majority a city's influence (a word even in the title of one of them). Tell you what: instead of your continued disruption to any coherent dialog on this page, find us a "plan de Paris" that shows everything within its commuter belt. Then we can talk about your seeming goals for this article. Clearly.  T HE P ROMENADER  21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * PPS: Olivier must be lauging his a*s off : )  T HE P ROMENADER  21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Promenader, why do you use "we"? You're the only one insisting on describing metro area as irrelevant. Is your use of "we" a plural of majesty? No matter what proofs I can bring, you always reject them as irrelevant. Fortunately there are other people reading. Here is yet another source showing the emphasis on the whole connurbation. It comes from the Grand Larousse Universel, perhaps the most trusted French encyclopedia. I translate for non-French speaking readers the first lines of their Paris article (page 7830): It is impossible, from the points of view of demography and economy, to separate the city and its suburbs, which constitute altogether an agglomeration approaching 2000 km² and hosting nearly 10 million people. Please note that this was published in 1984, that is 10 years before the concept of metro area was introduced in France by INSEE, and yet Larousse was already very conscious of the metropolitan factor. The whole Paris article is actually a discussion of the Paris Region, with maps showing the entire connurbation. Further down the article, one can find the following sentence (bold is mine): From as early as the middle of the 19th century, the concept of Paris Region started to take shape: the number of Parisians outside of Paris grew from less than 100,000 to nearly 2 million in 1910, because of the tremendous industrialization of the city's outskirts. Note how Larousse describe people living outside of the administrative city of Paris as "Parisians". Yet a few weeks ago Promenader made a terrible fuss because the Wikipedia article mentioned that "today only 18% of "Parisians" live inside the city of Paris proper", calling this contrary to established facts and sources, and basically accusing me (the author of that sentence) of inventing things. Now Promenader, don't come again with your "this proves nothing and is just cherry-picking",. because you full well know that Larousse is the number one reference checked by French people when they look for authoritative information. Hardouin 12:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Consensus is against the inclusion of aire urbaine info in the infobox. This fully justifies the use of 'we'.


 * For the rest, what is your point exactly? The quotes both speak of Paris' aggomeration - yet you constantly insinuate that that my speaking of the Paris agglomeration is irrelevent and wrong? You contradict yourself. What do you want exactly? State your goals clearly.   T HE P ROMENADER  12:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sigh... Re-read what I wrote. The article was written in 1984, that is 10 years before the concept of metro area was introduced in France by INSEE. As for my "goals" (goals?), I have clearly explained that the mention of both the urban area and metro area in the infobox is unnecessary and confusing. No other city infobox does that. I cannot be more clear. Besides, it defeats your alleged purpose of shortening the infobox. Hardouin 13:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You didn't say this in so many words, and all you cite is actually against your own case: If anything they prove the importance of Paris' growth as an agglomeration - and say nothing about any commuter belt. To say 'well, the articles are old' after having quoted from them is... puzzling to say the least. So the 'metropolitan area' agenda you are forwarding lies in what... these articles don't say? Forgive me, but it really looks as though you're decorating a predecided yet unreferencable agenda with whatever 'quotey' excerpts you can find. Paris' dense agglomeration is much more important to Paris than its éparpillement. I really can't see how you can pretend otherwise. If anything the MA info should go before the UA - and let me remind you that consensus is for the removal of them both. By your accusations it is difficult to imagine that I am the one maintaining that they stay.  T HE P ROMENADER  13:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You always claim consensus where there is none. So now there is "consensus" to remove both? Ehr.... as far as I can read, only Captain Scarlet proposed that. You call that consensus? By the way, I note that you didn't comment the "Parisians outside of Paris" quote, conveniently so because it discredits so many things you have trumpeted for months (that nothing outside of the administrative city of Paris can be called Paris, that suburbanites are not Parisians, and so on). You also never answered why you are creating a new template when there is already Template:French communes. Hardouin 13:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please. Of course it is in error that you forget Green Giant's initial statement and Olivier's approval. You would like to define 'suburban Parisians' - as the city of Paris? You are alone to impose an insinuation that a sparsely-inhabited INSEE statistical area be defined as 'Paris' - no-one has ever echoed or supported your solitary claims to this end, and the reason for this is more than obvious. Good day.  T HE P ROMENADER  14:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sparsely-inhabited INSEE statistical area? The metropolitan area of Paris has 770 inhabitants per km² (1,994 inh. per sq. mile). This density figure is indicated in the current infobox (but would disappear in your proposed infobox). You call that sparsely-inhabited? You're giving new meanings to words. Even the overcrowded Netherlands only have 395 inh. per km². Hardouin 14:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We both know I meant the commuter belt alone, and the commuter belt is sparse indeed - the infobox as it is shows this quite clearly. Compared to Paris' Urban area, a difference of only around two million inhabitants filling a ring with an area over 500% of Paris' real urban growth - that's pretty sparse. All this discernable at a glance - now that's what you call clear and comprehensive.   T HE P ROMENADER  14:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand by "commuter belt" you are referring to what INSEE calls the peri-urban ring. The peri-urban ring, for the non expert readers, is basically the area which contains the commuter towns located beyond Paris's agglomerated suburbs. At the 1999 census, the peri-urban ring of Paris had 130 inh. per km² (336 inh. per sq. miles). That can't be seriously described as "sparsely-inhabited". According to List of countries by population density, this is about the same density as the Czech Republic (129/km²) or... China (136/km²). Not really what one would call "sparsely-inhabited" countries... Hardouin 14:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

No matter. A commuter belt is not a city. T HE P ROMENADER 15:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * With you nothing matters. No proof, no refence, no figure, nothing. Only your personal vision counts. Fine, but don't impose it on the rest of us. Hardouin 16:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Paris is not its commuter belt, and not in any reference. End of story. Unless of course you've found that "plan de Paris" showing every street in the entire AU. Let me remind you that, by consensus, I should be removing the UU/AA info altogether. Nice false allusions - do I have to waste even more time debunking your inventive personal affrontery once again? I the perhaps thousandth time, I can't see how citing references constitues a 'personal vision'. First I've ever heard of someone imposing consensus. 'Us'? You are alone in wanting the UU removed, and not the UA - and you can't clearly explain why.


 * On that point, I don't think you can. What could be the reason for taking Paris' dense urban expansion, erasing all indicators of its limits, and averaging its statistics with those of a region 500% larger and whose population is only 16% its own? The resulting numbers would be both vague and misleading - what could be the goal of this? One thing is certain - presented as a lump one, the remote 'éparpillement' sure looks a lot denser, and with the information about the extent of the real city density info removed, somehow closer to Paris. Yet still not Paris! So I can't really see the point of this sort of omission, blurring and juggling.


 * Keep it simple. City limits, dense urban spread, commuter belt. Who cannot understand that?


 * -- T HE P ROMENADER  17:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as a clarifying 'aside', here's a little exerpt of a discussion with Captain scarlet, about my reasons for wanting to keep the lower portion of the infobox as it is shown above - I managed to express myself with some concision for once. That conversation should have been here. T HE P ROMENADER 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I've made a little addition today to the Paris infobox and touched it up a bit - please have a look and leave note of what you think. I can tell you ahead of time that after some consideration I was unable to cut the lower 'Urban spread' section of the infobox - This is the most knee-jerk comprehensible way I could find to express coherently Paris' role as the centre of an agglomeration, in avoiding any pretention that the entire agglomeration is called 'Paris'. In looking at the info lain out thus one will be sure to ask oneself "but why is the commune (city) of Paris much smaller than its urban spread"? This was the whole point - that question is an answer in itself, and the rest is detailed in the text. I hope you understand.  T HE P ROMENADER  18:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, I'm cool with that, you've explained yourself coherently. Cheers, Captain scarlet 18:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What I mean by personal vision is that you insist on including the urban area figure in the infobox, as if the metropolitan area figure was not already enough, when no other city infobox does that. So if no one else in the world has thought it proper to have both the urban area and metro area figures included in their city infobox, and you alone think it is proper for Paris, then I call that personal vision. I can only wonder why you insist on that. Is it that the 11 million figure for the metro area is too high for you? You already said many times that Paris is a small city not comparable to major world cities like NYC. I can retrieve your exact words in the archives if you want. So probably the 11 million figure doesn't conform with your vision of small Paris, therefore you think the 9 million figure for the urban area is better suited. That sort of belittling Paris would only be childish if you didn't try to impose it on the rest of us. Just imagine if I went to the NYC article and insisted on including the 17 million figure for the urban area of New York in the infobox there, and argued that the 21 million figure for the metro area of New York is excessive. I would probably be showered with some very severe messages and rebuffs. It is unfortunate that there are too few people around here with enough knowledge of Paris to be able to rebuff your insinuations and proposals. Hardouin 11:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * When on earth did I ever say anything was "too high" - ? Look, by the above you are suggesting to the uninitiated that I am doing something "wrong" by wanting to include UU info - without saying what that "wrong" is. This is rather underhanded because not true; actually, the truth is quite the opposite of what you so suggestively state!


 * The goal here is repeating fact and aiding comprehension; If the INSEE created UU and AU precisely for the purpose of defining French demographic growth, why not use them to the end they were designed for? What is this worry about what 'other infoboxes' are doing? Other countries are not like France, and many do not have a comparable system. The UN definition of the Urban Area (unité urbaine) is the closest thing existing to an international standard, and the INSEE complies to it to the letter. Yet you want to want to eliminate speaking of a solid definition of Paris' urban growth in favour of a term that is given a different definition by almost every country that uses it, and what's more, leave this definition unexplained? You and I are fully aware of this term's ambiguity - Paris' MA is not at all the dense urban spread of other countries, and to many, a 'metropolitan area' is our definition of an 'urban area' ! it is more than evident that you are trying, through omission and suggestion, to make it look that way.


 * By putting both UU and AU we are making it clear that they are two different things. The INSEE made both precisely for cities like Paris, so there is absolutely no "wrong" in putting them to their intended use. How can there be?  T HE P ROMENADER  12:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * One last note on something I discovered while updating the infoboxes, a reflection on the real importance of the agglomeration (Urban Area) for the iNSEE: on the INSEE site, when one wants to "Zoom in on a territory", he'll find that if he has a choice of looking at a region, department, "employment zones", and "unités urbaines" (urban areas). "Aire urbaine" (metropolitan area) is not even an option.


 * Conclusion: like I've been saying all along, the "Unité Urbaine" is what best describes the real size of a French city agglomeration. It is for this very reason that it was made by the INSEE, and this is why the INSEE presents its information the above way.


 * Now, with a single glance, even for those unfamiliar with demographics or French administration, a viewer can see just how far beyond its central commune "city" an agglomeration spreads, and just below, by comparing it to this first info, one can get a real grasp of the size and density of the land considered to be its 'commuter belt' region. The contrast between the two regions is often enormous, which is why they both deserve mention: for the sake of veracity, clarity and comprehension. Isn't that our goal here?  T HE P ROMENADER  21:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I consider this matter closed. Consensus adopts this version of the infobox; there seems to be no further need for commentary or changes, so we can go ahead with its insertion. Thanks to all.  T HE P ROMENADER  14:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Demographics Table proposition
...the map's still missing the departement numbers but you get the idea. Any thoughts? T HE P ROMENADER 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.  T HE P ROMENADER  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 : 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).
 * 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.


 * 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.  T HE P ROMENADER  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.  T HE P ROMENADER  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?  T HE P ROMENADER  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.  T HE P ROMENADER  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. T HE P ROMENADER 21:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Going to tweak the colour scheme a bit and make the administrative borders/numbers a little more prominent.  T HE P ROMENADER  23:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"To do" list
Although the intention was well-intentioned (and many of the points valid), I would suggest l leaving suggestions for comment before leaving lists resembling pre-contrived/already-decided orders. True that some sections could expand; true also that the details of some should better be in other articles, as this has been the direction the article effort has been attempting to take since almost a year now. If you have some spare time on your hands, have a look in the archives for more info to this end. Give us all a chance to decide what's best for this article, please. T HE P ROMENADER 21:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But to answer a few of your questions:

...that should about do it for now, non? I do more or less agree with the rest. Please start a new Talkpage setion for this if you please. T HE P ROMENADER 21:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Economy has been shortened, if anything, until now
 * A good lot of 'Climate' has just been removed
 * Demographics statistics are only predictions after 1999, but this will change in a few month's time

Sorry about that, but the to-do list is important I think should shown so people can at least see it to agree or disagree. And about the climate, most of that stuff was un-useful, I'm just about to expand it now, it will include details such as how windy it is, how much snow is there, and how dry or wet Paris, even I don't know about precipition, so can atell me how much it rains in Paris a year, and which month you think has the most amount of rain. --Je suis 00:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * np, cool, but by the look/prose of your announcement it just looked as though everthing had already been decided. If you just start a Talkpage section outlining your suggestions others - myself for starters - will surely comment it, and this will give us all a chance - and even spark contributor interest, which this page has sorely been lacking. As for changes, if you see the need for something, there's nothing stopping you from fixing it - your list is pretty lengthy though, so best outline your aims first. Thanks and Goodnight. : )  T HE P ROMENADER  01:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Restoration of the old infobox
I was away for a week and I notice you (ThePromenader) have changed all the big French cities infoboxes without waiting for real consensus (not your fake idea of consensus) and leaving me (or other informed users) time to reply to your latest messages. You can't infer from the silence of other users that it means agreement. This is unacceptable. I have already exposed your incorrect conception of French cities (your trumpeted claims that the concept of metropolitan area cannot accurately describe French cities), yet despite all the proofs I brought forward your infobox is still unchanged. I am restoring the long established Template:Large French Cities until you can explain why we need a third template (your Template:Major French Cities) when we already have Template:Large French Cities and Template:French communes. A 3rd template is unnecessary: if there are changes and trimming that need to be done, they can be done on the current Template:Large French Cities.

Not only is your template unnecessary, but it is also POV (your insistence on urban area figures as if metropolitan area figures were misleading or meaningless); there are also many flaws in it (e.g. your new maps where the location of French cities is often wrong); valuable information is gone (e.g. all intercommunality presidents have disappeared); and some of the information left is very misleading. For example, your new Lille infobox says that Lille is the 10th most populated city in France (based on its administrative commune), when in fact Lille is the 4th most populated metropolitan area of France (even the 2nd most populated if we add the part of the metro area on Belgian soil), and is certainly considered as a major city on par with Lyon or Marseille. A ranking of French cities based on commune population is simply misleading. That's just one example.

Instead of your predictable hot-blooded reply, can you clearly answer these specific points: why is a 3rd template needed? why do we need urban area figures alongside the metropolitan area figures when no other city infobox on Wikipedia does that? why do we need new maps where cities are often misplaced when we already have maps that clearly indicate their locations? Hardouin 19:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To answer the dissuasive but not-really-intended-to-be-answerable (sorry for the waste of more space): A) first just a chuckle about introducing a concept of 'real' and 'fake' consensus. Like the rest of this page doesn't exist, and like we both don't know that I left a message on each and every concerned person's page and got answers resulting in the answers and input you see above. B) "incorrect conception" is itself incorrect - as conception is not the goal here - here we repeat fact, and this is all I do or have done. Everything comes straight from the source and presented in the same way it is found there - with absolutely no largesse or interpreteation at all. In fact, according to the sources, and as clearly outlined above, it is you who is originally and quite inventively wrong. C) What is this sorry attempt at an argument? You are the one bing misleading here - cities are not metropolitan areas; cities are ranked with cities, not metropolitan areas. Stop trying to confuse uninformed readers. D) "how many templates"? Not an argument, and what the 'right' answer is is certainly not yours to dictate. French cities overextend their communes; small ones don't. Sound reasonable? E) Again the "compare" argument - forget it. Here we take from sources, and according to the only source for statistics, "aire urbaine" is not even an option for presenting city statistics. Go figure. So if anything we should be doing the opposite of what you try to imposingly "muddle" as "fact" upon Wikipedia.    T HE P ROMENADER  22:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You have again reverted against consensus and ignored every discussion and point made in the relevent talk page in favour of your own impositions and unshared opinions. This is inexcusable, and your behaviour is reported - as of now.  T HE P ROMENADER  19:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you please stay on topic and answer the points raised above (redundant template, urban area POV, information lost, inaccurate maps, misleading rankings)? Hardouin 19:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You have again reverted every template on every page? No, no more long answers to what amounts to squirming - your 'points' are either a) in total ignorace of all that's been discussed above - shortening the template - or b) nothing even near an excuse enough for a total, wholesale revert. What's more, you have just broken the WP:3RR rule. I am simply astounded at the arrogance of this. T HE P ROMENADER  20:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Try to keep calm Promenader, refrain from making baseless accusations, and answer the points raised. Just one example of the many flaws I found in your proposed new infoboxes: here is your Nantes infobox, where the map is totally inaccurate (the city shown on the map is not Nantes; Nantes is not on the coastline, Nantes is located a good 50 km (30 miles) inland from the ocean). Hardouin 20:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where does it seem that I am not calm? I'm sorry - you have not yet broken the WP:3RR rule, but you sure have started an edit war. So you reverted every consensus-approved improvement on every page concerned - because of one map? You want to know the funny of this? I invented a 'moving point' system that allows any contributor to move the pointer with the change of one template number - and rather than edit it yourself, you reverted it. It's quite obvious that you didn't even look at the template before reverting it.


 * There is absolutely no excuse for your - alone - reverting the results of much work and discussion between several users over several weeks. I am once again re-installing all of the templates, and should you revert again, I will be doing so again one final time tomorrow. In the meantime, should you want to move the Nantes point to its correct position, feel free to do so - this is what 'editing' is all about.  T HE P ROMENADER  20:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. As if the maps were the only problem with your infoboxes. I think I have clearly outlined all the problems above. Now stop using evasive technics and answer the points raised. Hardouin 21:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing at all in the above that justifies a single-handed wholesale revert to every article, and this against weeks of discussion and construction with others. What's more, your complaints were not shared and even overridden by other contributors, so you alone cannot revert because you alone don't agree. End of story.  T HE P ROMENADER  21:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Four users (including you) have expressed views in favor of reducing the length of the infobox, but you alone is insisting on including urban area figures in the infobox (which goes against the logic of shortening the infobox by the way), and you alone is insisting that French metropolitan areas are irrelevant and misleading. So please don't hide yourself behind a so-called "consensus". If I sum up the discussion above, apart from shortening the infobox, there seems to be no consensus on anything else (some want to delete this or that, while others want to add that or this, like time zone or coordinates). The only point where I see general agreement is about twinned cities, which I reckon everybody is in favor of deleting from the infobox. Hardouin 22:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Again you have ignored every point made. How can you go on as if there is 'no consensus' ? What is all this 'seems to be' - again you are obviously seeing only what you want to and ignore the rest. "but you alone is insisting on including urban area figures" - I'm for the inclusion of them both because they explain 'city girth' - and each other! By your wording you insinuate that others were with you on this - no-one said a word about putting just one, but enough was said about removing them both altogether! What do you want exctly - AU without UU? Or, in other words, an unexplained and ill-defined inter-lingual fog that goes completely against the usage of the very statistics organisation you cherrypick your 'proof' from? Wiki is not here to publish your views, we are here to re-publish fact. Enough already - I am awaiting the result of your day's antics. T HE P ROMENADER 00:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: What I find hardest to stomach is the utter wriggliness of your non-arguments - all in a non-justification in massively but under- and single-handedly reverting work that was - in addition to being someone's work - a clear improvement! And pretending that no-one was for it in the bargain. You alone complain, Hardouin, and you alone revert. As usual. T HE P ROMENADER 00:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And as usual you portray yourself as the good guy unfairly criticized by a very evil person indeed. Let me remind you, however, that I am not the only person criticizing your strange vision of French cities and their limits. User:Metropolitan, for example, also strongly disagrees with your vision of French cities. People can find User Metropolitan's disagreement and ThePromenader's replies here: Talk:Paris/archive 09. Hardouin 01:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, both of you breath deeply, quit the silly revert games on the main article and stop filling the discussion page with vitriol. Nothing is going to be achieved by either of you continuing this "debate" now. Go get some sleep and give yourselves a voluntary 24-hour break from this article and from each other. Come back in a reasonable mood or don't bother coming back at all. Green Giant 01:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The revert games are over, I said months before that I will no longer go as low as to transcend the WP:3RR rule.


 * I am just trying to make this page concord with what I see and read in references - this should be the end of the story - but in order for one to understand this, one must read these references himself. Even if I was to forward a completely false agenda and fill the page with purely inventive information of my own 'original concoction' - if one was to conclude this, he would also have to compare what I write to my references. But with Wiki someone calculating can count on the fact that most won't verify, or won't be able to, or can't follow a talk page discussion should it go to too far into detail, and even there the same rules apply. What irks me most about User:Hardouin is that he/she knows full well what he/she writes is of his/her own invention (conclusion), but all the same obliges others (myself for the time being) to spend time debunking the verifiability/original research, and even should this person succeed, can totally ignore the results if that person is unsupported by other knowledgable users - or consensus. This is the case for this page until now.


 * Now it seems that even consensus doesn't matter anymore - we can just pretend, like any fact, that it doesn't exist and that no attempt was made to garner it, and that we ca bury it under reams of talk page detai-introduction and debunking until everyone either grows tired of it or forgets. The end of this story is actually the beginning: the facts must be verified, and the fact in the matter adopted. If we are to stop short of this if we grow too tired just so to 'play nice,' the above tactic will work without fail. Eventually users knowledgable will be legion enough to as to, through consensus, thwart any similar attempt, and the article will enter into order; everything between here and then, IMHO, is a complete waste of everyone's time.


 * If in addition to the above a contributor won't hesitate to simply revert anything not his own point of view, and this before both sides are verified, and even against facts already discussed and verified, you have one disruptive 'contributor' indeed. This is not vitriol: these are (f)acts easily verified, and this has gone on long enough.  T HE P ROMENADER  07:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And indeed it was a week of progress where hard work was suddently reverted to earlier stage even after hard discussions. Consensus means that a majority of editors agree. Some might believe there is no consensus simply because they are not part of that group. Captain scarlet 08:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * After this message I will be reinstating the consensus-approved infobox template into their proper places for the final time. From here if there is to be any discussion on the matter it will be in a forward direction please, and discussion before any further changes are made. If there is to be new consensus, let's build on the better - no more single-handed cancellation of everything accomplished until now. Let's move onwards, there's still much to be done here.  T HE P ROMENADER  22:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I must add that if there are any further reverts, they will be reported illico. Weeks of discussion, construction and consensus is not vandilism. Thank you.  T HE P ROMENADER  18:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I don't want to join that war again, there's only two things I would like to tell about the new infobox :
 * Paris is totally misplaced on that map of France. Such a thing may sound irrelevant to some but it actually dramatically decreases the credibility of Wikipedia for those who actually know where Paris is located. The Geographic center of Paris is supposed to be at Notre-Dame cathedral, not at the South of Mantes-la-Jolie.
 * If the purpose of all these pages are to reduce the size of the infobox, than remove the "urban spread" chapter and simply add the metro area population below the one of the city proper, as it's done for any other major city. Metropolitan 13:28 18 may 2006 (UTC).


 * Thanks, Metropolitan. Of course the map has to be as accurate as possible - somehow I don't think I'm seeing the same thing as you, although I tested in every browser before even thinking of uploading. What are you using - what browser and what platform? This can be set straight through the style tags I hope. Why precisely "Mantes-la-Jolie"? hard to say that it's exactly that on such a small plan! Are we talking about the same thing - the pointer?


 * In the meantime, if you want to position it correctly yourself, all you have to do is change the "x" and "y" numbers in the template input. Just hit the 'show preview' until it's right, then schwing.  T HE P ROMENADER  14:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have proposed the 'one line under the city proper' before - but this was before learning about the INSEE's methods of publishing city information. This is the model I think we should follow - this is why I proposed it. France's communes are not like other city limits, which is most likely why the INSEE publishes its statistics as it does.  T HE P ROMENADER  14:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the map as it appears on Explorer : Paris wikipedia map
 * And finally what is your personal problem with French metropolitan areas ? If we were in Germany or in the US, cities such as Creil, Vernon or Chartres would be part of the Paris metropolitan area. Seriously, the figure is a lot less extensive than you assume it to be. And anyway, no matter what is your personal opinion about it, you have no decent reason to refuse an official statistic. All major cities on Wikipedia make appear only the metro area figure, not the urban area figure. There's no objective reason to make it different for French cities. Metropolitan 14:43 18 may 2006 (UTC).


 * Okay for the pointer, and thanks for the screenshot. Simple to fix:13px to the right, then a fix for Mac browsers. Too bad.
 * Better? Will test on PC now.  T HE P ROMENADER  15:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have never had any problem at all with the UA itself, and let me remind everyone yet again that it is I who voted for its inclusion. What I am against is suggesting that Paris' UA is the city itself. It's as simple as that.
 * As for the UU - Paris the city ends officially at its commune/department borders, well to the inside of its growth as an agglomeration. This is a situation much different than many other countries, especially NA ones, and this is most likely why the INSEE presents its city info the way it does. There is an enormous difference in area/density between the UU/UA. Presenting both paints a pretty clear picture in my opinion - I would really like to know what others see and think. Bring who you will. BTW, what about Thbz? Nothing wrong in discussing this as long as we keep it constructive. Personally I'm convinced because of the reason of it all, the INSEE example, and the fact that that NA cities (where I grew up) do not treat their limits/growth in a similar way.  T HE P ROMENADER  15:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just left a message on Thbz' talk page.  T HE P ROMENADER  15:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for seeing me as an authority, but, although I can see Paris through my windows, my vision of the urban area/metro area/agglomération debate is, to say the least, limited... Thbz 18:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you are a 'local', that's for sure. If anything, nice to see you here again.  T HE P ROMENADER  22:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very lively debate you have here :-) Anyway, all major US and European cities do, in fact, list city proper and metropolitan area figures only. Some refer to the urban area figure in the main text. If one looks at cities in terms of socio-economic function then the metropolitan area is probably more appropriate. I have no strong feelings about including the urban area, in addition to the metropolitan area, though. However, for consistency with other major western cities, I have a prefererence for just the metropolitan area for now. Polaron | Talk 15:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello hello, you caught me fixing. Thanks for the input. I do see your 'consistency' worries, but I do think that sacrificing clarity to this is not a very good thing either - France's UU and AU (UA and MA) are two enormously different things, unlike NY's UA and MA which, according to the New_York_Metropolitan_Area article, are more similar. Wouldn't omitting info in this egard be a little misleading to those who don't know this? Again, I must stress that the INSEE uses UU info first - but why not use both?  T HE P ROMENADER  15:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Promenader spreading falsehoods as usual. So now we're being told that France's urban areas and metro areas are two "enormously different things", unlike NY's urban area and metro area. Well, according to New York metropolitan area, the NY urban area had 17,799,861 inhabitants at the 2000 census, while the NYC metropolitan area had 21,923,089 inhabitants. That's 23% difference. At the 1999 French census, the Paris urban area had 9,644,507 inhabitants, while the Paris metropolitan area had 11,174,743 inhabitants. That's only a 15.9% difference. I think by now, for those who have cared to read all the previous messages, it is all too obvious that Promenader has an agenda which is to undermine the importance of metropolitan areas in France and to discredit the metropolitan area statistics compiled by INSEE, by using any argument, even false ones. It is unfortunate that there are not enough knowledgeable people around to debunk Promenader's false claims. Hardouin 16:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, hardouin, bit of an editing conflict there. You chose to compare only population but I did say the differences were in area/density. The French UU/AU are nowhere near similar. Will you change the tone please? T HE P ROMENADER  17:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you prove it? You always claim things, and never offer proofs. Where are the proofs that urban areas and metropolitan areas are "two enormously different things" in France and not in the US? Hardouin 17:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for comparison, the New York City urban area as defined by the US Census has an area of about 8,700 sq. km. The commuter-based metropolitan area ("combined statistical area") covers about 30,700 sq. km. So, about 28% of the metro area is the urban area. For Paris, it looks like the urban area is about 19% of the metro area. New York's urban area is indeed a bigger fraction of its metro area compared to Paris but not overwhelmingly so. But it might actually be a good idea to put urban area figures in other cities infoboxes. I'll try and see if I can put them in the infoboxes for the major US cities when I have time later. Polaron | Talk 18:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting figures. Other figures: in Lyon the urban area's land area is 28.9% of the metro area's land area, in Marseille the urban area is 45.6% of the metro area, in Lille the urban area is 46.2% of the metro area. So again, this shows that Promenader's claim that urban and metro areas in France are two "enormously different things" is unfounded. Hardouin 18:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please, Hardouin. Polaron, thanks for the input. The New York Metropolitan Area numbers are those that I've come across often, so I cited them as a case in point. I'm sure there are other cities with numbers similar to Paris', but many aren't - if I'm not mistaken, the US definition of 'Metro area' varies from city/state to city/state. Because it's used to political ends I think - this I'm not sure of - but this is certainly not the case in France. But I digress - it's not this I'm concerned with, it's just the dang 'international ambiguity' I'd like us to overcome.


 * I know that the MA is often used for 'international comparisons', but it's actually the Urban Area that is closest to becoming an international standard. The UN, in its efforts to map world demography, after a long study, has made a standard and is trying to get every country to comply - France's INSEE has done so to the letter with its 'Unité Urbaine'.


 * It took a lot of toying without filling too many lines, but in showing the land area and population next to each other for each, even the layman can get a grasp of a) how big each is, and how populated and b) together get a real grasp of how wide the actual agglomeration is, and how dense - showing only MA info erases all this.


 * Will you really be putting the info in elsewhere? Wow. Thanks for seeing my point here though : ) Can I help ?  T HE P ROMENADER  19:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I just tested in PC, and everything seems to be fine - please leave word if reality is otherwise.

Metropolitan: good that you join in this discussion because it was actually that forum you told me about that said it best - I managed to dig up the below quote by who I think is the forum owner:
 * Les chiffres de Métro correspondent à des 'aires urbaines' ('metropolitan areas'), pas à des connurbations et encore moins à des agglos... Je pense que c'est l'une des méthodes de comparaison de villes internationales parmi les plus fiables, mais cela il est vrai a tendance à faire enfler les chiffres au détriment de la morphologie réelle des villes.
 * Translation: "The 'Métro' numbers correspond to aires urbaines (metropolitan areas), not to conurbations and even less to agglomerations... I think it is one of the most viable methods of comparing international cities, but this, it is true, has a tendance to swell the numbers at the expense of real city morphology."

For me this about summed it up in a nutshell. For this I proposed including 'at a glance' information for those seeking rough comparisons and for those seeking precision, in following the INSEE example. Doing my best to convince you here. T HE P ROMENADER 17:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean a quote by an unknown forum participant has more value than all the official INSEE references that I listed above? You're ready to use just about any argument to prove your POV, including un-scientific ones! Here are the INSEE references again for those who haven't read them yet:, , . Hardouin 17:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. I don't think the site owner (five stars?) is an 'unknown participant' and I didn't cite him as a reference - he, more qualified than I, said it in a very clear way so I quote him. Your PDF's are reports on city influence ("Big French Cities Extend their Influence"), a study on city/suburban growth (Forms of Urban Development), and a study "Eleven Offices (trades) to charecterise large cities". All of these mention the aire urbaine in accordance with the socio/economic subjects they cover, but what exactly would you like to quote from these, and why, and what does it have to do with this discussion? Also, why have you totally ignored the links I left above? These show quite clearly the INSEE's 'preferences' for 'zooming in' on French cities - which I think is the whole point of this infobox.  T HE P ROMENADER  17:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think by now it is quite clear that Promenader's new infobox has not reached consensus. The inclusion of the urban area figures have been openly criticized by several users. Promenader is also claiming that urban and metro areas in France are very different from the rest of the world without being able to offer proofs. Furthermore, there are serious problems with the new maps uploaded by ThePromenader, with several users complaining that the cities do not appear in their correct location. For all these reasons, I am restoring the previous infobox until the three following key issues are solved:

1- convincing explanation as to why we need a new template (Template:Major French Cities) when there is already an existing template (Template:Large French Cities) that can be modified if people want to modify it
 * - This is just silly: the reasons were discussed over weeks, and the complaints against the former infobox were many. Without telling anyone, and while a discussion you chose not to partake in was ongoing, you went and made a template an exact copy of the very one we were aiming to fix and installed it, making it impossible to modify it without making a mess of every page it was on.  T HE P ROMENADER
 * Reasons were discussed over weeks? That's a nice lie. Some users have suggested modifying the template, but nobody except you has suggested creating a new template altogether. Now instead of hiding yourself behind other people, can you satisfactorily explain why is a new template needed when the current template is not locked and everybody can edit and modify it? Hardouin 19:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Did I just hear 'lie'? To what end? My commenting to this tune is through, dear.  T HE P ROMENADER  22:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

2- consensus on urban and metro areas which is obviously not there yet
 * That is what we are discussing; for the time being there is nothing wrong with anything present, and certainly nothing meriting a total revert back to a the very version we were trying to fix - and did.  T HE P ROMENADER
 * It is wrong to publish something that is disputed. If you don't understand that then you understand nothing of Wikipedia. Hardouin 19:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

3- maps that display properly on everybody's screen (note that the maps in the previous infobox display correctly on everybody's screen, so why did Promenader create new maps?)
 * - In one week one person in one week made a comment, and this was fixed - for everyone - not minutes after.  T HE P ROMENADER
 * Both user Metropolitan and I criticized the maps. That's two people, not one. Not only you publish maps that are inaccurate, but when exposed you always find arguments to justify yourself. Do you ever acknowledge errors? Hardouin 19:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I want to stress that restoring the former infobox is only a conservatory measure waiting for the problems and issues listed above to be solved. If Promenader chooses to revert back to his infobox, it will become clear to all who is the real serial reverter on this article. Hardouin 17:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * - 'Revert back' != 'real reverter' - please. You are doing your best to simply cancel out of existence consensus and obvious improvement simply because it is not to your taste. Please desist.  T HE P ROMENADER


 * This is unprecedented. Discussion took months, consensus was reached, the infoboxes published and in place for one week before you brought your reverting self back here to cancel everything. The maps display properly now. We are in the midst of a discussion. By doing this, with the messages above, you are effectively doing your best to ruin everything. Here we go for another round again...  T HE P ROMENADER  18:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, no further comments needed. Promenader reverted back to his infobox within 8 minutes of my edit. Hardouin 18:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't waste anymore of anyone's time by such silliness - and it is not 'my' infobox. We are working forwards here, not backwards. Now, can we get back to the discussion please? What about a reply to those questions I asked you about your pdf's?  T HE P ROMENADER  18:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If the move "forward" is a bad move, we better not implement it. I can full well see your very clever tactic trying to portray me as adverse to change while you, of course, are only interested in moving "forward". Clever, but thanks God people reading this are not as stupid and gullible as you imagine. Hardouin 19:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

''Les chiffres de Métro correspondent à des 'aires urbaines' ('metropolitan areas'), pas à des connurbations et encore moins à des agglos... Je pense que c'est l'une des méthodes de comparaison de villes internationales parmi les plus fiables, mais cela il est vrai a tendance à faire enfler les chiffres au détriment de la morphologie réelle des villes.'' Translation: "The 'Métro' numbers correspond to aires urbaines (metropolitan areas), not to conurbations and even less to agglomerations... I think it is one of the most viable methods of comparing international cities, but this, it is true, has a tendance to swell the numbers at the expense of real city morphology." I'm glad you read the forum I participate to ThePromenader, I would by the way be happy to get a link to that page because I don't remember the discussion, but this remains utterly irrelevant in this discussion anyway. Of course some may like better urban areas and other may like better metro areas, that's a matter of personal taste. The fact is that internationally speaking metro areas are a lot more used than urban areas, and this specifically on Wikipedia. Check the population figures for Los Angeles, Berlin, Toronto, Madrid... they are all mentionning the metro area, not the urban area. The funniest case is the one of London where a figure of the metro area population is still displayed without any metropolitan area being officially determined by the UK authorities ! My point was simply that if all other major cities are showing in their infobox the city proper population and the metro area population, then why wouldn't it be the case of Paris ? That was all.
 * That's cool - I never was accusing you of anything - Did it sound that way? Sorry if so. You yourself told me about the forum and it was you who gave me the URL and told me what you discussed there. I can find that quote again if you like.  T HE P ROMENADER  21:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Afterwards, you can personally like better urban areas than metro areas, that's up to you, but please don't tell that French metropolitan areas are crap. Your judgement is based on your personall intuition and nothing relevant. Here's a map of INSEE aires urbaines in France as of 1999. In black, you see the urban cores (the central urban area), in red, you see the periurban belt. That periurban belt isn't only made of countryside, it also encompasses smaller urban areas. The calculation system is exactly the same for the whole country. As you can see, the periurban belts are tighter for cities such as Lille, Marseille or Valenciennes, and wider for Rennes, Bordeaux or Toulouse. And what is true for French statistics is also true for US statistics. I'm sure some US cities have wider periurban belt than others. London urban area is of 8.5 million people and its metro area is around 12 million people. That's a far larger difference than the one between Paris urban area and Paris metro area. If your point is that you don't like metropolitan areas because they involve countryside, then that's as much true for Paris, New York City or Los Angeles. There's no difference in here. If all other cities give as figure the metro area, then there's no reason why Paris shouldn't. Metropolitan 20:59 18 may 2006 (UTC)


 * I really really don't get that 'like' and 'crap' accusation - there was never any question of like . Proof is, I'm even pushing it! For the I don't know how many'th time, this is about context and comprehension, nothing else. I think, Metropolitan, it would be best that you read the actual discussion here instead of someone's rather biased interpretation of it on your user page. Yeah, I know it's long.  T HE P ROMENADER  21:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So what should we do, Metropolitan? When I restored the former infobox earlier today, Promenader reverted back to his disputed infobox within minutes. I have already explained as uncontroversially as possible that as long as the content of his infobox is disputed, it shouldn't appear in the article, but Promenader claims that supposedly there is consensus in favor of his infobox. Hardouin 21:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You still have no call to 'restore' anything as you suggestively call it. You're now pretending that there is no consensus - why? Because you think you've buried it deep enough? We now have someone new interested in the UU, and you still have not answered what you wanted to prove with those pdf's. One way or the other, there is no conclusion to this discussion yet, and you alone will not be deciding to reverse the work of others in favour of your own only because you alone want to. If you do, it is an abuse, and since you've been warned about like behaviour hundreds of times, it can even be considered vandalism. If anything, you've done a great job of completely polluting the editing atmosphere here.  T HE P ROMENADER  21:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hardouin, I'm not necessarily against ThePromenader's infobox. It doesn't make a big difference with yours. The intercommunality appears for cities being organised as such, and all the main figures are there. The only thing I dislike in it is the urban spread section, which I find counter-intuitive. I believe that a line showing the metro area population below the one of the city proper population would be clearer. Especially that it works this way for all other cities. ThePromenader, you by the way haven't explained me yet why what's done for all other cities can't be done for Paris... Metropolitan 22:46 18 may 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. But first, by the way, "my" version of the infobox opening the discussion was this one. About 'other infoboxes' - if I can be frank here - I haven't paid that one much question, because I have yet to hear why the other infoboxes present themselves so, and all I've concluded until now is that they are best adapted to their a) statistics defiinition and b) common use. Now, before anyone cries 'it's because you're not a specialist!', I have been looking extensively into the question as far as France is concerned, in looking at how the French, the INSEE, and the Government present this sort of info to its own and other countries. The governmennt relies on Administrative regions, so they are not much help in this discussion, but the INSEE, on the other hand, is quite clear in its usage, and every plan I've seen concerning the AU shows also UU (alternatively PU) info - as your map linked above, Metropolitan - and the reason for this is that it paints a clear and complete picture of what the 'city space' is. Imitating these is, in my opinion, the best way to the same referencable end. Also, I would be dishonest if I didn't say that I support it because I see sense in it too! But on the 'at a glance' note: Metropolitan, what do mean by 'counter-intuitive.' ?  T HE P ROMENADER  22:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Metropolitan, the difference with the previous infobox is the removal of most of the metropolitan area information, such as the number of communes in the metropolitan area, the ranking of the metropolitan area, or the population growth rate in the metropolitan area. This is no surprise since Promenader is opposed to the concept of French metropolitan areas. Then there are smaller details which you may not have noticed, such as the fact that Promenader deleted the periods in office for the mayors (those periods in office had taken a lot of time to find!). Promenader also deleted the total land area figure for the city of Paris (105 km²) and left only the land area figure without the Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes (87 km²) which is misleading (both figures should appear). Finally, Promenader also deleted the 1999 census figures for the commune population, and left only the 2004 estimate, which is contrary to the practice on Wikipedia (latest census figures and latest estimates should BOTH appear). All these changes and deletions tend to impoverish the infobox, and sometimes make it quite misleading, such as is the case with the Lille infobox which states that Lille is the 10th largest city of France (based on commune population), when actually Lille is the 4th largest urban and metro area of France. Hardouin 22:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My opinions regarding the infobox - most of the metropolitan area information you indicated (no. of communes, growth rates) should not be in an infobox for a city. Why don't you guys create a Paris metropolitan area article? Details of the political administration should also not be in an infobox. These types of information should be in the main text. Put one land area in and make a footnote explaining the other figure. Use just one population figure as long as it is properly sourced, dated and associated with a certain region. Personally, I feel that all city infoboxes should have administrative, urban, and metropolitan area populations. But these should be in the population section, not in a separate section. Anyway, just my opinions. Take it or leave it. Polaron | Talk 23:17, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Hardouin. I think the differences are obvious, yes, but as most all have agreed, the essential is still there. The notes have been moved to footnotes to save space, this was User:Green Giant's work. I think we can safely translate all the diminuative adjectives to 'not my taste'. As for the more detailed info, these can go into the text - as, detailed, it can be better described there. Infoboxes are for at-a-glance essentials, otherwise they become tables of data.  T HE P ROMENADER  23:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Polaron, of course your view is 'taken' - all input is valuable here. Especially since what we seem to be doing now is questioning why other articles don't have this info, this information's use, and what use including it has. Although IMHO what is most important is how official statistics organisations present their data.
 * There already is a Paris metropolitan area article - in fact, in looking at Metropolitan's map, it would be a great idea to make one for every one of France's Major MA's. Thanks.  T HE P ROMENADER  08:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a fresh take on it all, as a french parisian, for what it's worth.
 * New infobox is less wide, which is good, they tend to clutter the article.
 * The new map obviously look better, which is nice.
 * Mayor, date of entry has been removed, since the info is of secondary importance and can be retrieved from the link, no objection there, though as it is, it wouldn't make the infobox bigger.
 * Population, most recent estimate seems fine, should be shrinked further using a reference that mentions it's an estimate from 2004, plus the census number from 1999, in my opinion.
 * Land area. The Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes are parts of the XII-th and XVI-th arrondissements, however Paris is commonly thought of as without including those parts. I have no strong opinion about this, but if only one number is kept, I believe it should be the official administrative area (with the foot note expanding on that).
 * Intercommunality. Intercommunality is rather obscure to me, why not hide it for Paris ?
 * Urban area. Not sure what's the dispute is all about, I've read the Talk page diagonally. I checked NYC and London, both include this, I think the information is relevant myself.


 * Metropolitan area. Growth, number of communes, and density were removed. This may be fine for Paris, at least because of the Paris metropolitan area entry, though it should be linked to somewhere, and the relevant information added.
 * Twin cities. The information is less than critical, however, it seems the body of the article doesn't mention them. Any information removed from the old infobox should at least be found somewhere in the body, or linked to it.

Now, since the discussion is about a new template that is not for Paris only and there shouldn't be multiple templates in use, an agreement has to be reached about that. I would suggest keeping the new layout, making the fields that were removed optional instead (and indeed, make most field optional), so as to avoid clutter if agreed, and keeping the new urban area section. Better have an exhaustive template with optional fields and fight over its content than fight over the template itself. Equendil 20:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input. In fact, I had just left a message on the template page itself where this conversation seems to be continuing... as, as you say, it doesn't only concern Paris. There I just answered a note on the UU and what I found elsewhere on the subject... I'm glad to see that we're more than a few to find it relevent. As for your other points, I think I'll let someone else anwer for once - but I agree with most of them.  T HE P ROMENADER  20:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Equendil, just a quick answer to tell you the figure of London and NYC urban areas have been very recently added by Polaron, they weren't there yet when I've mentioned them. Metropolitan 00:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah. I did find it odd that one person saw a statistic and another not. I'd just like to add that It is not only the UU we are discussing on the template page; I took a lengthy look yesterday at how different Census organisations publish their city statistics, and tried to figure out why Wiki infoboxes publish statistics the way they do. This should interest you, Metropolitan, as it was your question. I can tell you that what I found wasnt' very conclusive. Do you have an answer to this? Leave it anywhere you like.  T HE P ROMENADER  07:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I did transform any fields left blank in some articles with the aforesuggested 'optional fields'. Waiting for consensus for the rest.  T HE P ROMENADER  09:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I modified the generic city infobox template and added urban area figures for several major cities. It is something useful to note so one can see how much the administrative limits has been surpassed by urbanization. It might also interest you to know that at WikiProject Cities a drive to create a standardized city infobox has been started. The goal is to create an infobox that is flexible for various city entities through many optional entries yet would have a uniform look throughout Wikipedia. Polaron | Talk 14:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I answered you on the template talk page as this concerns more than just Paris - but I am quite taken with thatWikiProject Cities, and would love to get this article involved in it. Thanks for the tip.   T HE P ROMENADER  15:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)