Talk:Paris/structure discussion

'''This is the Structure Discussion Archive of the Paris Talk page. Please do not edit this page except to update the Archive link box.'''

Overall structure by reference to NYC and others
It may be interesting to compare how the structure would be if we compared with the new york city page, which I'm sort of taking as a model. Here's what our article would look like if we copied the NYC structure. History   * 1 History of New York City Districts   * 2 Boroughs and neighborhoods Administration   * 3 New York City government Geography   * 4 Geography and climate Demographics   * 5 Demographics Economy   * 6 Economy ??Doesn't exist?? * 7 Culture of New Yorkers o 7.1 Immigration and international flavor o 7.2 Commuter culture o 7.3 Current issues ??Doesn't exist?? (a bit in CC&O) * 8 Tourism and recreation Cultural centres and organisations  * 9 Cultural institutions ??   * 10 Media and entertainment Subsumed in cultural centres and organisations   * 11 Theater Sports clubs (tiny)   * 12 Professional sports Transport (quite short)   * 13 Transportation o 13.1 Mass transit o 13.2 Airports o 13.3 Taxis o 13.4 Ferries ??   * 14 Education and scientific research o 14.1 Colleges and universities o 14.2 Schools o 14.3 See also Landmarks? * 15 Skyline ??   * 16 Trivia

The critical points: We really should have a strong "Districts" section right up the top. We have nothing on the culture of Parisians, and nothing on Education. While sport is not as important to Paris as it is to NYC (the Yankees, the Mets, the Nets and the Nicks are all big teams), it deserves more than a one liner. We also lack a media section.

To repeat the exercise for fun with Hong Kong (another suggested model): History   * 1 History Administration (sort of)   * 2 Politics and government None - but probably not relevant for just a city   * 3 Legal system and judiciary Geography   * 4 Geography Administration   * 5 Administrative divisions Economy   * 6 Economy Demographics   * 7 Demographics ??Again, lacking   * 8 Education ??Again, lacking   * 9 Culture ??Probably not needed   * 10 Religion ??None, interesting... * 11 Architecture Transport   * 12 Transport ??Probably not needed   * 13 Military ??Interesting... * 14 International rankings

So, common thread is: no Education or Culture sections. The idea of an 'international rankings' section is interesting, as it would focus all these battles over rankings into one section, which would be near the end. Notably both these articles place history and administration up the top, whereas currently we have administration near the end.

And look, while I'm on a run, I'll compare it with London, although that article is not quite the same quality. Just picking out the interesting stuff

??Interesting! * 1 Defining London * 2 Geography and climate * 3 History ??Not a bad idea? * 4 Modern London ??Again... * 5 Culture A big section   * 6 London Districts * 7 Demographics * 8 Government * 9 Transport and infrastructure ??   * 10 Education ??Focuses on London bias etc   * 11 Media ??   * 12 Religion Very big section here   * 13 Sport * 14 Business * 15 London tourist attractions o 15.1 Places of interest o 15.2 Buildings and monuments o 15.3 Museums and galleries o 15.4 Markets and shopping areas o 15.5 Parks and gardens o 15.6 Other places of interest * 16 London in the arts o 16.1 Literature featuring London o 16.2 Films featuring London o 16.3 Television programmes featuring London o 16.4 Songs featuring London o 16.5 Video Games featuring London * 17 Major exhibitions staged in London

London explicitly refers to tourist attractions, whereas I can see the argument in not doing so. But again, there is a media section, an (limited) education section, and a huge sport section. A "defining Paris" section might be a place to sort out quibbles, rather than letting that pollute the whole article. There again is a decent "districts" section fairly high up. And Business (our "Economy") is only 14th.

Hopefully all this is some food for thought. The biggest holes seem to be Education, Media, Sport, Culture and a proper Districts section. This article doesn't say a single word about Parisians, other than that they are pejoratively called Parigots. Hmm... Stevage 00:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey this is very very very interesting. I'll read you and "ref up" on the pages you mention over coffee tomorrow. I have had some suggestions of my own since a while. Thanks for all the work - Night! ThePromenader 00:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your points are all great, but you need not even make "room for quibbles" - any strong and clear presentation won't have any. Arguments within an argument (which is in reality what any presentation is) will just dilute it : )
 * What I mean is, by allocating one section as being the definition of Paris's limits, the rest of the article will be freed of the battling that's going on. Stevage 14:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we should think about what Paris is before coming up for a page structure for it, as some of its important areas would be broken up between many subjects in articles on other cities. There's also "tone" to


 * It's not complicated. Paris is a large metropolitan city in the north of france consisting of a city centre and a number of suburbs around it. Stevage 14:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * consider: should this be a purely-encyclopaedic entry (basic data, more detailed data, more detailed data on another subject, how this works together... etc) or something a little more... alive? I got a "click" in our earlier discussion about "area" - Yes, Paris is romantic, but we need not say this outright, we can express this in a more nuanced way - like through an overall visual description of things? I liked the idea of "geographical description" as it is an opportunity to describe not only the lie of the land (am I repeating myself? Rivers, islands, etc) without anything on it (which would be in a viewer's mind an almost landscape painting), then adding details (districts and major landmarks) bit by bit giving a general overall visual situation of the city that will last through the rest of the article.
 * I'm personally not very taken with your idea of dedicating space to describing the ground beneath Paris. It's barely interesting for places with interesting geology/topography like San Francisco or Venice.  For Paris it's plain dull.  Sure, mention the river and the hill, but after that, it's pretty much all concrete these days :)  But anyway, have a go, and if it's too long for the article, we can always move it to a sub article. Stevage 14:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mais non, mon cher, I didn't at all mean that! I just wanted to say "there's a river with islands and two hills to the north and east of these. The Left bank is relatively flat" : ) ThePromenader 16:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It would then be a simpler task to speak of history in a more generalised way with the "repères" already above.


 * Since Paris is a city with a long long history (as everyone reading will already know), including a bit of the "origins" of each of the following subjects would continue this thread. In fact I think that "from then till now" should be an important theme for most everything in this article, as it will "talk to" the largest possible audience interested in Paris no matter their level of knowledge about Paris. Another theme should be from inside to the outside as this is not only how Paris grew but also how most readers will understand it better. All the same the section weight should be towards the "now", and should be concise: A bit of then, a lot of now. Want more then? See this article. The same for "now".
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean. Including phrases like "Established by Louis XXXVI in the 12th century" or "In the late 1800s, four goldfish museums were established", then this is excellent, and helps situate landmarks both in space and time.  But I don't think you should lose sight of the fact that this is primarily a synchronic article about Paris *now*.  It is not a diachronic "History and development of Paris" article.  So just try and keep it in balance, and all will be well. Stevage 14:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go into historical detail at all - more like, in a continuation of the "river and hill" explanation: "In an almost straight line along the Right Bank's west-east artery lay the city's Arc de Triomphe, Concorde, Louvre and Bastille monuments. The western Rive Gauche riverbank is dominated to its west by the Eiffel Tower; just inland to the tower's south-east, to the opposite end of a long rectangular park, are the Ecole Militaire and Invalides monuments...." In fact, why not wrap the "lie of the land" description in there as well? ThePromenader 16:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, tie the physical lay out, landmarks and districts all into one section. I'm happy for the "Paris landmarks" article to be dismantled into "monuments" etc. I'll need to let you start this one as I just don't have a strong grip on the actual districts of Paris. I did notice in the Paris districts article that there was no reference to the latin quarter, which is about the only district I've heard of.  Ideally I would like to see Paris divided up into mutually exclusive zones - there must be a standard way of doing this.  If I get a moment I'll have a read through the Lonely Planet's section. Stevage 02:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (Smacking forehead) I can see to it later - LOL if you've read earlier I think the "Lonely Planet" article could be avoided : ) ThePromenader 07:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How to structure all this? (scratching head) Hmmm.... based on the above

Introduction - general description Geographical Description History Administration (how all the above is cut up today) Economy Demographics (brief growth and immigration (over time) * today's areas of density, wealth and poverty) Transportation (some surfers will come just for this) * local * commuter * National * international


 * Your division of transportation is good, as are your ideas on demographics. Also still no Media or Education sections, and no Districts either. Stevage 14:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Now here's where I add a chestnut of my own: "City Life". I had divided Paris' "activity" into different subjects in an attempt to come up with an "approachable" economy section, and ended up making something else. In describing how and where Parisians buy their meat and produce, I ended up giving a good description of Parisians and their life, and the same for other subjects as well. The whole list is as follows:

City Life * Produce (market economy - open-air markets, supermarkets, boulangers etc) * Industry * Commerce ("Grandes magasins" and retail boutiques, specialties (fashion)) * Restaurants and Cafés (Gastronomy, role in culture) * Night Life (Where Parisians like to go) * Entertainment (what Parisians like to see) * Tourism (what others come to see)
 * What is there to say about restaurants and cafes, and nightlife, in an article this broad? "Paris has many cafes, including my favourite,..."?  The gastronomy angle could be interesting.  How will the tourism section work? I think the monuments etc are far too big to cram into a little section - so maybe that could just be a summary of the tourism industry in Paris - "Each year Paris plays host to 50 million visitors, primarily in summer.  40% come from america, visit the eiffel tower and complain about Parisian manners" or whatever.  Note all my questions are rhetorical - best answer is to write the section in the article and let people decide for themselves. Stevage 14:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My idea is still undeveloped and my titles perhaps too precise. What I meant to show is something like... what the café is to Parisian life (as the Deli is to New Yorker's "sip and munch" habits) - grouped under a unique "gastronomy" title? Restaurants are also a good show of the city's ethnic flavours; Paris became known as a city of gastronomical variety because of the immigrants from many different regions of France it became a home to, before expanding to Japanese, Indian, etc. New York's gastronomical panorama is a result of.... is that clearer? I would not of course name any names. In fact if I had a choice I would not "plug" anywhere in the article; it is a simple thing to speak of the style, taste and quality present without naming names ("nouveau cuisine", tapas, bistrot, etc...) - anyhow restaurants come and go in and out of vogue rapidly these days, et il n'y a presque plus des chefs genre "Bocuse" ici! Yes, "Night life" is too particular - "Entertainment"? Yet this title is too broad... the French say "Sortir" to englobe Restaurants, cafés and night clubs... is there an English equivalent? Entertainment could be "theatre and cinema" - Parisians have hundreds of open-air markets appearing several times a week selling everything from meat to fish to nuts to vegetables to dairy products and this is quite particular to France; New Yorkers buy their food through.... yet "Produce" is not a very good title for this either. Anyhow, do you see where I'm headed with this idea? ThePromenader 15:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hum. Now that I think of it, and now that I see the request for an "Education" section (that I know little about as well), this and all the other headings I'm "coming up with" are all parts of "city life" anyway. Isn't that basically what this article is about? Still in the "inkling" stage... ThePromenader 22:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact, if applied to any city, I think the above would give a pretty good idea how life is inside. A suggestion for the Wiki "cities" projects perhaps?
 * As for the rest - lists of parks, monuments, etc - to tell you the truth I haven't the slightest. I can only suggest putting "see also" links to other wiki articles at the bottom of each section (administration = "see also parks, see also cemeteries, etc), or perhaps at the end of the article. I think the end of the article should have an "other articles on Paris" - this will also help the search function.
 * Sorry, but I strongly disagree with a "other articles on Paris" section - see the manual of style where it says that cross links should almost always be worked into the text. I'm pretty happy with those sections as they are - short overviews of the relevant topics with links to deeper articles.  They could grow but I wouldn't make them any shorter. Stevage 14:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, agreed. ThePromenader 15:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's all I can write for now. ThePromenader 11:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)