Talk:Paris during the Second Empire

Spelling in this article
This article was created using US spelling, and, following Wikipedia policy and custom, only that spelling should be used here. Thanks for your understanding. SiefkinDR (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Were you the original author, Siefkin? If so, firstly thanks; it's a truly fascinating read, and a great resource!  I wonder if there may be a temptation to claim 'ownership' in those circumstances, which would not really be OK within Wikipedia policy, but of course you must be the judge.


 * As regards varieties of English, I am sorry to put this a little bluntly, but the original was not written in any consistent variety of English, from either side of the Atlantic, and there were some regrettably recurrent French errors too. To give a few examples, even US English was not universally using 'railroad' instead of railway in the nineteenth century, educated Parisians travelling to and from London regularly would almost certainly have written and spoken European English, and kilogrammes and kilometres were a French invention so the least we can do is honour their French spelling.  Given the very strong national and cultural ties between France and the UK (the trains roll through a tunnel these days), there is just no coherent rationale for presenting this article in US English using anachronistic terminology.  In editing to address these issues, fellow Wikipedia contributors like me are trying to collaborate with you to improve the article.  Please, work with us.John Snow II (talk) 08:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sockpuppet

You are very welcome to make contributions to this article, but not to rewrite it into a different variety of English simply because you don't like US English. The Wikipedia Style Book is very clear on this point.


 * With respect, you're missing the point. I have no discomfort at all with US English - I have studied in the US, and I employ US English when contributing to or editing US-specific Wikipedia articles.  It just happens to be inappropriate here.  Try not to take this personally, please, and note the point about 'claiming ownership', which is a greater sin in Wikipedian terms. John Snow II (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sockpuppet

Retaining the existing variety
"When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.

When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety. The variety established for use in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page.

An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another. The template may be placed on an editor's talk page to explain this to him or her."

Please contribute to Wikipedia, but please respect the rules and the work of other editors. SiefkinDR (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I do respect your Work, Siefkin - you have done an amazing job pulling much of this information together. But there is a consensus, and a policy, making it clear that articles with a strong national or cultural link to a linguistic tradition should reflect this.  With the possible exception of Benjamin Franklin, no self-respecting Parisian would allow themselves to be caught using American spellings and terminology!  Perhaps this is one to accept and appreciate, rather than getting irritated about; your contribution has been both complimented, and complemented, by the work of a fellow editor.  That's the way that Wikipedia works. John Snow II (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sockpuppet


 * I'm afraid I don't agree with you. There is no consensus that all articles about France should be in British English.  I would say about half the articles about Paris and France now (there are hundreds) are in US English.  I have edited many articles about France using British English as well as US English articles. The spirit of Wikipedia is about cooperation, not fighting against spelling you don't like.   Do you plan to change the spelling in all the articles about France?


 * The "cultural link" argument doesn't hold here.  France is not a member of the Commonwealth.  The US obviously also has strong cultural ties with France;  France was our first ally against Britain during the Revolution. But we don't claim national  ownership of all articles about France, as you do above.


 * I also see that the only changes you've made to this article  are to change words from US to British English.  This goes against Wikipedia policy, stated in the manual of style: "' An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another."  Your constructive contributions are welcome, but not editing articles with the sole purpose of changing them from US to British English.  Please observe this basic principle of Wikipedia. SiefkinDR (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Step back. If you take this personally, that doesn't help.  Look carefully at the edits made and you will see that they were certainly NOT simply about switching from one use of English to another.  The Wikipedian approach is indeed about co-operation, so here's a challenge for you; co-operate.  When someone's trying to help you to take an article from good to great, don't assume bad faith.  No-one is claiming British ownership here; it's just that when an article is using a confused mix of different varieties of the language in an article about a European subject, it makes sense to use European English. Your interpretation of cultural ties as consisting solely of the old Commonwealth may well not be one which other editors share - both the British and French empires have long since passed and the links forged by the European Union are arguably more pertinent now.  Which French contributors have you consulted? John Snow II (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sockpuppet


 * You didn't answer my question about whether you intend to change all the articles about France written in US English to British English; but from what you say here above, that seems to be your intention. I see you've changed other articles for the same reason.  I see you would like to change not only all articles about France, but all articles about Europe.  This is. as I've explained to you twice already, is  contrary to the rules of Wikipedia. Please read the manual of style.  If an article is in one form of English, as this one is and has been for some time, it should remain that way.  It is not justified to change an article to British English just because you think its more appropriate, and it is specifically against the rules.  Therefore I will unfortunately have to revert your edits once again.  Please try to follow the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. SiefkinDR (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you're taking this personally. I have indeed answered your question, but to reiterate, no I am not on a crusade for 'British English' (sic), and yes I do understand the Manual of Style.  The issue here is a specific article which pertains to a European subject but was employing an unwieldy mix of US English and European English; to resolve the mish-mash and make it readable, there was only one sensible course of action. European English, by the way, is one of the official languages of the European Union (which France is a founder member of) and the European Parliament (based partly in Strasbourg), so there is no serious question as to whether there are 'close national ties'.  You are now, regrettably, drifting into edit-warring, and THAT is specifically against the rules.  Perhaps it would be a good time to give yourself a break? John Snow II (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)  Blocked sockpuppet


 * I repeat again that there is no consensus among editors to use "European English" exclusively in articles about Europe. This article was begun in US English, and I have returned it to US English per MOS:RETAIN. SiefkinDR (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits by VincenzoCiochetti
Dear VincenzoCiochetti, Thank you very much for your very helpful and detailed edits; you've made a significant number of improvements. I would just ask you to not over-link; you've added links to terms like "avenue" and "rubbish bin";   I think all of the readers of this article know what those are. Please only use links if the topic is not generally known. Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't continually say you are correcting "mistakes" and "bad writing." You have indeed corrected some mistakes, which I appreciate, but most of the changes you have made have been changes of style, As far as I've seen, you've not added any new content or citations. It's preferable if you don't continually criticize the work of other editors; we're all working together on a common goal, Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy-Editors
This article has been considerably improved by the Guild of Copy-Editors and is now in very good shape. Unfortunately one attempt at reversing these improvements appears to touch upon some linguistic sensitivities already flagged on this talk page. To clarify this as diplomatically as possible, the guiding principle here is not the language of the original contributor (much as we are grateful to them) but the language and spelling appropriate to the subject matter. In this case there are strong cultural and indeed formal links between Paris and the variety of English used in Europe; the article itself refers to transport links with Britain, for instance, and of course France is today one of the central members of the European Union, which continues to use 'EngVar B' as one of its primary languages - notwithstanding the complications of 'Brexit', the use of English in Ireland means that is unlikely to change. There are no editorially justified reasons for inserting US English into this article, and attempting to so has the doubly perverse result of corrupting spellings which are identical in French and European English, e.g. theatre, centre, kilometres and grammes. Ideally, such interference should now cease and the contributor's admirable energies be directed into more constructive activity. An application for appropriate editing controls may be necessary should it recur, but it is to be hoped that better counsel will now prevail.Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 10:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet 74.73.230.173 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm the guild copy editor who has just completed editing the article. I hope that I've made some improvements, but I found the article in very good shape to start with, as being both well written and researched. I see that User:SiefkinDR has contributed by far the most of any editor (94.5% of added text over 65.3% of the number of edits made), and that they are making an argument for maintaining their spelling, which is or tends toward the American variant, an argument apparently well grounded in policy, one of those guidelines being that the language variant of the original substantial contributor is to be respected. The contention that "US English...[results in] corrupting spellings which are identical in French and European English" doesn't bear too close scrutiny. For example, favorite is a French equivalent for "favorite", now spelled "favourite" in the article. Another policy is to keep longstanding, but newly contested, text in an article until consensus develops on the talk page to change it. As of now, I see only two editors arguing here for change. So, I will be reverting the most recent edit. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Dhwiki, for your good sense. I agree entirely with the above.  I've seen no rules in Wikipedia that articles about Europe must be exclusively in British English.  It's particularly ironic to make that claim now,  as Britain detaches itself from Europe. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It rather sounds as if the key point may have been misunderstood here. This isn't about US versus UK variants of English. It's about the version of English which is recognised in France. Whether or not one personally warms to the term 'European English' is neither here nor there; it is one of the languages officially in use in the country to which the article pertains, and it is demonstrably in neither the spirit, nor letter, of the Wikipedia guidelines to deviate from that solely on the basis of one editor's (incidentally, excellent) contributions. None of us own content here - not even experts on the subject of the article. Content which uses non-standard spelling or informal modes of sentence construction is completely acceptable on a personal blog, of course...Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet 74.73.230.173 (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style seems a discussion that is pertinent to this thread. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorely lacking sources
This is a brilliant and very well-written article, with a wealth of statistical data (cost of living, etc.), but the source of those statistics is lacking in many places. It would also be helpful to indicate modern currency value when indicating past values (wages, bus fare, etc.). I'm sure that the author of most of this has this (otherwise they wouldn't be able to write it ; ), so could this be added, please? Thanks, and cheers. T P  ✎ ✓ 11:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Saint Augustin Church Paris.jpg