Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

A word

I'm not sure why there's so much resistance to moving the article to List of tallest buildings and structured in the Paris region, or something similar. La Défense is of Paris, perhaps, but it is not in Paris. It is outside Paris, and rather distant from the central parts of the city. Would we include buildings in Jersey City in a List of tallest buildings and structures in New York City? Jersey City is considerably closer to downtown Manhattan than La Défense is to central Paris (It's almost three miles from La Défense to the Arc de Triomphe, which is about the outer limit of central Paris, I think. It's another few miles from there to the Louvre, in the middle of the city.) Of course people speak loosely of "Paris" in a way that includes the suburbs, but it seems as though in a formal list of "things in Paris" it is problematic to include things that are, in fact, not in Paris. Would we have a List of communes in Paris or List of departments in Paris? Of course not, because that would be silly - there is but one commune, and but one department in Paris. Even if people loosely refer to Nanterre or Saint Denis as "Paris," they wouldn't refer to them as "Communes in Paris."

And I don't particularly see where "common usage in English" comes into play here. Somebody above mentioned "Holland," but we never actually use Holland in wikipedia to refer to the Netherlands. Nor do we use England to refer to the United Kingdom, despite the strictures of common usage. Some of ther other comparisons don't seem to work. Certainly London, where there is a Greater London which is universally used interchangeably with "London," doesn't really work. Sydney seems a bit closer, but in this instance it seems as though there is a clearly defined "Sydney", even if it doesn't actually correspond to any local government unit. This isn't really true of Paris, and I've never gotten the impression that anybody considers the suburbs to be "part of" Paris, while I've been here at least.

At any rate, the problem is surely solved by using the alternative of "Paris region," and I don't see what the big deal is. john k 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The "big deal", as was already explained by several people, is that this is not a regional list of buildings, as would be, say, a List of buildings in Catalonia, or a List of buildings in Lombardy. This list is a city list of buildings. Hardouin 21:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is precisely a regional listing. The lowest administrative division that unites all these buildings is Île-de-France. The region in which all these buildings are situated is Île-de-France and no other, you have said so yourself that these buildings are not in the same cities/towns/localities here: If you cared to read the article in detail, you'd notice that each building is assigned to the exact municipality in which it is located, so there's no risk of ambiguity. When a building is in Courbevoie, the list says: "Municipality: Courbevoie". and as such cannot be included in a list of buildings in Paris. You can either split the lists as I did and have one for Paris, one for Nanterre, one for Puteaux so on, or you can retain the sole list and rename it blahblah in IdF. This list is just a kiddie's listing of the tallest buildings, a five year old's book of pretty things. It's current naming does not have incidence on its content, as explained by yourself in the cited paragraph above, which shows a certain chauvinism on your part. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what this means. The city of Paris does not include La Défense. That district is not in any of the 20 arrondissements, not is it included within Paris in any map that I have ever seen. I fail to see how this is any different from listing skyscrapers in Jersey City in a list of skyscrapers in New York City. The word "city" can mean both a) agglomeration; and b) municipality. Sometimes the same "city" can be discussed in inconsistent ways. Which is why it's best to be precise, as far as we can within the limits of the common names policy. If we moved the thing to List of tallest buildings and structures in Ile-de-France, that would be problematic, because we are ignoring the common name "Paris." It would also be exceedingly stupid to leave this article where it is and take out all the skyscrapers outside the Commune of Paris, since it ignores the fact that La Défense is integral to Paris as an economic entity, and that, more importantly, most of Paris' skyscrapers are located there. But moving it to "in the Paris region" does not have either of these problems. It is not confusing or misleading in anyway. The current title is misleading. Surely we can all agree that Courbevoie and Nanterre are merely in the Paris region, and not in Paris. If this is true, than I find it hard to understand how buildings in Courbevoie and Nanterre can be in Paris, when Courbevoie and Nanterre are not in Paris. As noted before, like the airports, La Défense may belong to Paris, but it isn't in Paris. For airports, we normally say something like "is an airport serving Paris," rather than "is an airport in Paris." Charles de Gaulle and Orly are not in Paris, although they are certainly Paris' airports. The same goes for La Défense. It is not in Paris, but it is one of Paris' most important business districts. I could add other examples, if you like. The Pentagon is not a building in Washington, D.C. It would be wrong to say that it is. It of course appertains to Washington D.C., but it is not in Washington DC. I can say I'm from Washington, but I can't say that the house where my parents live is in Washington. If I'm flying to Dulles I can't say I'm flying into Washington, but I can't say Dulles Airport is in Washington. The current title is misleading, because it implies that La Défense is in Paris, which it is not. There are several options where we could leave the article as is, but not be bothered about this issue. Why is there so much opposition to the idea? Even if you think it's unnecessary, what particular reason is there to oppose List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region? Is there something I'm missing here? john k 02:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you cared to read the article in detail, you'd notice that each building is assigned to the exact municipality in which it is located, so there's no risk of ambiguity. When a building is in Courbevoie, the list says: "Municipality: Courbevoie". Hardouin 11:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

But the present discussion is not about the article's content; it's about its title. thepromenader 12:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There certainly is no big deal, and the problem couldn't be simpler: this article says that it is a list of buildings "in Paris", and it isn't, but one word can set things straight. There remains perhaps to choose that word, but that's about all. thepromenader 23:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, all this talk of "in" Paris and "of" Paris reminds me of the vicious theological debate over the filioque clause, consubstantiality and homoousis. The agglomeration commonly known as "Paris" ("of" Paris) is larger than the administratively-defined "Paris" ("in" Paris). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the meaning between "in" and "of" is enormous. Talk here has indeed twaddled many times around "the meaning of 'of'" (strangely, in arguing for "in"), but unfortunately without stating it in so many *cough* with that word. Aside from its obvious vagueness, "Towers of Paris" would certainly suffice as a description of this article's contents. Yet consider the title List of tallest buildings and structures of Paris - acceptable, but wonk city. You here to help, or to make us feel silly ; ) ? thepromenader 11:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I would be entirely happy with List of tallest buildings and structures of Paris, if that is a serious suggestion to break the impasse. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

But there is no "impasse" - just plain stubborness in the face of obvious fact. All there remains to do is find a fitting factual name, and voilà. Thanks for your help in that direction. thepromenader 12:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Promenader, *your* stubborness. The majority of people here have told you that it's fine to refer to the whole agglomeration as Paris, as long as the article clearly lists the municipalities in which each tower is located. Hardouin 14:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hardouin, stubborness is closing one's eyes (for whatever reason) to fact. Your 'majority of' assertation is not at all true, I suggest you read again, as even Metropolitan spoke for a name change to "Paris area" - but any case, opinion is not fact. While you're here, if you'd care to take even the briefest glance at the "see also" links you yourself added to the article yesterday, you would see that all of them without exception lead to articles that are either a single list containing only objects within the article namespace, or articles having a short secondary list containing some most notable buildings in the article namespace's suburbs. Were we to apply even the second case here, we would have a 'secondary' list that would be over 70% of the article - a situation pretty $%&$ silly in anyone's opinion. You really have no argument. thepromenader 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

People who have opposed a move to "Paris Region" or to "Île-de-France" so far: Dhartung, Hardouin, → JARED ^(t) , Metropolitan, Trödel, Yotambien
People who think the current title is OK but who have not formally voted in the move survey: ajn, ALoan, Herve661, Just zis Guy you know?, Stevage
People who have supported either moves so far: Captain scarlet, john k, ThePromenader
So there's a clear majority against either moves or in favor of status quo, despite what ThePromenader pretends. Hardouin 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Hardouin, have you really no argument in the fact of the matter? Others than just myself have made an effort to make this undeniably clear to you and all. To ignore this and answer with the above - a frankly manipulative grouping (including a sock puppet) supporting only your own (non-)argument - is frankly... hm. How convenient not count the people, including Metropolitan, who saw no problem with a move. Even this doesn't matter because you can't claim consensus on blatent error. Get back to fact or please, drop it. Someone explicitly asked you a question, and you have yet to answer - so how about it? thepromenader 16:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Manipulative? Sock-puppet? Non-argument? Blatant error? Gosh, you're not afraid of strong words, are you? Like User:Trödel already told you, you're on the border of ad hominems. Hardouin 17:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, grow up. And those answers? Since you obviously are unable or unwilling to discuss anything fact, your involvement in this discussion amounts to little more than disruption. Good day. thepromenader 18:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

At least we can safely conclude that this article's title is anything but fact vis-à-vis its content. The question is: what to name it? Myself I'm sticking with the official/omni-recognisable "Paris region", but I'll vote for anything more suitable than the present namespace. thepromenader 19:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"We can safely conclude" nothing of the sort. You have not convinced anyone else that the article name needs changing, so it will stay where it is. This is priceless, by the way. "I always thought that actually engaging with one another and talking things through was something different from making long speeches" (Socrates, in Plato's Protagoras). Take a look up the page and reflect. --ajn (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"...that this article's title is anything but fact" was the whole phrase. Wikipedia is not an endless exercise in opinion or sophism, it is based on verifiable fact. Open an encyclopedia, look at a map and see quite clearly confirmed the error outlined many many times above. I don't understand how one can refuse to do so yet still interject in a discussion about factual accuracy. As for the 'Priceless', have a look around on similar pages to this for the headaches caused by one imposing through any means the same largesse with fact since one year now, then comment. I don't find any of it to be particularily funny, so thanks for not fanning any flames. thepromenader 14:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But by all means, if you can prove the accuracy of this article's title, then of course it has every reason not to move. Otherwise its accuracy will always be in question; not all of us are happy sitting in fog. thepromenader 15:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that I have already voiced my opinion on this - but the article's title should be the most commonly used reference - even if it is factually not exactly correct. The article titles for many people are not their full legal names, even though their full name is a verified fact and not disputed, instead the article title is the most common named that will not cause confusion - even nicknames or stagenames are used rather than the "real name." The same is true here. I have made a suggested edit to clarify this at the top of the article --Trödel 15:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

And Trödel, your addition to the top of the article is incorrect - the "Paris metropalitan area" is never referred to as the Île-de-France, let alone commonly - and commonly by who? The two areas have absolutely no common function. Please find me one reference that does this. If you got this from another "Paris" Wiki article, you're beginning to understand the mess they are in. thepromenader 16:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Please correct it then - or I will - the point of the suggested language was not to start a new point of contention but to demonstrate that at the top of the article you can clarify what the page is about, and if necessary, point people who came there mistakenly to the right page, or as in this case - make them aware of the broader scope of the article so that if they are looking for only buildings within the city limits of Paris - they should only look to that section. --Trödel 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to jump on you on that. Yet I think it infinitely simpler just to give the article a factually correct name, rather than go through all these acrobatics. Don't you think? thepromenader 18:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem - I am just proposing a solution that may help --Trödel 19:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you point to any references that describe La Défense or the buildings within it as being "in Paris"? The use of "Paris" to mean "Paris" is hardly uncommon. Most maps of Paris just show the 20 arrondissements of the city of Paris, for instance. And one would add that this is a situation that might cause confusion, because it implies that it is a list of buildings and structures in Paris, when in fact a substantial percentage of the buildings and structures listed are not in Paris. Our article on Paris, I will add, is mostly about the formal municipality of Paris, although it does mention places in the suburbs. I don't understand how this is a common name issue at all. Unless you can show non-wikipedia lists that are called something similar to the title of this article and include buildings in La Défense, then you have no leg to stand on on the idea that somehow this is the most common reference. john k 15:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

These references were already provided, if you care to scrol up this page. Google shows that there are many references to "La Défense in Paris", and very few references to "La Défense near Paris" or "La Défense in the Paris Region". So as Trödel points out, "in Paris" is clearly the most commonly used reference. Hardouin 16:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No viable reference has ever even been looked at let alone cited by any save a few in this discussion. Quid? Michelin? Mappy? Britannica? Hell, INSEE? No, just a googled mix of everything from postal codes to offhanded ignorance. The most ironic of this is that the top googler, Hardouin, knows the fact of the matter best out of all of us. thepromenader 17:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the fact that you can find google sites saying that La Défense is in Paris is pretty meaningless. Beyond that, of course in some contexts it is okay to say this. But one would not say this when one is trying to be precise. And if an encyclopedia is not trying to be precise, what on earth is the point? john k 20:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Good lord. Common usage is about names, not about facts, as I heard it so rightly stated before. We are talking about geographical locations, not fictional characters known by their fictional names. What 'confusion' is there in "Paris region" or "Paris area"? I can assure you that confusion there will be when someone seeking a tower in Courbevoie or La Défense finds that Wiki says that it is in Paris. I really don't understand why this simple fact is faced with such a fuss. Why not be accurate? thepromenader 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is no different for people (and I mean real people not fictional characters), Prince Charles' article is named Charles, Prince of Wales not Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor or His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales; Gordon Sumner's article is at Sting; etc. These are the common names by which they are known - the fact of their real name is not disputed, but the article remains titled as the common name --Trödel 17:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but I still don't think that applies to geographical names (besides, you're trying to group two completely different subjects - name and girth -with this single argument), and I'm sure you see my point. I've never stated it so clearly, actually. thepromenader 18:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I do! (see your point) hopefully the comment will help --Trödel 19:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I genuinly have no idea what your point is. The most common name for Prince Charles is, um, Prince Charles. We don't have the article there in part because of disambiguation issues, but really (given that he is by far the best known person called "Prince Charles") because it's technically incorrect. Beyond that, I still have no idea what your point is. What exactly is the common name that is under discussion here. Are you saying that "Paris" is the common name for the Paris agglomeration? That is certainly true, but our principal exception to the common name rule is in cases of ambiguity. This is clearly such a case - in that it is not clear whether we are referring to the Ville de Paris or to the Paris Agglomeration. We should thus make the matter clear by using a title which makes the matter clear. In this case "Paris region" or some such does the job, and is not connfusing. I simply don't understand what on earth the common name rule has to do with this. john k 19:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Then in that case, you might as well move Paris Métro to Paris Region Métro, or better, move it to Île-de-France Métro, as User:Captain scarlet would have it, because as you know, a good part of the metro network and many metro stations are not in the city of Paris proper but in the municipalities surrounding the city. Honestly, this kind of litteral administrative reading is getting ridiculous. Hardouin 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's quite enough nonsense, Hardouin, thank you. thepromenader 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Paris region" isn't the 'tightest' title for the area spoken of in this article but, unlike "in Paris", at least it's accurate. In fact my personal favourite is "Paris agglomeration", as "agglomératon parisienne" is a very commonly used term here and it describes the areas spoken of in this article to a tee, but this is not an official nor referenceable boundary. Although much larger, the next administrative area larger than Paris is the Île-de-France. Yet size doesn't seem to matter here, as Hardouin himself has insisted on inserting "Paris metropolitan area" everywhere, a statistical area even bigger than the IDF.

Anyhow, if you stick with conventions and take the official translation of the Île-de-France, "Paris region", you have something accurate, something official, something recognisable to English-speakers and, to top things off, something sounding like "in the area of Paris" to those who haven't the slightest clue about the fact of the matter. Vendu?

But to tell you the truth I don't really care what title appears above this article as long as it is verifiable. The present one just makes Wiki look silly. thepromenader 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The name "Paris Métro" does not imply that every stop is in the city of Paris, just that it is the metro for the city of Paris. john k 02:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Who said the Paris Métro is the metro for the city of Paris? This was true in 1900, but not today. Today the official name of the métro is not "Métro de Paris", it is "Métro" only. The agency running the métro, the RATP, is in charge of transport in the larger Paris Region, not just in the City of Paris. So were we to apply the same litteral and pedantic logic, we should rename the article Paris Region Metro. Hardouin 11:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Quit with the sophistry. It is of course the metro for the city of Paris (and also the metro by which people from nearby surrounding places get into Paris). In the case of "Paris Métro" it is perfectly acceptable to use the informal broader meaning of Paris, because we are not implying anything incorrect - it is the Paris Métro. The Métro is a single system which is both in Paris and some of the innermost suburbs, but it is in Paris. The Tour Total, on the other hand, is not in Paris at all. It is in Courbevoie, which is an entirely different place. The difference between "It's in Paris and also extends into some surrounding places" and "It is in a place near Paris, but is not in Paris at all" is significant and crucial. john k 14:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

And again, the issue is ambiguity not absolute accuracy. Would anyone defend the idea that it would be incorrect to say that the Hôtel Concorde Lafayette is the second tallest building in Paris? If this is not an incorrect statement, then the article title as it stands is ambiguous. Paris Métro is not ambiguous, because there's only one metro system serving Paris. It is not as though there is both a metro just for Paris, and another one that also includes the suburbs. Note also that our article is title List of stations of the Paris Métro, not List of Métro stations in Paris, which would of course be incorrect, since La Défense or Villejuif metro is on the Paris Métro, but not in Paris. john k 14:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

To say that the Hôtel Concorde Lafayette is the second tallest building in Paris is adminstratively correct but it's an absurd and quite meaningless statement. It's like saying that Paris is a smaller city than Rome with only 2.1 million inhabitants vs. 2.5 million in Rome. This statement is administratively correct, but it is of course completely absurd. Enough people have already commented above about the idiocy and pedantism of litteral administrative readings, so I won't say more. Hardouin 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Idiocy and pedantism of geography, you mean. "Administrative(ly) xxx" sounds like a straining to avoid the word "fact". Wiki is supposed to be a verifiable reference, not a place for offhand discussions about who's got the biggest city or tallest erections. thepromenader 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, as long as :
1- It's well specified as an introduction to this article that it encompasses buildings from Paris inner suburbs
2- The municipality in which buildings are located is well-mentioned on the table
I hardly see where lies any ambuguity about this. The denomination "Paris" in the title of this page is meant to be simple and hence easier to find out by interested users.

The problem is very simple. This page is meant to be an equivalent for Paris to the pages which already exists for Chicago, New York or Singapore. If you ignore La Défense for such a page, then you're blatantly hiding informations which would be considered as useful by the reader. I have tried to isolate the list with strictly Parisian buildings in one table and buildings from neighbouring municipalities in another table, and everyone has yelled that this was ridiculous. However, making this list regional for the unique reason that La Défense isn't located in the city proper would also be misleading as it would make appear regional a list which is strictly urban. Frankly, I don't see better solutions than the current one, where it's well specified several times in this page that this list also involves buildings built in neighbouring municipalities of Paris, including beside the name of each building on the list in itself.

If you would like to make this list ambiguous, you couldn't be less efficient than currently. Metropolitan 16:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

But this argument doesn't work either - if it is so 'misleading' to make this a 'regional list', why is this article filled with references to "Paris Metropolitan area" even bigger than the IDF "region"? What is "not helpful" to the reader is when he's told something that isn't true, even if this misleading is 'repaired' later in the article.

If you want to compete with the world's other city agglomerations, you cannot hope to do so with the "Paris" that the Paris agglomeration is not. Since Paris is much smaller than its agglomeration, a more accurate title must be used instead. Anything effort outside of this cannot be fact; at best it represents a nebulous and anyhow unreferencable opinion of what the speaker thinks Paris 'should be'. Keep it simple. Stick to fact. thepromenader 19:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does this argument work in this case, but not allow for the inclusion of buildings in Jersey City on the New York list? Jersey City is closer to downtown Manhattan than La Défense is to central Paris, and is part of the census defined New York urban area. Buildings in Jersey City are listed, but in a separate list of suburban skyscrapers, even though the Goldman Sachs Tower is as much the "fourteenth tallest building in New York" as the Tour Total is the "second tallest building in Paris."

And nobody is suggesting ignoring La Défense for such a page. I am suggesting merely that the current title is ambiguous and potentially misleading, and should be made not such. john k 18:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Different cities have different ways of listing things. In the NYC list you mention, they chose to list Jersey City's skyscrapers in a separate list, whereas the Paris and Sydney lists chose to list all buildings in the metro area within the same list. I guess in the case of New York it may have to do with the name "New York City" which really implies only the city proper. Hardouin 18:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

If this page were to follow the 'second list' example, over 70% of its contents would be in the 'second list'. Pure silliness. 'In Paris' also implies only the city proper. thepromenader 18:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Good lord, more muddling. For the thousandth time, someone looking for a tower in Courbevoie or La Défense will not find it in Paris. Please stop with this nonsense. thepromenader 18:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we do ThePromenader. Following your link to Paris leads to an article in which is mentionned La Défense, with multiple pictures of the district. In the page related to New York City, there's nothing related to Jersey City. The thing is simply that the city of Paris is rather small, it doesn't even encompass the skyscraper district of its own metropolitan area.

The title, "tallest buildings in Paris" does not necessarily imply Paris as the administrative entity but it can also consider Paris as the metropolitan area. The article about Paris clearly shows this as it talks not only about the city proper of Paris but also about its metropolitan area.

In this article dealing about the tallest structures, the very first line of this article makes it clear that it's Paris as its metropolitan area which is considered rather than Paris as its administrative definition. Hence I fail to see where's the ambiguity.

Frankly, I fail to understand how this could bother anyone. As long as things are well-explained, and they are clearly. There's absolutely nothing making this title unacceptable. Metropolitan 19:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't. "In an article on Paris" is not "in Paris". We are not talking about article content, we are talking about the title that it isn't. Anyone can "fail to see" anything they want to. Come to your senses please. thepromenader 19:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"In Paris" does not necessarily mean Paris as an administrative entity, it can also mean Paris as a metropolitan area. When journalists mention "last november's riots in Paris", they talk about Paris as a metropolitan area, knowing that the city proper in itself hasn't been concerned by those riots but strictly its suburbs. Are journalists making a mistake in assimilating those riots to Paris ? No they aren't, for the simple reason that Paris could perfectly be used to talk about the whole metropolitan area rather than strictly the administrative entity. As long as things are made clear in the article, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this title. You cannot continue to ignore this. Metropolitan 19:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

One Wikipidian's "Can mean" "could" and "doesn't necessarily mean" are hardly qualifiers for a factual article title, especially when the fact of the matter is clear and available everywhere. Ignorance is what's needed to accept this article's title for fact, for sure. thepromenader 20:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For the love of Mike, our own article on La Défense says: La Défense is one of Paris' major business districts...

This is extremely tiresome. Pushing treacle uphill as long as this starts to look a little trollish. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the List of tallest buildings and structures of Paris suggestion. Tiresome? I don't find it tiresome, but other sentiments sometimes do prevail... like that sinking feeling upon reading the first few words of the latest hearsay theory, broken by bouts of unbridled chuckling when I see where it's going. If you're tired, best stop waving those pom-poms around. By the way, happy vacation! thepromenader 21:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is deeply tiresome, of course. But everyone is being equally tiresome. Paris can of course be used to mean something broader than the Commune of Paris. And of course things can be described as Parisian or as pertaining to Paris which are not located in Paris. But speaking of actual locations as being in Paris when they are not strikes me as odd. We should be precise. It's also worth noting that it's worth drawing attention to the fact that most of Paris' main skyscrapers are not in Paris, that the part of Paris that looks like an American or East Asian "downtown" is actually several miles outside the city. The Sydney comparison seems improper to me. While there is no central government for Sydney as a whole, there seems to be a fairly well defined geographical area that is understood to mean "Sydney," or at least, this is what I gather from the article on Sydney. If Paris does not mean the Commune of Paris, what exactly does it mean? Is it the old Seine Département? Or, the similar, but slightly different, area of Paris + Petit Couronne? If it's either of those, can anyone find any authority for using this area as synonymous with "Paris"? Is it the whole Ile-de-France? That certainly seems unworkable. I don't think one would describe Versailles or Melun as being "in Paris" - you would say they were near Paris, or in the Paris region, or suburbs of Paris. The basic issue with use of "in Paris" in this article title is that there is only one precise meaning of that phrase, and that meaning is clearly not being used in the conception of the article. If a large skyscraper were built, for some reason, in Fontainebleau (35 miles from Paris!) would we really say that it is a skyscraper "in Paris"? If not, why not? If so, I don't see how we can exclude Jersey City (1 mile away!) from New York. Jersey City is exactly as much a part of the New York urban agglomeration as La Défense is part of the Paris one. It's in a different political unit, but Hardouin, et al, have been saying here that political units don't matter for this purpose, only some sort of vague common sense notion of what a "city" entails, combined perhaps with statistical definitions of agglomerations (although this is unclear).

Look, I'm normally not terribly anal about these things, and if there were no good solution to these problems I'd be happy to just leave it here. But there are a variety of perfectly good alternative names we could use for this article that wouldn't be misleading. I've yet to see any particularly good reason why the current title is better than an alternative like "Paris region". Why this enormous loyalty to a flawed title? john k 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

John Kenney, La Défense isn't located at several miles from the city of Paris, it's actually located at 1.3 miles from the border of Paris. The district is actually located in the densely built core of the urban area, it's not surrounded with housings, but in the middle of buildings. Finally, La Défense is actually ending the Historical Axis which is a perspective beginning at the Louvre and following the Champs-Elysées. If I say all this, it's simply to make you understand that La Défense isn't a remote area lost in the middle of some kind of urban sprawl from which Paris happened to be the center, it is urbanistically speaking fully integrated to Paris. As such, comparing it with Jersey City, a place which is separated from New York City by the huge straight of the Hudson river, isn't totally correct. All the buildings mentionned in the list are located at less than 2 miles from the border of the city of Paris. It's not about one building in Nemours and another one in Meaux... no, they are all located in the very core of the urban area.

Of course that doesn't have any real influence in the specific topic, but I thought it would be good to make such a clarification. Metropolitan 22:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 1.3 miles from Porte Maillot to La Défense, but considerably farther from Central Paris. Yes, Jersey city is separated by the Hudson, but it's certainly no more than 1.3 miles from downtown Manhattan, and that's the actual middle, downtown part of Manhattan. La Défense is relatively close to the 16th and 17th arrondissements, but what the hell is in the 16th and 17th arrondissements? I understand that's it's a fully part of the Paris urban area. But Jersey City is exactly as much a full part of the New York urban area - it is so defined by US statistical authorities, notably, and is, as I noted, only about a mile from Manhattan. Another instance would be Rosslyn and Crystal City, in Arlington, Virginia. They are both immediately adjacent to Washington DC, and fully integrated into the DC urban area. But neither of them is part of Washington, and it would be absurd to say that they were. What is interesting in that case, like that of Paris, more or less, is that all the skyscrapers around DC are not actually in DC. They are in the urban area, of course, and not very far away, but they aren't in the city. This is the same situation. You can keep saying as much as you like that La Défense is fully integrated, but it doesn't really matter. La Défense is not in Paris, and it's several miles away from the Opéra/Champs Elysées area that might be considered the generic "downtown" of Paris. It is strange and odd for a city to have its major skyscraper district not be in the city proper. This is worth highlighting. Beyond that, again, how exactly are we defining "Paris" here? Until somebody can specifically explain what exactly we mean when we say "Paris", this still feels problematic. john k 16:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides the fact that most all of john k's clear and verifiable evidences were totally ignored, none of the above arguments are a reason, in any way, to say that La Défense is in Paris. Belongs to Paris, is near Paris, serves Paris, yes, but in Paris, no. The just because a road begins in a certain area doesn't mean one can say its entire length is "in" this area. You speak of rivers - the périphérique is a formidable barrier/landmark if there was any. This article is not called "in the core of the Paris urban area", it is called "in Paris". This title is wrong, and verifiably so - In every reference save Wiki, that is. thepromenader 23:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

PS: Metropolitan and Hardouin: how long do you think you guys can hold out against reality, and this in providing nothing but opinon and mismatched 'comparisons' as proof? It is knowing the fact of the matter while watching your 'talk 'em down' trials that is tiresome. If you think you are right, than show citeable proof of it and let's be done with it. Otherwise, you must let fact prevail. Enough already. thepromenader 00:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

New title Proposal

Okay, as we can see, there's a huge disagreement about the title of this page. Indeed many have proposed a regional title which isn't satisfying for obvious reasons whereas others have proposed a city title (the current one) which is considered by some as ambiguous. Hence, here is my proposal. What would you think about calling the article:

• "list of tallest structures in Paris and vicinity"

The title would be technically valid no matter your point of view, and it would keep its properly urban nature. Metropolitan 15:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I 100% see your point about indicating the 'single urban tissue' as such... which is why I suggested "agglomeration". Yet someone else has suggested in the Paris article that "conurbation" is a more commonly-used term, but I'm not sure this applies to Paris' growth-type. Vicinity says it well too. thepromenader 16:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds perfect. john k 16:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Huge disagreement"? You must be joking Metropolitan. Actually everybody agrees that the current title is alright, except three opinionated users (Captain scarlet, John k, and ThePromenader). Metropolitan, you don't have to pander to these three opinionated users. Keep a sense of proportion please.

As for the current title, it is neat and simple. Your proposed "Paris and vicinity" is as awkward as "Paris Region" and all the likes. If anything, I'd agree with "List of tallest buildings and structures in Greater Paris", which is also a very simple and straightforward title. Hardouin 18:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Opinionated" ?!!! No. referenced, yes. Save the insinuations of bad faith please. "Everybody" is pushing it as an adjective. The current title is neat, simple, false, misleading, opinionated and non-factual. Hardouin, I suggest you drop this quite personal pretense. thepromenader 19:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Greater Paris" is more than just an adjective, as it pretends to be an existing and well-defined area, but there exists no "Greater Paris" (certainly not in any reference). It does insinuate, though, an area greater than the city itself.

Metropolitan's earlier "Paris area" suggestion is another possibility - the INSEE uses this term often in its website. thepromenader 19:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "Paris area" suggestion is a good one... actually, it's even better than the "Paris and vicinity" one. Anyway, this is a list about skyscrapers, people would guess that they aren't located in the middle of wheat fields. What is the most important to me is to make it sure people understand that all the buildings listed belong to the same urban core, and aren't scattered in different physically separated cities. Metropolitan 23:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm indifferent between those two possibilities. The issue of the urban core can and should be addressed in the article text. If we want to indicate this in the title, I'm not sure which does a better job. Would we be more likely to say that Fontainebleau is in the "vicinity of Paris" or in the "Paris area"? I'm not sure, but I tend to think that one would probably say neither of those things, but rather that Fontainebleau is a town in the "greater Paris Region", or something like that. La Défense is definitely in the vicinity of Paris. But I'm not sure. I think either of the suggested titles more or less does the job required - neither implying "different physically separated cities" nor that all the listed structures are within the bounds of Paris proper. john k 03:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Both 'vicinity' and 'area' describe the area in question - although "Paris area" does seem quite a bit 'neater'. In re-examining the INSEE website, it would seem that the organisation uses "Paris area" as the English translation of its "aire urbaine" statistical area - in thinking of 'too-large' "Paris region", does this matter? thepromenader 08:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Further Page move Opposition

I agree with Hardouin - there is no reason to move this page. Some comments

• New Jersey buildings are listed on the List of tallest buildings in New York City
• They are listed in a seperate table - primarily because ONLY ONE would make it into the top 77 tallest buildings in New York. The other 6 would not even be listed if there was one table for NYC and its greater metropolitan area.
• I find it amusing that this conversation is still being persued. If, as suggested above, those supporting the current location are out of touch with reality, then why not just let time work its magic and the alleged lunacy will be obvious - but continuing to push, push push - is counterproductive.
• I begin to wonder about motives - does someone want to embarrass Paris by focusing on the fact that Jersey City has about as many tall buildings over 350 feet as Paris.

Anyway - this has used too much energy already --Trödel 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes Trödel, and your commenting in refusing to look at anything fact has helped to lengthen it considerably. Show me one other reference article that, titled inaccurately, 'repairs' that inaccuracy within the article - what self-respecting reference would even try this? There is not even another Wiki article that does this - if there is any deviation from the article namespace, it is presented under a proper context. You yourself cited an example - treated just below.

The New Jersey buildings appear in a separate sub-list for the very evident reason that they are not in the city of New York, and even looking at the sub-list title makes it very difficult to reason otherwise; anyone would reflect on the motives of trying to do so.

Finally, we will actually valorise the urban growth around Paris by naming it correctly, as to this an "in Paris" title is even belittling for its indication of an area much too small - anyone looking at any reference would see this. Refer to fact, save the speculations, and enough with the sophist interjections please. We are at present in constructive discussion, and even Hardouin himself has made a new name suggestion, so thank you for no further disruptions to this please. Your opposition to any move is noted. thepromenader 08:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Note - This is how the page looked this morning - I had moved the last two interjections to their own topic as they were quite inappropriate for a topic titled "new name proposition" - before it was reverted - twice. Someone seems to find disruption useful. thepromenader 21:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you didn't find the comment somewhat persuasive, why delete/move it, and then label it as disruptive? --Trödel 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why again an off-topic interjection? I did not delete it, I moved it and even gave it its own heading. Your comment was not at all about a new name and even then not at all persuasive, and even non sequitur as I quite clearly pointed out above - but even my own comment was off topic, so I moved this as well! This is just someone else's quite calculated ado about nothing. Even this should be moved to a topic of its own - but with your permission this time if it would cover all bases. This was a constructive discussion. thepromenader 22:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Tour Alicante and Tour Chassagne

Does theses building really need two lines in the table ? (rank 6) they have firsts floors in commons so i don't know if we can say they are two buildings (a little bit like a cathedral could have 2 towers). I found strange to see two separates lines for that, specially because they have exactly the same description, with two links to the same article (but it's not a real problem for me :) ) Hervée 09:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC) (i hope my english is understandable)

Hervé, I see your point but the fact is that both towers are independent on most of the structure. This is actually similar to the Deutsche Bank towers in Frankfurt. While Coeur Défense should be considered as a single tower because the two main bodies are linked untill their roof, this isn't the case for Alicante and Chassagne. After all, would you consider the Petronas Twin Towers as a single building knowing that they also share the same basis and that there's even a platform linking both in the middle of their length ? Actually, towers consisting in different bodies are numerous in La Défense: Tour Total, Coeur Défense, Tour Les Poissons, Tour Michelet, Tour Franklin... You see clearly that where it would be dubious to consider all those as several towers, it's more natural with Alicante and Chassagne. Metropolitan 12:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move Vote - "List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris area"

It has been suggested between a few of us here that this article be renamed "List of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris area". Please your vote with a brief description below; place longer comments in the "comments" section please.

• Support - although this title is not in complete compliance with Wikipedia geographical naming conventions, it is descriptively and factually accurate. -- THEPROMENADER 17:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly neutral, but it does rather appear as if you are going to keep asking until you get the answer you want, given the lack of any evident consensus above. Do consider the possibility that, in the end, it doesn't actually matter that much... Guy 18:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. As a Frenchman living in Paris, I have no authority to say how to name an article about Paris (and its area) on the English-speaking Wikipedia... I agree with the current title and I also agree with "Paris area"... Thbz 19:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - what can I say, the current name is better. Why not just rename "Paris" to "Paris area"? Why not rename "New York City" to "New York City area"? This discussion has much less to do with Paris than it has to do with Wikipedia, and if I was just randomly stumbling upon this page, I would have no hesitation about moving it back to the less wordy, less clumsy, less hedge-sitting "...in Paris". The proposed title isn't bad as such, it's just not an improvement on the current title in any important respect. By all means move it if it means you can stop wasting so much time on this pointless argument, but I don't feel that the encyclopaedia has benefited from this change. Stevage 18:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The current name is not precise, inexact, wrong and missleading even. Since three-quarters of the lists' content is situated outside of the realm of its title, I support the move to a logical, appropriate and accurate name. Any good step, as small as it may be, is a step nonetheless. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - completely agree with Stevage. The current title is simple and straightforward and is far better than the long-winded and awkward "in the Paris region", "in the Paris area", "in the vicinity of Paris", and all the likes. Also, this whole title thing seems motivated by personal feelings from mainly one editor (ThePromenader) who is asking yet for another vote (must be the 3rd or 4th vote), despite being defeated in all previous rounds. If this vote fails again, is he gonna call for a 5th, 6th, 7th, or 8th vote? At this point, I believe there must be something deeper at play than just a selfless "quest for truth". Hardouin 21:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Because of the personal slant of the above, here I must interject. The base of this is nothing personal at all, but simple and straightforward fact. What's more, we both know the real fact of the matter. See comments below. THEPROMENADER 07:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Still neutral, but leaning towards oppose -- I'm feeling oppositional because this looks like a one-editor campaign, and a very long one at that (this has been listed at least twice on RfC (by the same person), and just today I got another note on my talk about it). While I'm convinced that The Promenader is acting in good faith, and really, really, really thinks the title is a problem, I honestly don't see it as a problem. I don't see moving it as much of a problem either, though the new title seems a bit long (I'm afraid I have to admit that my suggestion of it a couple months ago was at least partially tongue-in-cheek). Anyway, I still think it's a nicely done article. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 22:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral, but also leaning towards oppose -- Frankly, as many others obviously, I don't care of the name of this page. I don't see any problem in the current title. Those who could consider this thread as misleading should be seriously blind, as the factual administrative locations of buildings and districts mentionned in this page are well-described each time they are mentionned. This page is meant to be an equivalent of other similar pages about New York City, Singapore or Vancouver. The specificity of the Paris organization leads its skyscrapers district to be actually located at 2 km from the city proper. Is this enough to ignore it ? No it's not. You can't ignore La Défense when you talk about Paris skyscrapers. The only thing is that those specificities must be well-explained on the page, and I believe that's the case. Metropolitan 23:23, 5 september 2006.
• Support. Despite my comments above, I don't think this is incredibly important, but I see no reason not to be accurate. It is at least moderately confusing to have an article about buildings "in Paris" that mostly lists buildings outside Paris, and the alternate title seems perfectly reasonable, although I might prefer "Paris and vicinity." john k 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I am neutral because I believe that Paris area is a valid compromise, especially to get this whole darn thing over with, but I also believe that it is quite unnecessary to include that specifier because Paris implies the greater Paris area, as do the names of other cities, and moreover, the actually suburb is listed on the page! → JARED ^(t)  02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've always lived in Paris and I'm actually born there. If you live in the suburbs you might say to foreigners who don't know where you live that you live in Paris but this is an abuse of language. There're actually a lot of little cities that are part of the Paris suburbs. But you can not say that they are Paris or in Paris. I just wanted to point the fact that if you look at a map of Paris, la défense is simply not in Paris. Paris is not such a big city but it has large suburbs that depend on Paris but are not part of Paris. As a conclusion I would just say that Paris has precise limits and that any encyclopedia shouldn't argue about that. 81.57.231.191 13:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed title is vague at best. However, I do agree that the page should be moved, but to something less ambiguous. How about List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France. --Bob 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I don't care enough to oppose the rename - but I don't support it either. To me it is a naming issue rather than an accuracy issue - wikipedia frequently uses names that are not completely accurate but that are commonly used in English. Thus I think "in Paris" is sufficient, though "in the Paris area" would also be descriptive and is not as wordy as prior proposals. However I can't support it over the current status. --Trödel 01:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, Stevage's reasons are much the same as mine. The article title should reflect common English usage, which is that "Paris" means the large city in the centre of France, not just a small area in the centre of the conurbation. --ajn (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• I hope I didn't miss anyone on my talk-page 'vote-garner' round. THEPROMENADER 17:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Hi Stevage. As an answer to your question: because the overwhelming majority of buildings listed in Tallest_buildings in New York City are actually within New York City. This article is the exact opposite of that example - the overwhelming majority of buildings in this article are without the area indicated. THEPROMENADER 18:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for the invitation to comment and/or vote here, ThePromenader. I don't really have a strong opinion on what the page should be named, but I'll describe how I think we might go about deciding, for those who care more than I do what the name of the page is.

Everyone agrees that the content of the article should be kept as it is. What name to give the article, then, depends on the following criteria:

1. Concision. The title should not be unwieldy or unnecessarily long.
2. Adherence with WP guidelines.
3. Accuracy. The title should mean what it says, and say what it means.

To look a the third point more closely, and at the risk of getting overly abstract, we need to decide what "Paris" means. I recall from some recent dispute the question of whether articles titled something like "Los Angeles" should just cover what's within the legal city limits, or whether it should discuss as well the metropolitan area generally, or whether it it should also include the "idea" of the city. If "Paris" is generally understood to refer purely what's in its legal boundaries, then the article would need to be renamed to one of the suggestions above. If, on the other hand, "Paris" is generally understood to refer to the metropolitan area, then no such name change is necessary (provided that structures lying outside the legal borders of the city are so identified), although it is not unreasonable. As I see it, point (1) argues in favor of keeping the name as it is. Point (2) is debated over, and, since it's only a guideline rather than a rule, and Paris seems to be different from New York, London, or Chicago w/r/t tall buildings, I think we should take the guideline with a grain of salt, seeing as how none of the options presented falls unreasonably far from what the guideline says. Point (3) might argue in favor of changing the name, rather strongly in fact if "Paris" is understood by a substantial proportion of WP. My conclusion, therefore, is that if a substantial proportion of WP conceives of the word "Paris" as referring to the city itself rather than the city and its environs, then the page should be renamed. I don't really know, however, whether people so conceive of the word like that, and in fact I rather doubt it, but, to be blunt, I don't think that this debate is really worth spending too much time over. If I had to vote, I'd vote to change the title.--Atemperman 21:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Atemperman, to answer your question, the name "Paris" refers to different things depending on the context and the audience. At the local level, "Paris" is more often than not used for the administrative city. When you open a local newspaper, if they write "Paris", they usually mean the City of Paris, although there are exceptions, especially when discussing economic issues (e.g., when the local newspapers wrote "In 2005 Paris overtook London as Europe's number 1 recipient of FDI", of course they meant the metro area, not just the City of Paris). At a less local level, and especially when addressing a non-French audience, the name "Paris" is more often than not used to refer to the metro area instead of just the city proper. Thus, French authorities bade for the "2012 Olympic Games of Paris", even though the games would have actually been held in the municipality of Saint-Denis, and not in the City of Paris proper. Same when they try to attract foreign investors, they say "invest in Paris", even though foreign investments are more likely to happen in the high-tech industries in the southern suburb of Évry, or in the services cluster of Roissy-CDG Airport, than in the City of Paris proper, where there is not much to invest in anyway. Hardouin 22:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

quest for truth. There is an inconsistency in the comment made above by Hardouin. If indeed ThePromenader is on a quest for truth as Hardouin states, then Hardouin agrees with ThePromenader with regards to the inappropriate title and should change his vote. Indeed how can someone remark the correctnes of another editor whilst arbitrarilly opposing the vote towards rectifying the article's title. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 23:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I did find your personal comments quite distasteful, Hardouin, mostly because, out of all of us, it is you who knows best the fact of the matter; yet it is in a large part because of you this - what should be a minor correction - has become a debacle. Quest for fact, not truth: fact visible in any map, reference or annuaire you care to look at. Rather, it is the avoidance of any use of these that is the signature of a "personal vision". THEPROMENADER 00:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for the insinuation that I would waste other's time by asking them to vote on the same thing - not. There was one vote for "in the Paris region", a counter-proposal by another contributor for "in the Île-de-France" that was also voted on, and now this third proposition that a few of us had already agreed upon before the vote was even called. THEPROMENADER 07:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: In looking in the archives this morning, I see that the second vote was not started by myself, but by Captain scarlet, and this as a counter-proposal to "in the Paris Region". He at least was thinking constructively. THEPROMENADER 07:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Atemperman, the real fact of the matter is that absolutely nothing outside the city of Paris is ever referred to as being "in Paris". Locales around the city are perhaps "of Paris", "at Paris", "near Paris", "in the Paris agglomeration" perhaps - but these are not "in Paris". If you are at the Montreiuil flea market, not a single person you meet you will ever meet will tell you, should you ask where you are, that you are "in Paris" - yet the Montreuil flea market is not 100m outside Paris' borders. Should you look up any of the suburban towers in any reference, you will never find them indicated as being "in Paris" - and not even the La Défense organisation itself, the EPAD, will say that La Défense is "In Paris".

The "airport" and "post office" arguments: a company offering a service to a city can take the name of the city without being in the city. This article is not about vague press references by foreigners about activities or events belonging to the city - we are talking about geography described with an explicit term - "in Paris". Paris is very well-defined, and people saying "Paris", and especially "in Paris," are not referring to any non-existent (to the French) "Paris metropolitan area" - In all definition and from anyone you ask: you have the city of Paris, you have the Paris agglomeration, then you have the Paris region (or the Île-de-France)- but out of these, the only "in Paris" is the city itself, and this in any reference.

The title of this article is not a problem per se, but it is certainly not fact. The reason I have maintained my stance is that this is so glaringly obvious - to anyone who cares to look. THEPROMENADER 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Answer to Metropolitan - the content is fine, but the article title says that it is what it is not. You can't give a "this is" title to an article and later have it explain "this isn't really." "Paris area" sums it up quite accurately, and in a way I thought we finally agreed to, otherwise I would have left it and not called this vote. THEPROMENADER 23:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• One last note for voters : I know that I've been persistant in this, but it wouldn't do to vote negatively only because of my persistance - rather, take a look at the reason for my persistance. If the error of the claim can easily be proven, then so be it - but judge the claim. THEPROMENADER 07:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Just curious - how many of the tallest buildings in all of France are not in Paris (or the surrounding suburbs)? In other words, couldn't this just be "tallest buildings in France"? I looked at several entries at random at "Category:Skyscrapers in France", and they were all in or around Paris. A few I missed might need to be added to the list if it encompassed all of France, but then the title would be concise and accurate. Kafziel 16:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Can't answer you personally - Metropolitan surely can - but perhaps you can find what you're looking for here - they have most of "France's tallest". THEPROMENADER 18:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That site confirms it. None of the other cities have buildings that would qualify for this list. Le Grand Pavois in Marseille is 100m tall, and Rennes has a couple that are 99m (all still below even the smallest on this list) and none of the other cities come close. So even with the addition of those three buildings, this could be accurately renamed "List of tallest buildings in France" with minimal alteration. That would negate the argument about whether the suburbs are part of Paris, and the argument that the "Paris area" title is too inexact and/or cumbersome. Kafziel 18:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You forgot the 165 m. Crédit Lyonnais Tower in Lyon, the 158 m. Cathedral of Rouen (once the tallest building in the world by the way), the 144 m. Tour Bretagne in Nantes, the 144 m. Cathedral of Strasbourg (the tallest building in the world for several centuries), the 120 m. Crédit Lyonnais Tower in Lille, and couple more. Hardouin 22:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The List of tallest structures in France article exists, actually. THEPROMENADER 07:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Why not just merge the two, then? There's a lot of overlap there, and the requirements for inclusion in these lists are completely arbitrary; there's no minimum height or maximum number of buildings. The lists can be as long and as inclusive as we want them to be. Kafziel 12:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
        • You're right about the low overlap, but I think this idea would go against the "world cities' tall erections" purpose of this article. Good point though. THEPROMENADER 15:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Perhaps could the anon leaving the comment be kind enough to vote ? THEPROMENADER 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • PS: As a registered user please. THEPROMENADER 16:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• The above comment looks like sock puppetry from ThePromenader. Compare the IP addresses and the language used. Also note the impeccable English for a supposedly native Frenchman, and the use of "there" instead of "here". Hardouin 17:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • • • Compare what IP addresses? This would mean you have mine? Why? THEPROMENADER 22:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's any call for accusations like that. He didn't vote, and at any rate input from IPs and new users isn't counted in the final decision. I certainly wouldn't call his English "impeccable" either (no offense, Mr. Anon). Kafziel 17:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think it was meant to be a vote, it's clever than that, it's a way to influence the vote by giving a seemingly authoritative opinion from a local. Check the language used, it's strikingly similar to the language used by ThePromenader ("abuse of language", "look at a map of Paris", "precise limits"). Also, if you read the above many messages, you'll notice that ThePromenader has accused me of sock-puppetry when new or unregistered users have voted against his proposals (!), so it seems logical that if he questions other people's integrity, his own integrity be examined too. "Let he who has not sinned throw the first stone." (John 8:7) Hardouin 17:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Pretty lame. I don't think I've ever used the term "abuse of language" on Wiki. No complaint against anon users (whose IP we can see), but a user who registered for one edit - a vote on this page. You can read the exchange here. What exactly is the goal of such accusatory obsession? By all means, please examine my integrity - all of it. "Let he who cites reference write fact" - and that one is from me. Grow up already. THEPROMENADER 20:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • This comment is an admonishment more than anything, as it makes us to look as silly boys fighting over something so obvious. Which is not far from the truth. If you would like my IP, you can have it if it clears things up. Give me a break Hardouin, you're the proven sock-puppet here, and we don't need sock puppetry to defend referenced fact. THEPROMENADER 18:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Here you go, girls. 81.65.112.11 18:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Anyhow comments are supposed to go below, not here. Since this (and all the *** afterwards) is disrupting the vote, I suggest we move it down there. THEPROMENADER 18:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Although I agree that the article be moved to a new name (because it includes towers outside of Paris) I think that the term Paris area is somewhat vague. Something like List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France would be more exact, non? --Bob 00:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The French mirror page is actually named Ile-de-France, however probabilities are weaker that English readers would actually know that Ile-de-France stands for the Paris area. As a result, anyone who is interested to know which are the tallest structures in Paris wouldn't actually guess that Ile-de-France means it.

People who are supposed to be interested by this page couldn't care less about the administrative divisions of the Paris area. The average reader doesn't care about the fact that municipalities in France actually mean an area about the size of the Vatican City (Le Pré-Saint-Gervais isn't specifically bigger than the territory of the Vatican City). He doesn't care more about the fact that the Top 25 most densely populated municipalities in Europe are actually all inner "suburbs" of Paris. The only think he wants is to know which are the tallest towers of the area. And if you don't include La Défense for the hypocritical reason that it's not in the administrative territory of Paris, then you're lying at him.

There are two definitions of a city: a territorial one which is materialized by the concept of urban area and an institutionnal one which follows the shape of administrative borders. According to the territorial definition of Paris, La Défense is actually located in the very core of the city. According to the institutional definition of Paris, La Défense, an area of 1.3 km², is divided in three cities: Nanterre, Puteaux and Courbevoie. There is absolutely nothing which is misleading in considering Paris as an urban area in the title. Knowing the complexity of the administrative map of the Paris urban area, I would even consider it as user friendly. Of course, as long as everything about administrative delimitations are well-explained several times in the content of this article, which is the case. Metropolitan 02:51 8 september 2006

Sorry to discount your theorizing, Metropolitan, but a definition of "what is a city" is not at all comparable nor applicable to "area defined by name", and any attempt to connect the two is only your own opinion. A title should indicate what is under it: as I said before, you can't have a "this is" title with a "this isn't really" content: with this title as it is, anyone knowing anything about Paris will skip over this article if he is looking for something in the suburbs. An encyclopaedia article's title is expected to be a straightforward indication of what it contains, not a vague affirmation catering only to the ignorant. This is why no other reference in existence takes the largesse this article does.

If a textbook-definition of "city name" is not large enough to cover an article content, then a "bigger than city name" title must be taken - this is pretty simple and straightforward, non? "Paris area" was a compromise tailored to cater to the "English ignorant" because of the recognisable "Paris" in the title. According to Wiki standards this article should be titled "... in Île-de-France" (or its official "Paris region" translation), but it's better to take a small largesse, such as other "city and near suburb" articles such as "Boston-area streetcar lines", than the enormous one the article is taking now. THEPROMENADER 06:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to comment and support the comments from unregistered contributor (81.57.231.191). I was also born in what Hardouin calls Paris. Indeed I wasn't born in Paris but in its suburbs. A Frenchman would not call Melun, St Germain or Cergy Paris but Banlieue parisienne (see green series Michelin map 101). I have already proposed a move to a geographically accurate name as I feel insulted that an editor knows more of how to call an area I've lived in a bit more than 10 years. My living there maybe isn't a proof of my knowledge but it is hard to see a single user battling it out against the 10 million-odd of my fellow Franciliens. There is no Paris that stretches from Rouen to Meaux. You can either profit from knowing you are wrong, or justifying with your words only an unsourced opinion that is entirely personal and arbitrary, worthy of the South and North Coreas' borders. Is this list a list of a city or a region? You answer will give you the name the list's article should bare.

PS: FAO User:Grcampbell/Bob, your accurate and respectful of the naming conventions choice of title was already proposed and was sadly opposed by the same band. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 07:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Cergy ? Meaux ? Rouen ??!? What are you talking about ? As obviously many people are trying to mislead the debate, I guess the best would probably be to show where actually are located the buildings from the list:

Localization of buildings listed

If you click on the link, you would realize that this has nothing to do with Cergy, Meaux or Rouen. I don't care about Captain Scarlet's ideas but what is sure is that they don't bring anything to this debate. Metropolitan 15:07, 8 september 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to add another message, but to answer directly to your point Captain Scarlet, this list is definitly the one of a city and certainly not the one of a region.

As I've explained to Promenader already, I'm fine with the name "in the Paris area". It's less clear than "in Paris", but it's by far the best alternative. That's the reason why I've been neutral to last vote and I haven't opposed it. Knowing that those buildings are spread in an area representing about 1% of the Ile-de-France area, making of it something regional would definitly be misleading. And I would definitly oppose it. Metropolitan 15:39, 8 september 2006 (UTC)

No offence Metropolitan, but it is precisly becaus ethe list is not of a city that it need smoving. I could have picked Bobigny, Montmorency, Versailles or whatever other francilien town or city to ilustrate the point that a building in Puteaux is not in Paris. If a skyscraper is localised in Fontenay-aux-Roses it has nothing to do on this list, as much as buildings in Nanterre or Puteaux. what isn't in Paris, isn't in Paris, what more do you want ? List of buildings in Paris is for buildings in Paris. most of the buildings in the list say: localised: not in Paris... How about ading the Telecom Tower of London to the list whilst we're at it... I believe we're all speaking English, what is there not to understand? Wouldn't it be easier to admit that the purpose of the article is to have a list of tall buildings, regardless of their precise location, therefore accepting the name change? I'm sorry Metropolitan, but no rude tone coming from you will change this. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I thnk he was being tongue-in-cheek. "Not in" is simply "not in", as even your plan proves. Here, this map has borders, as does this one of my own making. Misleading? Misleading is knowing fact and distracting attention from it, ignoring it, or pretending it doesn't exist. A few here have ignorance to plead when they say they think this title is factual, but at least four of us don't. THEPROMENADER 15:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. I actually agree that "IDF" would be far too large, but unfortunately for Paris, it's the next administrative step up. My not being a pedantic is why I'm willing to "bend" the rules to this end by accepting a non-administrative description - but saying that 70% of this article is "in Paris" when it's not is not bending the rules: it's an untruth. Here's hoping that the "Grand Paris" proposition I read about in a recent article goes forward, a proposition that could create a "greater Paris" that may one day be called simply "Paris" as Greater London is called London today - but until it does, let's stick to fact. THEPROMENADER 15:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

ThePromenader, I have made this list. I have NEVER hidden the fact that La Défense wasn't located in the city proper of Paris. NEVER. I'm even the one who has learnt it to you. If I would have wanted to hide anything, then the specific municipalities of each buildings wouldn't be mentionned in the list. Please be cautious when you make accusations like this because, seriously, I find that kind of behaviour doesn't help your case.

And to answer specifically to your point ThePromenader. Yes. It is definitly misleading to pop up names such as Cergy, Meaux or Rouen in a discussion about a list mentionning nothing coming from those distant areas. Captain Scarlett knows it, and still pretends it is the case, as such, his behaviour is definitly misleading. Metropolitan 16:01, 8 september 2006 (UTC)

I won't speculate on any motivation for mentioning those exact places. and yes it was an exaggeration - seemingly to ironically counter your exaggeration of what "Paris" is. I'm sure few of us know what it even meant, and those who do know these locales well will see the irony. No need to dwell on this minor point any further.

As for my "accusations": we both live in the same agglomeration. How could you not know what "Paris" really is? How could you not know what "Paris" refers to in references and textbooks? How could you not know what the name "Paris" covers for everyone in everyday use? What newscast here will ever speak of an event in Bagnolet as having happened "in Paris"? The source of my incredulity is obvious, and to pretend that you don't see it is in itself misleading. THEPROMENADER 16:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This page isn't meant for people living in this agglomeration, it is meant to foreigners who don't necessarily know the complex specificities of how the Paris area is organized. The only thing they know about it is Paris, and that's the word they would use in a search engine to find out that kind of list. Of course, that's not enough to ignore the specificities of Paris and I'm not arguing on that, I just believe those specificities should better be mentionned in the core of the article rather than in its title. And you constantly ignore the fact that this is already well expained in details in this very article. I'm sincerly fed up of your constant accusations. Why do you constantly ignore the content of this article ? There is absolutely NOTHING misleading in this article in the way it is. In its nature, this article is the best compromise on the subject that you can make between the structural nature of the Paris urban area and the minimal knowledge we should expect from the average reader who would like to learn more about the subject.

Seriously ThePromenader, we will never move forward in this debate if you stick in being completely deaf to those arguments. Metropolitan 16:51, 8 september 2006 (UTC)

No matter who's reading it, a reference is made to remove ignorance, not to cater to it. The content of the article perfectly fine and even admirable - it's only its title at fault: again, you cannot have a "this is" title and a "this isn't really" content, as this would be both useless and misleading - and the reasons for even enacting such juggling are questionable. I'm sorry that you see my pointing out the obvious as "accusation", but you have drawn a 'my way' line in the sand against all fact and, in the long term, odds.

Perhaps I should explain this: The general ignorance of most English Wikipedians about all things foreign makes it so that today the Pokemon article has more editors than Paris does. The contributors to these low-traffic regions are practically free to write what they please. Yet with Wiki growing the way it is, one day contributors knowledgeable in our subject will be enough to make any sort of largesse impossible - It will be edited out of existence, and the reason why will be referenced to boot. Trying to enforce a little-shared and unreferencable "version" of reality is a complete waste of time, and is a disrespect to both those knowledgable and those not. THEPROMENADER 17:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ajn, "common English usage" is not equal to "common ignorance". Have you looked at the fact of the matter? THEPROMENADER 18:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have. You know, you are making some quite staggering assumptions of ignorance, laziness and bad faith on the part of people who honestly disagree with you. And the occasional overt statement aimed at individuals, which is not going to do you any good at all. No personal attacks, please. You're not going to get your own way by insisting that everyone else is so stupid their opinions don't count. --ajn (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You have? Then you should know what I am talking about. Nowhere did I ever say that anyone is "stupid" - it is normal that once cannot answer "fact" or "fiction" to something they do not know about, also that people will not contribute to articles about things that they do not know about, and I thought that it was quite clear this is what I meant. If not, apologies. Yes I am getting "too involved", but most of this is frustration - because the fact of the matter is so simple and easy to verify. THEPROMENADER 19:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, may I also renew my suggestion of "List of tallest buildings and structures of Paris" ("of Paris", that is, rather than "in Paris"). -- ALoan (Talk) 20:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually like a lot that suggestion. I would fully support such a move. Indeed, the "in Paris" could be interpreted as "inside Paris" as ThePromenader constantly repeats when the "of Paris" suggests more obviously the urban area. Metropolitan 23:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's quite clear to all that "In Paris" means "inside Paris". "Of Paris" means "belongs to", and sounds like a rough translation of "de Paris". I'll of course not contest the inaccuracy, but for the wonkiness... well. Start another vote on it if you like. THEPROMENADER 00:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

ALoan, to answer your "Whether that usage is "ignorant" is not really to the point" point up here: Of course it is to the point; this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. We cannot write an article on Prague based on our own ignorant conception/opinion as foreigners of what Prague is - a such article could even be seen as arrogant by those living in that city, and this is why no self-respecting reference or textbook would ever take such largesse. A city is defined by those who live there; not by how we see them from afar. THEPROMENADER 09:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've only skimmed the comments since my last post, but I notice a tension between two WP guidelines: the idea that articles should be titled in accordance with how their subject would be known to most English speakers, and the idea that WP is an international resource and should not be Anglophone-centric. The tension is lesser in this controversy, I believe, in some other ongoing controversies such as naming settlements and whether there should be a separate convention for U.S. cities and communities and if so, what it should be. First, this issue only affects a single article, and second, no one is going to type into their URL bar "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_Paris" or something similar: they will be directed to it by a link or they will search for something like "tallest buildings Paris". Because of this, I really don't think that it matters how the article is titled.

That said, people are looking for resolution, so I have this to add: Assuming that we have an article whose scope is undisputed, we need to decide how to name it. In the case of articles on things proper to the non-English-speaking world, should we name it such that the name in English corresponds with what English speakers would understand that name would cover, or should we name it such that the name in English when translated into the language of the place to which the content of the article is proper would be understood by speakers of that language to cover the content of the article? My own preference lies closer to the "wikipedia should be international and non Anglophone-centric" side than it does to the "en.wikipedia should be for English speakers" side, and so I would generally support naming articles such that the name when translated into the language indigenous to the subject of the article squares with the content of the article, unless such a name would be confusing to English speakers. Since a name for this particular article such as "...in the Paris area" or "...in and around Paris" would not be confusing, then if forced to vote, I'd vote to change the name. Other editors, of course, may place different weight on the guidelines, and thus come to a different conclusion.--Atemperman 15:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point about the URL - people will most likely be finding the article through highlighted links and keywords. For this I also see the interest in maintaining "Paris" in the title - thus my "Paris region", "Paris area" and "Paris agglomeration" suggestions.

A point of clarification on the "English common usage" - this convention is only for English-speaking name recognition, not English-speaking concept of what the indicated name may cover as some here have suggested. English-speakers have more chance of recognising Danzig than Gdańsk when speaking of the Polish city - that's all "English common usage" covers. THEPROMENADER 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Having had time to think it over in recent days, I think "Paris area" is marginally worse than "Paris". Avoiding pedantic insistence on the administrative definitions, the continuously-urbanised "Paris area" is "Paris", at least so far as general usage in English is concerned. Whether that usage is "ignorant" is not really to the point.

There is still clearly no consensus, and I don't see how asking the question another time in a different way is going to change that. Mediation may help. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made a point to say that francilien, inhabitants of Île-de-France (région) do not generally consider themselves as being Parisians, nor living in Paris. What you've just said goes against that, and it is a wholehearty comment I make when I say that it is not generally true (I have to add generally as I can't vouch for 100% of a population lol). It was to avoid opinions, inaccuracies, ambiguity, that List of tallest buildings and structures in Île-de-France. It was a neutral, precise and exact choice of naming, different to both parties involved in this. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. --Bob 17:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that all towers mentionned in this article are located in very close proximity to the Paris administrative boundaries. All those towers listed are located in a rectangle representing about 1% of the size of Ile-de-France. That's the reason why I fail to understand why Captain Scarlet constantly mentions the Ile-de-France regions or how people feel when they live in Mantes, Rambouillet or Provins. This is simply utterly off-topic. Metropolitan11:18, 13 september 2006 (UTC).

Nothing at all is "off-topic" in the choice of Île-de-France - au contraire, it is the rules to the letter. The last few comments represent actually the extremes of this affair: on one side you have someone thinking that a city name should represent an opinion of what a city "could be", a point of view supported only by foreign ignorance and no coherent factual argument at all; on the other you have others electing for the use of an official and very factual regional name chosen to represent an area question because there is no smaller unique administrative entity large enough to cover the area covered in this article.

The base of the matter is that the present title is factually wrong, so even Île-de-France is infinitely preferable to it for the simple reason it is factual: all the locations in this article are within the Île-de-France, and this according to any and every annuaire or reference. Paris is in a hard spot for any "big whatever" race/game because of its backwards administration - but if only the name of another region is big enough to cover all the article contains, then I say too bad for Paris. The subject of this article is towers, not the city itself - best accurately say where they are so that others can find them, wherever they should look. THEPROMENADER 15:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

ThePromenader, my purpose in establishing this list was to describe how things are, not how they "could be". Sincerly, you should stop with personnal attacks that are factually proven as wrong. If I would actually want to lie as you constantly repeat, could you explain me why I would have named the factual administrative communes in which are located all listed buildings ? You never answer to that question. Actually, the problem with your false accusations is that it shows yourself as an extremist. As such, it reduces the credibility of your point of view.

The thing which disturbs me the most in all this discussion is that there's an absolute consensus on the content of this article. No one has proposed to remove buildings located out of the city of Paris. Everybody seems to agree that one list is more coherent than 10 different lists, one for each municipality mentionned. Why everyone considers this list as coherent ? What makes it coherent is obviously that all those buildings are associated to the Paris urban area. Now, the issue is that "List of tallest buildings and structures which are associated with the Paris urban area" is too long as a title. How to say it in a shorter way ? Should we talk about an uninstitutionnal "Greater Paris" ? Should we talk about "Paris and its inner suburbs" ? No consensus can be made for the simple reason that what makes this list coherent doesn't rely on anything institutionnal, it lies on something territorial which is the best materialized by the statistical concept of "the Paris urban area"..

Now, I know that ThePromenader considers that the issue isn't about the content but actually about the title. But that title is supposed to summarize what the content talks about. As such, you're forced to solve the issue about the content in order to solve the issue about the title. Metropolitan 17:39, 13 september 2006 (UTC).

Save the 'personal attack' angle - nothing of the kind is going on here, and nothing at all (out of the many references I provided) was 'proven' wrong - theorising is not a replacement for real usage and documented fact. This title doesn't indicate buildings "associated with Paris", it indicates buildings "in Paris". You can't have a "this is" title and a "this isn't really" content. No criticism was ever brought about article content, so there can hardly be any consensus upon it, let alone an 'absolute one'. This is rather hors propos.

If the title summarises its content as being "in Paris" then it's wrong. I don't see what else there is to say. Please stop arguing in tangents and in circles. If you can somehow prove that a majority of reference shows that the towers of which this article speaks are actually 'in Paris', then the title is correct and there can be no opposing argument. If you can't, then it's wrong, and there's little more to say. THEPROMENADER 18:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why do you oppose replacing "in Paris" with "of Paris" ? As we're dealing with something which isn't institutionnal, why do you oppose "in the Greater Paris" ? After all, it doesn't necessarily means something institutionnal, "Greater" simply means "at a wider frame" as in "Greater Milan" or "Greater Berlin" or anything, just like there's a section about "Grand Paris" everday in the 20 minutes newspaper.

And also, why don't you suggest to remove all buildings which aren't located in the city of Paris ? Why are you so obsessed about changing the title rather than changing the content ? Why do you consider this list as being coherent the way it is ?Metropolitan 22:26, 13 september 2006 (UTC).

I made no mention of opposition of "of Paris" - I in fact stated quite clearly that, although I thought it rather awkward, I could not oppose it. "Of" is not "in". Greater Paris, on the other hand, suggests that something that doesn't exist does - this is/seems a title, not a description, but this is of course debatable. I thought we had agreed on "Paris area" which serves the same purpose without the same suggestiveness. As for modifying the content, if you remember, I even completed the transformation you left unfinished - and even put it back after Hardouin reverted it.

I actually like the list the way it is, and that's why it would be best (for it) if it had a factually accurate title. If you'd rather split it up than rename it, this would be disappointing, but I of course would not oppose it. What I don't understand is the obsession against a simple renaming - over two words. THEPROMENADER 22:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've been neutral towards the "Paris area" proposition. 3 people have supported the move, 5 people have opposed it (including Jared's "weak oppose") and 5 people have been neutral. Outside few exceptions like Bob's vote, most of the oppose and neutral votes were motivated by the fact that, in regards to the content of the article, the title "in Paris" has been felt as already implying the Paris urban area in respect of English common usage and that adding anything wasn't formally necessary.

We all know the reasons why you disagree with this general conclusion. By the way, the reason why I haven't opposed the "Paris area" proposition is because I consider it as more legitimate than an even more blurry proposal such as "Ile-de-France". Frankly, I don't know what to think about it. Perhaps we could already change the title to "of Paris", and check out how the things go. If there's no new arguments in the next months, then we let it go. But if another comment about the title pops up in the discussion page, probably another vote would have to be organized... perhaps in a more succesful way. Metropolitan 00:56, 14 september 2006 (UTC).

Especially to someone knowing full well the fact of the matter, it is only normal to be dissatissfied with any factually inaccurate solution that caters to ignorance, not fact; this is against the very principle of an encyclopedia, and again, this is not "common usage". I have never seen any other Wiki article do this.

If you are happy with "of Paris", then perhaps you should ask the opinions of others participating, as this would be respectful of thier particicpation and time spent here. As for myself, I'm not here to oppose lingustics, only fact - I think I would remain neutral on any such move, but would not oppose it. THEPROMENADER 06:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Apologies - I noticed the mediator's message only after posting this. THEPROMENADER 07:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Suggestion

Because of the strong feelings of both sides - I propose we ask make a request on either Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Mediation Committee for a person who was an active mediator prior to September 5 to review the discussion above and make a determination re concensus similar to a articles for discusssion determination. Reasons:

1. The feelings on both sides are strong - need a neutral person to sort things out
2. Accusations of sockpuppetry, use of anon IPs etc can stop - the reviewer always takes numbers of edits, etc into account when they review the discussion to make a decision
3. Hopefully, provide some closure to this discussion

Thoughts? --Trödel 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Trodel, it is far too early to call results. BUT - I would fully support a mediation. Thank you actually for suggesting it. THEPROMENADER 15:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet I hesitate to waste more people's time because of the sheer silliness of this debate. Again, adding "results" is neither a fair or appropriate - the debate/vote is not over, and for one participant to declare it so is both unfair and premature. Let both go on, and call mediation into the existing debate - this would be the wise thing to do. I really don't want to make everyone/anyone go through this once again. One person asking all parties concerned to "cite your facts" would be enough to end this. THEPROMENADER 16:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - we should give it the total time at least a week from the start - but it would be nice to agree to have an independent reveiw of the discussion. --Trödel 20:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. By all means, please review away. Time to see whether my stubborn insistence has a base. If not, I'll answer for it. THEPROMENADER 00:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What I would suggest is that you accept that there is no consensus for a page move, after several attempts, and drop the subject. Last night there were 35,000 words on this talk page. Tonight there are getting on for 38,000. The majority were written by you. How many people have you convinced? --ajn (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to convince anyone who won't verify the fact of anything I write. Why don't we have a look at the fact of the matter and be done with it? Isn't Wiki supposed to be verifiable? THEPROMENADER 18:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The below was the cake-taker: I've opened a Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal case this morning. THEPROMENADER 09:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. Not only have you failed to convince anybody that your proposed solution is the right one, as it stands I don't see much evidence that you've persuaded anybody that there is even a problem that requires solving in the first place. You don't need mediation, there is nothing to mediate. What you need is to accept that this is one of those cases where pedantry can safely be left to the opening descriptive paragraphs. The average American can't find France on the map let alone Île-de-France. Now click Random Article and find something else to clean up. And if I find one more personal attack from you, you'll find yourself on an enforced wikibreak. Guy 18:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but this targeting is highly unfair - and inappropriate. There was no personal attack of any kind in anything I wrote, and if anything what you've just written is more condemning of stupidity than anything I've ever advanced. The ado is in the unverifiable resistance - the fact of the matter has been confirmed above, through fact, by contributors both knowledgable and from the region in question. I don't see why you choose to ignore this and target me - and if you'll look at the history, you'll see that I was on a break and that it was not I continuing the discussion. My exasperation is no more exaspertating to anyone than myself - and mediation perhaps will provide an objective look into its cause. THEPROMENADER 19:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking over the case, I'm rather confused about how this name change has erupted into accusations of sockpuppetry, uncivilty, et cetera... I'm going to take the case (I've always loved civilty disputes) but I am unsure as to what the conflict is. Is it mainly over the name change, or has it evolved to be mainly over the civilty issues, or the sockpuppetry? GofG _|^|_| Contribs 00:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It is proving difficult to agree on what the article should be called. Sigh. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Above all, this is an issue about the present title's accuracy - I trust those who have spent so much effort maintaining that it is indeed accurate would willing to continue to do so through mediation. I think the choice of a name is a second step. THEPROMENADER 06:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I ask that discussion of the page move on this page stop, along with communication on user talk pages, as it greatly interferes with the mediation. If you have any intention of participating in the mediation, go to the Medcabiation page and sign up at the space indicated. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this mediation is for. Are you here to decide what the title of the article should be? It has already been decided by a clear majority of editors that it should be the current title (cf. polls above). Other than that, I don't know what's there to mediate. Mediation was asked by ThePromenader because he failed to garner support for his repeated title change demands. That's not what mediation was meant for. Mediation is when there is no consensus and editors cannot agree on something. It wasn't meant to be used by single editors who wish to overturn the consensus of a clear majority. Hardouin 10:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation was asked for because of my accusations of bad faith and your incivility and accusations of sock-puppetry. More than a few knowledgeable have indicated the title's inaccuracy based on fact, and this is not to be ignored - mediation will help to seek definition there too. I say stick to fact and save interpretation of motivations for those arbitrating, and this on the mediation page, as asked of us, please. Thank you and see you there. THEPROMENADER 11:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You could do a lot to reduce the temperature here by simply accepting the consensus and moving on. Guy 12:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks must end

This is yet another "pearl" from ThePromenader which I just found out: . Promenader was already warned that there exits a No personal attacks rule, but to no avail as you can see. Do those of you who are admins have any suggestion as to what to do next? It seems warnings don't work. Should those who feel that they have been insulted by Promenader's latest personal attack file a formal complaint? Hardouin 22:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What has the above have to do with any discussion here? It has already been suggested just above that mediation be opened on this page, and I for one have accepted; any "bad behaviour" will of course be brought to light through this.

Of this personal message "exposed" here, this message scrounged from someone's talk page - what "attack" is there in telling someone who wants to give up "don't give up because of bullying, fact above all?" Who exactly is being attacked here? How is anyone here expected to know that the person written to will no longer edit any page where another contributor participates namely because of his reverting and bullying? In this message, did I mention who this other contributor is? Need I ?

This is an obvious attempt to a) make a case out of nothing and b) "side" others (namely admins) onto it - but to what end? Trying to make another wikipedian look "bad" is no replacement for a lack of factual arguments and references.

Apologies for answering here, but Hardouin has removed every message I have ever left on his talk page and continues to do so. I move that we go ahead with mediation for this page to bring new light into differences here, and as for the silly ongoing spat with Hardouin, he knows full well that I, with the help of others, am preparing a WP:RFC concerning him.

I move that we remove this section completely from the talk page - it is disruptive and pointless, and has no place here. THEPROMENADER 07:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A personal tiff belongs on the respective tiffers' talk pages, not here.--Atemperman 15:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

List for paris seperate from other surrounding communitites

This made sense to me - but it was reverted. Is there a short explanation of why two lists are not appropriate. It has been said, "a key Wikipdia skill is to persuade succinctly." --Trödel 18:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

But the list is now a list of tallest buildings and structures in the Paris region. Most everyone agreed that the list was better as one, and now that it is in a namespace covering a region bigger than Paris, it no longer has to be split between "Paris" and "outlying communes". I reverted it back to Metropolitan's last pre-split modification (as it was not split by he) - but by all means, arrange things as you see fit. I'm no longer involved from here. THEPROMENADER 19:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

sounds reasonable --Trödel 20:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)