User talk:ThePromenader/archive paris infobox

Infobox update

The newer and less-excessively long infobox version also has metropolitan area info in it, in spite of consensus against it ¹. Even before this, others have mentioned that it is obviously far too long. Sorry that all the other French infoboxes use the same yet unopposed principle, but this is not the case for Paris. Articles on metropolitan areas need detailed metropolitan area info; articles on cities don't. THEPROMENADER 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverted because the new infobox is almost as long as the previous one. For this very short space improvement, a lot of information was deleted: number of partnerships with foreign cities, land area of aire urbaine, number of communes in aire urbaine, yearly growth percentage, etc. Furthermore, the new infobox confuses census figures and recent estimates, which are two very different things. Finally, the new infobox is now very different from other French cities infoboxes, which require a neat distinction between city proper and metropolitan area to avoid confusions (check Lille for instance, where the mayor is not the same person as the president of the urban community). Hardouin 15:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Again a revert for reasons vague and unjustified - as usual. The updated box is a full 1/3 shorter. Metropolitan Area info in a City article is not needed to the point where it equals if not outsizes city info, so eliminating this to the pure basics is completely legitimate. Nothing is 'confused', only finalised statistics are presented. There is no 'French city infobox cabal' - all of these are of your own creation and there is no law nor consensus saying they have to 'look the same' so this is not an argument.

In reverting again completely ignore consensus, common references, the efforts of other contributors and changes made. I suggest conforming to existing references before reverting to your contested version that gives instead little-used info more importance than it really has.

Reverting to newer infobox version, but will replace 2004 estimate figure with official 1999 figure - in light of the only legitimate critique in all the above. Consensus is against you, the improvements and additions are indeed improvements made in good faith, so improve on them or leave it. THEPROMENADER 21:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The infobox as it is clearly distinguishes between city and metropolitan area info. This distinction is needed for other French cities where there are different administrations for the city proper and the agglomeration. Please respect the work of others. Finally, stop saying that in other city infoboxes the metropolitan area info is only briefly mentioned. Check Sydney or Melbourne: these infoboxes even go to the extreme of including only metropolitan area info (the land area and population at Sydney and Melbourne infoboxes are for metropolitan areas), without mentioning city info. At least the Paris infobox mentions both. Hardouin 00:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect fact and clear information, and I am in no way modifying your layout and coding. Your Melbourne comparison is silly because it assumes that the Paris gives as much importance to its metro area as the cities in the articles you cite. It doesn't. The metropolitan area statistic is not important enough to merit half the infobox length. You are reverting against consensus. Will you listen to reason? THEPROMENADER 07:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: It could be possible to do away with 'your' infobox altogether should you keep reverting it, but this attitude would be silly as in Wiki there is no 'yours' nor 'mine' - just contributions of the facts as they are. Please respect this, and keep opinion out of it. THEPROMENADER 07:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

ThePromenader wrote:

Metropolitan area statistic is not important enough to merit half the infobox length.

This is his own personal opinion, this is in no way an official policy on Wikipedia. I note that there are city infoboxes that only briefly mention metro area statistics (such as NYC or Montreal), while on the other hand there are city infoboxes that contain only metro area statistic (such as Melbourne or Madras). So obviously there is no consensus or official policy on what a city infobox should or should not contain. Here the Paris infobox is more complete than most other city infoboxes I have seen because it includes both city statistic and metro area statistic, without trying to give precedence to one over the other. It also neatly distinguishes between city and metro area, to avoid confusion and ambiguities which are frequent with many infoboxes. For an example of confusion, check the Caracas infobox: there the land area figure (2,050 sq. km.) is for the city proper, but the population figure (5.1 million) is for the whole metro area, not the city (only 1.9 million in the city proper), so it is very confusing. The Paris infobox clearly separates city info from metro area info to avoid this kind of confusions. Hardouin 18:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the assertion by ThePromenader that metro area statistic is using half of the infobox length is also flatly wrong. Using a ruler now, I find that metro area statistic only takes 24% of the infobox length. 76% of infobox length is city information (flag and coat of arms, city motto, map, name of mayor, subdivisions, pop and land area figures, twin cities, footnotes). Hardouin 18:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the exercise in semantics, but: exactly how much of our time do you intend to waste? Why do you constantly argue 'around' your inablilty to prove that your imposed POV is reality and try to confuse us? The aire urbaine (metro area) does not have the importance to Paris it does to other cities in other countries. Period. So stop trying to suggest to the contrary. THEPROMENADER 21:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to waste your time, then stop always changing things to conform with your personal vision of things. You write:

metro area does not have the importance to Paris it does to other cities in other countries

You have any reference to back that claim? Actually French people constantly refer to the "région parisienne", people always complain of cost of life or traffic jam in the "région parisienne", politican and businessman talk constantly of "région parisienne". To people in Paris the concept of "région parisienne" is as obvious as the concept of "Bay Area" for people in San Francisco. Your view that metro area means nothing to French people is your POV, which I have nothing against, but please don't impose it on other people. And if you don't believe me, just ask French friends around you: the technicalities of aire urbaine sure they don't know about, same as people in Canada don't know about the technicalities of census metropolitan areas, but "région parisienne" certainly means something to them, same as Greater Toronto means something to people in Toronto. It's your denying this that leads to waste of time. Hardouin 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The "région parisienne" is NOT the "metropolitan area" - it is the Île-de-France. "Région parisienne" is also commonly used to vaguely designate the "area around Paris" or the Paris agglomeration. THESE are existing and referenced areas, THESE are what people think to when people speak "région parisienne", they do NOT think "metropoltian area".

And - This should be on the Paris talk page - I showed the Paris page to a schoolteacher friend of mine, and his reaction to the present version was very "hmouais". I then dug up the "pre-factualisation" version, he read a bit, then turned to me and just tappped his temple. I also showed it to a journalist and longtime Paris resident two months before, and he actually laughed and said "the article speaks like we're in 2060."

It is your fog of misleading and 'non sequitur' arguments and reverts to your own unreferenced opinions that is wasting our time. Nothing else. THEPROMENADER 09:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Again reverting, I see, against all logic, reason and consensus. Although I'm sure you've seen it, find it here. "Like the others" (made by yourself) is a pretty weak argument - would you like me to improve those too? I'm sure when Wiki becomes more popular I'm sure your opinionated misconceptions through other pages will be found and corrected by those knowledgable there; as far as I'm concerned I consider any protectionist fuss you make between here and then a complete waste of time. As far as this is concerned, you have already been called out and voted down - so leave it be. THEPROMENADER 19:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Another revert to good-faith edits, consensus and common sense? "Clearer"? I really don't get the impression that I'm dealing with someone mature here. If you don't want it improved upon or contested, don't publish it. THEPROMENADER 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to explain above why the infobox needs to disinguish neatly between city information and metropolitan area info.

If an object is given a false or even inexistant importance, there's not much point in comparing anything with it. THEPROMENADER 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have also explained that there is no consensus or policy on Wikipedia about what city infoboxes should or should not include.

An infobox is a page like any other, and is subject to the same rules. Period. THEPROMENADER 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have shown that the concept of metro area is as obvious to French people as it is to American people (région parisienne, Grand Lyon, CUB in Bordeaux, région toulousaine, etc).

For about the millionth time, none of these are paramount nor echangeable with the "aire urbaine" (metropolitan area). Your theory that the metropolitan area concept is present in every French mind is an outright... untruth. Each appellation has its own reason, origin and purpose and connot be supplanted by one of your choice.THEPROMENADER 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I have also detailed all the information lost with ThePromenader edits.

Nothing was "lost" ; much was clarified. You can now compare the Paris info with existing references and official publications. Problems with this? THEPROMENADER 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet instead of answering these precise points,

Pretty vague points - allusion, rather. 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

ThePromenader prefers to go into his usual personal attacks (I was called a "wily little creature" [1], now I'm being called "immature"), conspiracy theories (supposedly an hidden agenda behind everything I write), and so on. Neutral Wikipedians who read this can form their own judgement about ThePromenader's attitude. Hardouin 23:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Um. Discrediting unreferenced opinion presented as fact != "personal attack". Discrediting wholesale reverts to good-faith edits != "personal attack". Contesting sock-puppetry != "personal attack". Contesting all of the above by a unique person != "conspiracy". Again. all the arguments above are mixed together to impede any clear answer, so sorry the only way to do so clearly was to cut it up. THEPROMENADER 09:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Why must you go to such great lengths to try to argue around the most obvious and glaring points, or try to make them look like something else? What's presented is what we see and read, and no amount of talk-page blabla will change this. You are speaking to a foriegner living in Paris who had no idea what you were going on about with your 'metropolitan area' and how this concerned Paris. Now that I have done the research I see that you flagrantly misuse the term and that no other reference in existence speaks of it in this way - if at all. The fact of the matter ends there.

As for your constant attempts at denigration, keep them to yourself. I find it odd that someone so unable to prove the veracity of his contributions that he had to resort to sock-puppetry to 'gain consensus' should accuse another contributor of dishonesty. I have an archive page dedicated to your six months of unjustified wholesale revert nonsense - I would like to see yours on me. In spite of the frustrations of all the roadblocks you've thrown up during all this time, the 'wily' User:talk page statement is about the closest I've come to name-calling. You, on the other hand, do so directly on an article talk page. In light of these adjectives: your behaviour is certainly not straightforward, and your attempts to create arguments 'supporting' your imposition of an unreferenced opinion are neither clear nor mature. It's also quite obvious that you watch everything I do. I suggest you stop this harassement. THEPROMENADER 08:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet another revert? You simply won't see reason, will you? THEPROMENADER 18:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)