Talk:Paris

See also: Talk:Paris/Archive

Possible shift from arrondissements to named neighbourhoods?

Hi all, back in the day I argued for using arrondissement boundaries for Paris districts on the grounds that they're well defined and are how Parisien(ne) editors themselves see the city, however, in hindsight maybe it really isn't the best way to do it. Maybe we should reconsider, especially as some neighbourhoods cross arrondissement borders? -- (WV-en) Mark (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2012 (CEST)

I'd like to bump this up. Should we consider switching from the Arrondissements to named neighbourhoods, like say "Montmartre", "Bourse", "Belleville" ? There are good arguments on either side, and it might be interesting to have a discussion to give them a good airing. Originally the decision to use arrondissements was pretty much a fiat choice by none other than myself, so there's never been a real discussion. Thanks! -- MarkJaroski (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be an improvement to se the named neighborhoods, as they have cultural relevance and travellers will recognize them. The problem is just that it will be a gargantuan task to change them all... --Globe-trotter (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Named neighborhoods are almost always smaller than arrondissements: Montmartre is a part of the 18th, etc. It could make sense to group some arrondissements (1–4, 5—7, 8–9, 10–12, 13–15, 16–17, 18–20 would be my feeling), but such groups don't have readily-understood names. Arrondissements have the benefits of being unambiguous, marked on all maps, indicated in street addresses, present on street signs, and known by locals.

Lamellae (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No, keep it by arrondissements - it is how the city is actually organised and how most people (residents and visitor alike) see the city. Some neighnourhoods such as Montmartre are well known, but would somewhere like the nearby Goutte d'Or be as well known to readers - I think not. 212.64.86.253 15:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. As Lamellae notes, arrondisements are shown on all maps. There couldn't possibly be an easier way to divide up Paris. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. These are all the same arguments I made back in the day. Looks like a consensus. -- Mark (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Banners

OK now, due to me having too much and getting bored this weekend while planning my trip to Paris, all of the arrondissements now have custom banners (better or worse, feel free to judge and replace or request different ones if you feel so).

While adding custom banners to the arr's that didn't have them, I change "pgname" to "ZZth arrondissement". I found it looks much neater than "Paris/ZZth arrondissement", but this might get confusing when other cities that are split into arrondissements, like Marseille or Lyon, get districtified one day. On the other hand, "ZZth arrondissement of Paris", "ZZth arrondissement in Paris" or "ZZth arrondissement, Paris" and such seem to long to me and make banners look ugly, not to mention very hard to find graphics that would work well for them.

So, in short, I was wondering if you have any ideas how to pgname our arrondissement banners in a uniform way (for now they aren't and it depends on who placed them there). I was thinking of maybe "1st arr. of Paris" or something to keep it short...

Current banner of the 4th arrondissement

Moreover, I was pondering the current general banner and the banner for Paris/4th arrondissement. I must say I am not a fan of the latter, why I majorly am of the former. That said, the current banner for the main article strikes me as very appropriate for the 4th, focusing on the islands and prominently displaying the old, medieval and small city of Paris. I would very much like to replace the current banner for the 4th with it.

Current banner of the main article, proposed as banner for the 4th arrondissement

On the other hand, I believe that the main article banner should reflect the unique character of Paris more. Unless you know Paris (which many people do, but just as many don't), the main banner is not very "Parisian" and has a similar feel to many other French / Western European cities with a medieval town core and lying on a river. Paris is not only that, but also the subsequent population boom and the 19th century Haussmannian redevelopment, boulevards, parks and champs, as well as indeed being the "City of Light". Finally, cliche as it is, I couldn't believe our banner for Paris does not include the Eiffel Tower :D

Proposed banner for the main article

Therefore, I was thinking whether we could use some of the splendid panoramics of Paris available in the Commons, e.g. my favourite. I even made a banner of it for your consideration and to spark this discussion. What do you guys think? PrinceGloria (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Great piece of work, looks good. I tend to agree with you that the current Paris main page image should go to the 4th arrondissement, it represents that area well. The Paris at night I also agree would be good for the main Paris banner but then I think other pictures on the page should be changed, there is too much emphasis on the Eiffel tower. As for pgname, I think it should contain the word Paris but not the actual page name with the / . Alternative is 18th arrondissement, Paris. Traveler100 (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Should I plunge forward and replace the banners then?

As concerns pgname - 18th arrondissement, Paris is still very long, I was looking to shorten it to reasonable length. I drop "Paris" when pgnaming now, but perhaps we could go with 18th arr. of Paris, or does it look stupid and confusing? PrinceGloria (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Traveler100. The night banner looks good, and I would keep the long pgname. Long isn't necessarily bad, even if it does cover some of the photo. Most wouldn't understand what "arr." means. It could mean a Parisien district, a musical arrangement or a pirate's interjection! James A ▪ talk 05:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Crime section racism?

Hi, I apologise in advance that I edit this while I don't have an account here, and that I only do it in a critical manner.

I was surprised by the tenor of the 'Stay safe' section. Is it really necessary to denote the assumed continent of origin of the finger-tying scammers?. Or the likely ethnic background of pickpockets in the underground? "It is important to know that a majority of these pickpockets are almost never French." I wonder how it is important to know where your thief is most likely to be not from when your money and passport are gone...

I'd be quite sure that the visitors will be safe if warned against the scams and dangers themselves (not that they should trust people doing these tricks if they look European!), no need to make us wary of racial minorities.

Also, I never saw that wikivoyage articles ever warn against criminals indicating their race or national origin when they are white or western, so why single out Africans or Romanis? Other than this, thanks for the great article :-)

—The preceding comment was added by 87.198.57.52 (talk)

Hi, thanks for taking the time review the article and leave your comments here. You are quite right, this section did contain quite inappropriate bits, and I acted to remove the most blatant racism. Please indicate if there is anything else that needs changing.

That said, it would be brilliant, if you like Wikivoyage, if you registered and started editing yourself! There is no special requirements, and editing is really easy, everybody can do it and is encouraged to do it, that's how it works. Would be brilliant if you chose to join the community and help other travellers with even smallest edits!

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Time for a warning box?

Bonsoir tlm. There have been three acts of terrorism in Paris in as many days and there could be more on the way. Admittedly, the Charlie Hebdo attack was directed at the magazine employees, but the shooting in Montrouge and the hostage situation this afternoon in Porte de Vincennes implicated seemingly random members of the public, so there is certainly an increased risk to the traveller at this time. I also know that both the French authorities and the Foreign Office of my country (the UK) are advising vigilance to those currently travelling in France and Paris in particular.

Not being sure of the procedure / threshold for the addition of a warning box (such as the one currently adorning the Ukraine page), I am asking the community if we think it is appropriate for one relating to the ongoing incident in Paris? Or would this just be a case of Captain Obvious strikes again, given the level of coverage this story is receiving in the world's media? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless national governments are issuing travel warnings, or travelers on the ground in Paris are reporting disruptions, I'd be opposed to warning boxes - I think Wikivoyage is at its worst when we overreact to the latest headlines instead of focusing on what is actually relevant to travelers (the attempt to add ebola warnings to our US articles was a recent example). At this time the US state department does not appear to have issued any warnings for France , and random violence can occur anywhere in the world, so I don't think there is any point to a warning box aside from making people aware that editors are watching the news. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryan, for your opinion; that's exactly what I wanted to check. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

New Banner?

Louvre at dusk.

Just throwing it out there. I think the sky is very dramatic, and the Louvre is a top tourist site. Has the "lights" you'd expect in the City Of, and this pic is from 2013 while the current is from 2008 (if that argument holds any water for you). Anyways, this isn't a picture of the Eiffel Tower, so it could be a no go on those grounds alone. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This is not as spectacular as the current banner, in my opinion. Is there anything obviously dated about the view? Anyway, I would say some article should have this banner, but I'm not sure which, as Paris/1st arrondissement has part of the Mona Lisa. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm in favor of it, but you might get some pushback from others over copyleft issues re: the Louvre pyramid. See Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2014#File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg and Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2015#File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg and File:Baltimore pennstation banner EDITED.jpg for a similar case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Eh, not a big loss. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Arrondissement clustering

Let's discuss this edit. I think the resulting wall of text for each super-arrondissement is user-unfriendly. Also, it's not the South Seine or North Seine but the Right Bank and Left Bank, and I don't think of a neighborhood like Montmartre as on a bank at all, as it's hilly and well beyond the Seine. Perhaps it would be best simply to revert; what do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree about the wall of text. I was hoping it might inspire some editing! The current map is better than the old one (I think, but who knows), and I didn't put any of the made up "cluster names" onto the map, so someone with more knowledge than me could hopefully help out there. FWIW, the way it was before was also unhelpful. Just a list of stuff in each arr. with no context as to why it's important or cool.

I'm fine reverting too, but I think we could do a lot better with this article, especially since Paris is so evergreen. The lead in particular needs help along with the district sections. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

In theory, I don't mind arrondissement clustering, but in practice, I think it would be difficult, and not only because we'd have trouble agreeing on names for the clusters but also in large part because the primary division of Paris into arrondisements is so ingrained in Paris. But please tweak the descriptions of each arrondissement in whichever way the spirit moves you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with all the issues you present. I've made another minor update using some suggestions further up the talk page. I also tried to make the names of the "clusters" super generic (since they're made up anyway) so readers can infer the arrondissements are the real stars here. Trying to keep edits to a minimum to make it easier to roll back. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I still really dislike the format. Not only is there a user-unfriendly wall of text in the description of each super-arrondissement, but if you don't read carefully, it looks like "Central Paris" is the 1e, "Left Bank" is 5e, etc. - in other words, whatever arrondissement happens to be first in the description gets overemphasized. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was hoping someone with greater knowledge than me would come along to distill the "greatest hits" from each "cluster". When I visited as a tourist, I found trying to parse 20 districts to be initially overwhelming. It could be nice to start out general and get more specific from there, but perhaps this idea is barking up the wrong tree entirely. Maybe roll it back? I have no problem with that. Thanks Ikan! --ButteBag (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Your copyright is being infringed

Please see Wikivoyage_talk:Non-compliant_redistribution#Tourist_Inspiration for details, but in short there is content on several, if not all, of the arrondissement articles that has been republished elsewhere without observing the terms of our CC Licence. Your input on what we should do next is requested on the talk page of Wikivoyage:Non-compliant redistribution. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Replace train time map

I suggest in the aim of being as current with times as we can to replace this over a decade old map with this moderately younger map. Unfortunately, the current French government seems to be not interested in slashing rail travel times further, but let's not get side-tracked here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The most obvious advantage of the older map is it transcends France's borders to cover much of western Europe. Most people reading this article don't live in France and comparatively few international visitors are going to be coming to Paris from somewhere else within the country's borders. More often, people enter the country via one of Paris' airports or rail / coach terminals, and then travel to their regional destination.

Plus, the new map's meaning is very unclear without reading the legend (which would be on a completely different page to Paris#Get in so far down that you can't read it without scrolling past the map entirely), and then you have to read a whole paragraph in order to understand what you're looking at. By contrast, the existing map needs no key because it's colourful and simple to instantly grasp.

Not only that, but there are no city names on the new map, leaving anyone who isn't intimately familiar with France's geography needing to look elsewhere to check which indistinguishable blob is the city they need to navigate from / to. Oh, and the limited written information (all irrelevant to the map's purpose, of course) is all in French. Bloody marvellous!

Overall, the new map is severely deficient for the needs of our readership, who are predominantly English-speaking travellers whom we must assume don't know France well if at all and are not expert cartographers. For these reasons and more, I would oppose its insertion into this article. Is the current one actually outdated in the information it presents? If so, we should look at getting it updated in its current form or something similar, rather than replacing it with this useless monstrosity. If not, I counsel against change for change's sake. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Several new HSLs have opened since ca. 2005. The two phases of LGV Est, cutting travel time to Strasbourg under 3 hours, the new Madrid Barcelona line, the Barcelona Perpignan line, something in the Southwest of France, too and there are still plans (though some of them killed by Macron [shakes fist angrily]) to better integrate the international connections into the HSL network. wikipedia for reference. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Another example of outdated information on the map...fails to include the addition (last year?) of 6.5 hour TGV service between Paris and Barcelona...from/to Gare de Lyon. Also, departures/arrivals from it are not reflected in the list of places it serves. This observation stems not from personal experience, but by reading , with intent to use that TGV. Hope this proves useful. Hennejohn (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Overdoing it with cautionboxes

If Notre Dame were the only reason, or even the principal reason, for going to Paris, it might make sense to let people know at the top of the article that it had burned. By Notre Dame isn't even the only or principal reason to to go to the 4me arrondissement. Paris has art galleries, museums, architecture, restaurants, and shopping that rank among the best in the world. And there's the Eiffel Tower, and that cemetery that people seem to like. Festivals, cafes, beautiful parks, the list just goes on and on and on and on. Notre Dame is just one of the amazing things to see in Paris. We mention the fire in its listing, and don't need to put a second caution box, in addition to the one about the on-going yellow best protests that could actually disrupt a traveller's plans. It is just de trop. Ground Zero (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)