Talk:Paris

Template:Vital article

"Paris Metropolitan Area GDP", once again: WP:POINTy nonsense.

This is nonsense.

• 2019-05-12T20:28:41‎ - 37.0.229.161 -   Fixed
• 2019-05-12T21:13:40‎ - ThePromenader - Reverted 1 pending edit by 37.0.229.161 to revision 896709900 by Radom1967: 'region' is more precice (the Paris region is where its GDP is calculated) and matches source.
• 2019-05-13T02:27:03‎ - Metropolitan - Undid revision 896766836 by ThePromenader (talk) Using region in that context is misleading as California or North Rhine- Westphalia could be considered "regions" as well.
• 2019-05-13T05:37:51 - ThePromenader - Undid revision 896803889 by Metropolitan (talk) - again, the source is for regional GDP, so claim no longer matches the source. Reason given for revert not only ignores this, but makes no sense - contentious revert.
• 2019-05-13T12:44:00‎ - Metropolitan   It is not the 5th largest region by GDP in the world. The claim is made wrong with this wording. A new solution is to go for the metropolitan area as that's the scale at which the ranking makes sense anyway.

1. The 'Paris GDP' is not calculated in 'metropolitan areas', it is calculated over the Ile de France region...
2. ...exactly as the very source the claim cites states.
3. So the first and last claims are not supported by the source (nor can they be).

Rather than engage in an edit war (that the above sort of contentious editing seems to be trying to provoke), let's leave the contentuous editor some time to find sources for a "Paris Metropolitan Area GDP" before fixing it (again). Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 11:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi ThePromenader, I'm not engaging in any edit war, I only removed a statement which was made wrong. After your edit, the sentence claimed "The Paris Region [...] was the 5th largest region by GDP in the world", pointing out to the List of cities by GDP page on which we can read: "This is a list of cities and/or their metropolitan areas in the world by GDP." What a "region in the world" is supposed to be here? Among the various sources used in this global list, European figures are based on a Eurostat source which uses the word "metropolitan regions", comparing them to the US statistics of "metropolitan areas" among many other denominations for other countries. Eurostat itself calls them either "larger urban zone" or "functionnal urban region" in other contexts, but anyway the wording "Metropolitan area" is certainly the most generic as that's the one used by Wikipedia itself to refer to them all. Hence why I assume we can reach a consensus with that wording which at least would still makes sense. I hope this helps. Metropolitan (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Non sequitur: it doesn't matter what 'other wikipedia articles ('I like') do', or what terminology other other-context articles ('I like') use; whether their claims match their sources or not is their problem. This article's claim matched its source (since -years-) before anon 'fixed' it.., and now it is even worse thanks to the WP:POINTed reverts and edits that followed.

Either find a source indicating a "Paris Metropolitan area GDP", or the the claim must be made to match its source once again. TP ✎ ✓ 12:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, this morning's edit was so intent on 'metropolitan area' WP:POINTiness that it neglected to notice (or ignored) the fact that the '# whatever mostest' statements (that are, in themselves, relatively uninformative) were completely unsourced. So, not only must we find a source for a 'Paris Metropolitan area GDP', but one that ranks it according to the claim. TP ✎ ✓ 14:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Promenader is correct. The article is about the City of Paris, not the Paris Metropolitan Area or the Paris Region. Statistics on the metropolitan area and region belong in those articles, not in the article on Paris. Cordially, SiefkinDR (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and... well, Paris' economy does well beyond its administrative limits, but the claims about that have to match the sources (which here are the Paris région numbers)... we can't just make up stuff. There is no "Paris metropolitan area GDP", period. TP ✎ ✓ 15:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Pending change review fails to recognize edit conflicts

This edit of mine, made as part of pending change review, has an edit summary that does not accurately reflect the state of the article when it was made, due to technical issues with the review process. For details, see this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Pending changes. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposition: trim the 'Culture' section.

This article has been overly-long since a while now, a state which merits some thought about how to cut it down a bit.

When one reads the 'Culture' section, listed therein are many creators who profited from Paris' status as capital to make their work known and/or available, but... does this directly concern (the function of) the city itself?

I think it would be more interesting (and informative) to outline cultural trends: 'What do Parisians do for cultural outings (cinema, theatre, museums, theme parks (paris area), and statistics (over time) thereof)?' might be a more relevant question for things 'City culture'.

The existing section could be transferred as-is to an article of its own... there's more than enough content, for sure.

Just putting this out there for thoughts and consensus. TP ✎ ✓ 09:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Mayoral election

This section in the "city government" subsection needs to be cleaned up for clarity:

"The elected council members select the mayor. Sometimes the candidate who receives the most votes citywide is not selected if the other candidate has won the support of the majority of council members."

Having been told earlier that the voters do not directly elect the mayor, this seems to imply that they do. Does this mean that the party/coalition list leader for a party who receives the most votes isn't always selected mayor by the council? If that's the case, that needs to be made more clear, and could be with a simple reworking of that sentence. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

By all means, please do make that improvement! Don't forget to provide a source, though, please. TP ✎ ✓ 21:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I was really asking a question, because the sentence I quoted isn't clear. Does it mean that the list leader who receives the most votes citywide in the first round is not always elected mayor? Because it would appear that whomever ultimately wins the most votes in the second round always wins enough seats to secure the mayor's office because of the majority bonus. Furthermore, the next sentence mentions previous mayor Bertrand Delanoe as an example, but from what I can find, he won the most votes in both the first and second rounds in 2001 and 2008, respectively. Has it actually ever happened that the list leader who received the most votes citywide did not have enough votes on council to become mayor? I'm trying to decide whether we need to remove that sentence and then the following one using Bertrand Delanoe as an example. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Im really fat im talkin fat as the blob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.123.7.252 (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Paris Government

Bob Ross is the leader of paris and he's big i'm talking HUGE. (not saying he's fat)