This template is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
This template was considered for deletion on 2007 November 20. The result of the discussion was "to keep".
Purpose of this template
What is the purpose of this template ? When I read about Aulnay-sous-Bois, do I really need this list of all cities in Île-de-France which takes so much space on the page? I may want a list of the communes immediately sourrounding Aulnay, but nothing more. IMHO, the content of this template should be moved to a separate article like List of communes in the metropolitan area of Paris, which in turn could be linked from all concerned communes. Thbz14:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Already answered on Talk:Paris. Also, please check the article about Addisson, a suburb of Chicago. As you can see, the templates at the bottom of the Addisson article are even longer than in the case of Aulnay-Sous-Bois. I think the problem is not the length of the template, but the length of the article. If you think the template takes too much space on the page, it is simply because there is very little in the article itself. Just add more info about Aulnay-sous-Bois. Most of these communes articles are just stub that need to be expanded. Hardouin15:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see this thing actually has a talk page. Nothing was answered per se - you say simply "readers want to know" as a justification without providing any arguments that they do. For the third time today: Chicago's "metropolitan area", nor any other in the US (and most of the rest of the world for that matter) can effectively be compared with Paris' because the criteria contriving them, in scope nor in volume, is nowhere near the same. I will never tire of pointing this out. IMHO this exaggeration is the whole point of Hardouin's "aire urbaine" obsession - and it is founded on desire, not truth. If you cannot explain the truth of what the AU is (and isn't!) in the same page that you use it in, then don't, because presented as it is, as a direct translation of "metropolitan area", it is misleading. ThePromenader19:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The logo
I removed the logo for the following reasons:
It is an official logo of an institution, the Mairie de Paris. Usage of this logo is not allowed by Wikipedia rules for something else than the Mairie. Read the copyright information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ParisLogo.jpg for more details. Even this kind of "fair use" is widely debated in Wikipedia. I wonder if we should not also follow French copyright rules (which are quite strict and do not accept "fair use"), since this logo belongs to a French organization.
Indeed, this logo relates only to the Mairie, i.e the administration of Paris, and to nothing else. Certainly not to the towns around Paris which this template is dedicated to. In Paris you will see this logo on documents published by or related to the Mairie, or on organizations that belong to the Mairie.
An image of the Eiffel tower or any other, non-proprietary, image that symbolizes Paris in the world may be used instead. Thbz22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied at Talk:Paris, have a look. About copyright rules, you are not totally right. The image used by the template is not the logo of the city of Paris. It is only a fragment of the logo of the city of Paris, the official logo is much larger and includes other elements, notably the name "Mairie de Paris". That fragment is itself but a stylized version of the traditional coat of arms of the city, which is public domain, so I think it could be considered fair use. Hardouin01:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, if you have any creative skills, feel free to create your own stylized version of the traditional coat of arms of Paris. That way there will be no copyright issues at all. Hardouin01:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you insert the "logo" template in the image description? Read again that image description: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the corporation, sports team, or organization in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement." A part of an image is protected by the same copyright laws as the whole image itself when it's the most important and recognizable part.
Gimp? What is that? or who is that? I have no clue. About the logo tag, you are totally right, I could have used the pulic domain tag instead. Back a few months ago, there was no logo tag, so people most often used public domain tags when they uploaded coat of arms or logos or flags. This time I wanted to be extra careful with all the tag issues going on on Wikipedia at the moment. Maybe another tag would be appropriate. They should create a coat of arms (blason) tag. Hardouin11:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My creative skills are very small, but I made an attempt at providing an alternate image that everybody will understand. Tell me what you think of it. Feel free to remove it if you don't like it :) (Gimp is an open-source clone of Photoshop.) Thbz20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This infobox is about the metropolitan area and not the urban area of Paris. There's a difference between an urban area and a metropolitan area. An urban area is a central city and its contiguous built-up suburbs whereas a metropolitan area also includes satellite cities separated by countryside in between. There are communes in the list that are satellite cities separated from the urban area of Paris by countryside, such as Meaux for example. Be reasonable for a change and stop confusing definitions for people. Do you realize what you're doing? Do you mean the Paris urban area contains 12 million people?? Hardouin15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "Paris metropolitan area" usable here - the term "metropolitan area" is not at all the official translation of "aire urbaine" as indicated by the INSEE: the official translation for "aire urbaine" is "urban area" as indicated in the references provided in urban area and Talk:Paris urban area. It is not "your" definitions that count here - it's the official ones. Give us a break please. THEPROMENADER18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This Template is pointless
First off, this template does not (and cannot) include every commune in the Paris aire urbaine (urban area) - contrary to what its title says it is. If anything, "communes in the Paris aire urbaine" should be a category.
In addition, this template's only purpose (and reason for existence) seems to be as a tool to promote Hardouin's insane theory that Paris is as big as the Île-de-France (or that the Paris aire urbaineis Paris) - I remember it originally had the Paris city logo on it but was told to remove it. It has also been placed into many articles concerning Paris quarters and Paris subjects - many of them irrelevent to this template - for reasons none to clear to the reader.
For all of the above reasons I think this template is pointless and misleading if used incorrectly, and I think it should be deleted. If perhaps an effort can be made to complete the list of communes it could have some use, but that would mean adding another over a thousand communes. Again, "communes in the Paris aire urbaine ("metropolitan area is an unsuitable and erronous translation - besides, the official translation is "urban area" so this should be used) is a category title, not a template. Please read other similar critiques above. THEPROMENADER15:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move request submitted
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
When this template was created there was no real translation for aire urbaine, and even then the creation/use of the term 'Paris Metropolitan Area' was pure WP:OR. Today the official French statistics organization, the INSEE, provides an official translation for the term: 'urban area'. Thanks. THEPROMENADER08:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So if INSEE translatates aire urbaine as "pink elephant" on their website, we should call it "pink elephant" on Wikipedia? Give us a break! You have an obsession against this template from what I can see in this talk page (you wished to delete it already 6 years ago!). The definition of the aire urbaine (an urban core with a commuter belt around it) is what's called a metropolitan area in English. What's called an urban area in English is what INSEE calls unité urbaine. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If INSEE's command of English is not good, that's not a reason why we should use their faulty English and mislead people. An aire urbaine is a metropolitan area by all definitions of that word in English. It's not an urban area. Meaux or Rambouillet are not, by any definition of the word, part of the urban area of Paris. Now you're the one who is trying to make Paris bigger than it is. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
INSEE's only official language is French. The dumbed down version of their website in English is only a courtesy for non-French speakers. It has no official value, and contains many faulty uses of English, such as literally translating aire urbaine as "urban area" in English, when an aire urbaine, by INSEE's official definition, is absolutely not what's called "urban area" in English. It would be like literally translating the French inhabité by "inhabited" in English, when inhabité actually means "uninhabited" in English. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where do they translate 'inhabité' to 'inhabited' - that's a pretty disingenuous straw-man argument. Do you mean to say that INSEE does not have the manpower or brainpower to provide translations for a terminology of their own creation, and have been repeating this 'error' since years already? So why would they provide translations in the first place? And why have ~they~ not used the term 'Metropolitan Area" as a translation for their own term? Go figure. THEPROMENADER16:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
…and now you've even ruined the redirect. Don't you know how to edit? Yes, of course admins will think this is contested now - well played. But now they can judge your conduct too. THEPROMENADER13:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They'll judge your conduct too. Imposing your weird translations and retitling tens of templates (as this template is used in tens of articles) without discussing this with any other editor beforehand. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also note that the generic article for the French aires urbaines is Metropolitan Area (France). The article Metropolitan area in its Metropolitan_area#France section also says: "In France the term for the region around an urban core linked by commuting ties is an aire urbaine (officially translated as "urban area")." I see that the article fr:Aire urbaine in French also specifically refers to the US metropolitan areas, and goes further by saying this: "Une urban area anglo-saxonne se rapproche plus d'une unité urbaine française." So it seems most editors, both at en.wikipedia and at fr.wikipedia, are in agreement that an aire urbaine is what's called a metropolitan area in English, and an urban area in English is what's called a unité urbaine in French. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion of a few wikipedia contributors (and 'commonspeak' among those unaware of Paris area demographics) is not above the translations provided by France's official statistics institution. Again: ::INSEE: France's official census bureau. French: 'aire urbaine'. English: 'urban area'. Thanks. THEPROMENADER14:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: in spite of the fact that you're blatantly wrong, you're reverting to a fanciful WP:OR terminology in a very aggressive way (that I won't partake in). How is this productive? And there's no need to post any spiel about 'things that people need to hear': Wikipedia publishes fact for those seeking real information, it's not for broadcasting opinions to the unwitting. THEPROMENADER14:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. I don't think the use of aggressive phrases such as "blatantly wrong" will help your case. So far you have carefully avoided addressing the issue, which is that the definition of an aire urbaine is much closer to what's called "metropolitan area" in English than to what's called "urban area". Der Statistiker (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can say simply 'wrong' if I don't provide references, but when the same erroneous arguments keep appearing even after I ~do~ provide references, that's foraging (rather blindly) into 'blatant' territory. THEPROMENADER14:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(afterthought) Ok, I've made my case clear and even provided imbattable references on this talk page - there's no excuse to revert my edits now.
And since I've seen this situation and the same vague arguments a thousand times before, don't even try answering with 'proof' links to Demographica (god knows where they get their information), Economic studies and other 'for-Paris-unaware' websites using 'local commonspeak' to refer to Paris - Wikipedia is not that, and there are a myriad of references available straight from the source for those who choose not to ignore them. THEPROMENADER14:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An admin had to reinstate the redirect - leaving someone else to clean up your own mess sends a message of 'I don't care' arrogance. THEPROMENADER18:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, even though I had every reason to make the change I did, I'm waiting to see where the template-move arbitration goes before making my corrections once again - I'm quite sure they'll be reverted again anyways. THEPROMENADER15:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to say, there seems to be dispute over the correct term, and in cases like this, we have to follow the "official terminology", whether we personally agree with it. I have no specific opinion (I have not researched sufficiently on the subject) but procedurely the INSEE term should be used.--GilderienChat|Contributions22:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per above - but I would like to point out that the move destination is not a name, it is about the terminology and translation the very institute that created the template's subject (the aire urbaine statistical area) uses for international communications. I do think now that a move to "urban area", even though legitimate, could cause confusion. I still oppose using the grandiose 'Paris Metropolitan area' as a misleading translation for a barely-used statistical region: most French people don't even know what an aire urbaine is. THEPROMENADER05:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, true to the comment below, I would also support a redirect to Template: Paris aire urbaine namespace; since the statistical area and its name is unique to this country anyways, this would both provide inarguable references and elminate all chance of confusion. THEPROMENADER09:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I said here, INSEE cannot be considered as a source for English language in Wikipedia. Their mission is to produce statistics about France and study economy, not foreign languages[seudo 1]. 'Aire urbaine' and 'metropolitan area' are about how the people live (they include commuters) while 'urban area' and 'unité urbaine' are about land use (continuous group of buildings), that is very different. If you are not comfortable about disagreeing with INSEE, then use no translation at all and keep the French word 'aire urbaine'. But do not use a bad English translation without a reliable external source (e. g. from an institution specialized in translation of words). Seudo (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
^You may ignore my personal experience, but I graduated from the school that makes INSEE engineers and I can tell you that, as in most French grandes écoles, proficiency in English was not very important to get your diploma.
And if you need some external sources about the fact that 'unité urbaine' is approximately the same as 'urban area', see [2] ('The concept of urban agglomeration (called urban area in UK, unité urbaine in France, Verdichtungsraum in Germany)...').
However, OECD recently worked on a new concept of 'functional urban area' ([3] and [4]) which looks like metropolitan areas or 'aires urbaines'.
I still think the French word 'aire urbaine' may be the best because:
you don't need to do international comparisons here, since you only list towns in the Paris metropolitan area;
I guess the list of towns was (or should) be established from French sources which probably used the French definition, not US, UK or OECD definitions. Seudo (talk) 08:47, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt you at all - you're making perfect sense! (the following is transcluded from the Paris talk page): there's almost an entire page dedicated to explaining how different countries treat the 'Urban area' term. Since that term (and 'metropolitan area') differ from country to country, it would be both logical and referencable to use the original French name for their quite unique creation, and provide a short explanation and a link to the aire urbaine page where it is used. (following added for here): Yet it should be noted that, although the INSEE's English is not the best, one would think they would pay particular attention to the translation of their own terminology, and nowhere in the English version of their website or documentation do they use the term 'metropolitan area' (save for foreign-authour .pdf documents published there), and this since years - the term is well known, there must be a reason for this - so the translating 'aire urbaine' into 'Metropolitan area' is fanciful at best. It's not the move ~to~ I'm most concerned with: any correct and referencable term will do, but the INSEE is the best reference we have for a correct namespace to date. But I'm all for using the orginal French term. THEPROMENADER08:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
INSEE researchers do use the term 'metropolitan area' in many papers [5], e.g. here: 'We allocate each municipality to its metropolitan area (‘Aire Urbaine’) when it is part of one'.
The translation you mentioned is a translation of the INSEE website (probably made by an external company). I would trust a published paper more than the translation of a website. But usage is variable even if published papers...
Just note that most of those papers a) use the term for other-country cities where they are valid ('washington metropolitan area') or are b) the work of other-country authors ('Working papers do not reflect the position of INSEE but only the views of the authors.' is the first-page notice on most). Not once will you find the term 'Paris Metropolitan area' in the INSEE website… whoops, once, but it's a translation from the work of a US authour - again with the 'not the work of the INSEE' mention. THEPROMENADER09:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose English Wikipedia should use the common English term for the area, which is a perfectly acceptable and correct idiomatic translation of the French phrase. The word-for-word translation does not work well, and the sense-for-sense translation is definitely preferable in this case. Translating a phrase like this word-for-word leads to the wrong sense in the English, as "urban area" (which is a land use term) does not mean the same thing as "metropolitan area" (which refers to a city core and its surrounding suburban areas). Since the sense of the French usage matches the second, we should use that. Especially since most reliable, English language sources use the phrase "Paris Metropolitan Area". That the French sources use "aire urbaine" isn't all that relevent, since that phrase is best translated, in the sense used in the original French, as "metropolitan area". --Jayron3203:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Especially since most reliable, English language sources use the phrase "Paris Metropolitan Area"." - that's not what I found at all, but perhaps you found something I didn't. What are those reliable sources? THEPROMENADER04:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only remotely credible source turning up in a Google search for 'Paris metropolitan area' is Demographica (and they translate it to 'Île-de-France' ! ), and they don't disclose where their info comes from. Aside from that one can find 'generalistic' translations uses of 'Paris metropolitan area' are referring for the most part to a vague 'the area around paris' using the local commonspeak, but this template (and other pages) use the term as a direct reference to a specific entity: the INSEE's aire urbaine and all the communes within it. Therefore, for anything referring specifically to the French aire urbaine, I think it best to use the original French terminology. THEPROMENADER07:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so if several editors agree, we should correct the Paris aire urbaine article, because The Promenader has translated "aire urbaine" as "urban area" everywhere in that article. I also wonder whether the article shouldn't be moved to "Paris Metropolitan Area", since it's preferable to use English terms rather than French terms (for example, "Départements of France" was moved to "Departments of France"). Der Statistiker (talk) 13:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, nobody here has 'agreed with you' (especially since you didn't even take part in the discussion after voting began) - this decision has nothing to do with your (stated) wish to revert/move another article. And the term you want to revert/move to is being questioned and discussed (here and on other pages), so don't be hasty about anything. THEPROMENADER15:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It's not always preferable to use English terms when no properly referencable translation exists. That is what is being discussed and even concluded (read above - I even changed my mind about this move), so get involved if you want to. I think the 'Paris aire urbaine' talk page would be a good place to merge/continue these discussions. THEPROMENADER16:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The Promenader's editing of the template Paris Metropolitan Area
Please note that The Promander has made changes in the template Paris Metropolitan Area that have massive consequences since this template is used in 268 articles, without discussing those changes with anyone beforehand or mentioning his changes here. In a nutshell, he insists on using the faulty English translation of aire urbaine as "urban area", when an aire urbaine, from its official definition (an urban core with a commuter belt around it) is in fact what's called a "metropolitan area" in English (what's called "urban area" in English is called unité urbaine by INSEE in French). There's a discussion about Promenader's changes here: Template_talk:Paris_Metropolitan_Area#Move_request_submitted.Der Statistiker (talk) 13:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's disruptive, from what I can see, is to rename a template used in 268 articles without consulting with anyone beforehand. You often accuse Dr Blofeld of making massive edits without discussing them on the talk page before, but you've done exactly the same thing here. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So where is the widespread outrage over this morning's 'massive' one-word change? The only complainer so far is a lone Wikipedian with a fanciful agenda (and why here, btw - looking for 'the right audience'?). THEPROMENADER15:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also note that the generic article for the French aires urbaines is Metropolitan Area (France). The article Metropolitan area in its Metropolitan_area#France section also says: "In France the term for the region around an urban core linked by commuting ties is an aire urbaine (officially translated as "urban area")." I see that the article fr:Aire urbaine in French also specifically refers to the US metropolitan areas, and goes further by saying this: "Une urban area anglo-saxonne se rapproche plus d'une unité urbaine française." So it seems most editors, both at en.wikipedia and at fr.wikipedia, are in agreement that an aire urbaine is what's called a metropolitan area in English, and an urban area in English is what's called a unité urbaine in French. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I missed commenting on the above exercise in selective fact: The abovementioned French article's 'definitions' section does indeed mention that the 'notion' of an aire urbaine can be close to the US' 'metropolitan areas', but the sentence after, "Le terme urban area (littéralement « aire urbaine », urbanized area aux États-Unis) est également utilisé par plusieurs pays anglo-saxons", says that the term 'urban area' is also applicable in some 'anglo saxon' cases. THEPROMENADER09:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also note that Wikipedia contributors are not above the references they provide. And what better reference than the INSEE - or are the people working at France's official statistics bureau stupid? I don't think so. THEPROMENADER13:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's also note that The Promenader himself, in the map he created and put in the demographics section of the article, called aire urbaine "metropolitan area" in English. I see lots of contradictions here. See: [6]. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was made before the INSEE provided translations, and it is wrong now, and it needs to be changed.
Again, The opinion of a few wikipedia contributors (and 'commonspeak' among those unaware of Paris area demographics) is not above the translations provided by France's official statistics institution. Again: ::INSEE: France's official census bureau. French: 'aire urbaine'. English: 'urban area'. Thanks. THEPROMENADER14:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
INSEE is France's official statistical office, but its English translations are absolutely not "official" (don't play with words please). The abridged version of their website in English is only a courtesy for non-French speakers, and a quick search on the English website shows LOTS of faulty or awkward English usage. Der Statistiker (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 'playing' with anything: and how is it possible that a lone Wikipedian can say that the translations provided by France's official statistics bureau are not 'acceptable'? You don't think that they have the smarts and the manpower to make the best translations for their own terminology? Why don't they themselves use 'metropolitan area' as a translation for the term of their own creation? Do a google for "Paris metropolitan area" - you will see a few Wikipedia articles, a Demographica link (and god knows where they get their information - probably Wikipedia), and the rest are publications for 'Paris area-unawares' audiences written in their 'local commonspeak' language. Again, Wikipedia is none of that: Wikipedia contributors can find the best possible references straight from the source, that is if they don't choose to ignore them in favour of their own fanciful agendas. THEPROMENADER14:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your trust in French institutions, but I don't think INSEE is an authority about English-language vocabulary; they just built up a literal translation of the term (aire urbaine => 'urban area'). If you consider the definitions, it is very clear that the definition of 'urban area' used in the US or the UK is somewhat equivalent (but not equal) to what we call in France 'fr:unité urbaine' (which INSEE, unsurprisingly, translates as urban unit), not 'fr:aire urbaine':
an 'unité urbaine' or an 'urban area' are defined as a group of buildings which are not separated by countryside;
'aire urbaine' and 'metropolitan area' also take into account the way people live: they may include towns that are separated by some countryside if many of the people of these tows work in the core town.
So, if you don't want to be smarter than INSEE (which I perfectly understand, since I am as much obsessed about sources as any Wikipedia contributors), you may simply keep the French word. Seudo (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, actually: there's almost an entire page dedicated to explaining how different countries treat the 'Urban area' term. Since that term (and 'metropolitan area') differ from country to country, it would be both logical and referencable to use the original French name for their quite unique creation, and provide a short explanation and a link to the aire urbaine page where it is used. THEPROMENADER08:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After looking into the question a bit further, I'm even more convinced that using "aire urbaine" is the best thing to do - let's continue this conversation on the 'Paris aire urbaine' page where it's supposed to be. THEPROMENADER18:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Crickets chirping) Since there seems to be no need/desire at all for discussion about this matter (contrary to commentary tacked to the revert to this template by the single editor opposing its change/move), and since the little rational discussion on this page about this template's name seems to conclude that using the original French name is the best way to go, there is no excuse at all for further knee-jerk reverting. Let's see what other readers and contributors (where this template is used) think - for a change. Cheers. THEPROMENADER21:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
En.wikipedia is in English, not in French, and for that reason we use English words, not French words. We say Departments of France and not "Départements of France". We say "city" or "town" and not "ville". We say "mayor of Paris" and not "maire of Paris". And so on, and so forth. Therefore, there is no justification for changing the namespace or title of this template. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but in English we can say for aire urbaine, according to the references available, 'Paris urban area', 'Larger Paris urban area' (these direct from the INSEE source), 'Paris region' and/or 'Île-de-France' (this one holds the majority); and the North American Paris 'metropolitan area' invention and term (Wikipedia is not only for Americans) is ~far~ into the minority; in fact, hardly ~any~ usage of 'Paris metropolitan area' avilable (other than Wikipedia pages) refer to the aire urbaine ~at all~. This is both common sense and fact, and a single contributor's WP:POV (and WP:OR) 'choice term' (and 'select publications') cannot trump the majority. To avoid repitition, I highly suggest you read the comment on the Paris urban area talk page, where it is also highly evident that using the un-confusing and highly-referencable French term is the way to go - the argument there managed to sway even me. Cheers. THEPROMENADER06:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In conclusion, it would be acceptable to use 'metropolitan area' as one of many possible offhand, in-writ general descriptions of '(something in) the area around Paris' (and this is excusable only for someone ignorant about Paris' function; even then, such an entry should be corrected later by someone more knowledgable), but if the term is used as a 'translation' for an existing and directly-referenced administrative or statistical area (as this template does), forget it. Cheers. THEPROMENADER15:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template title change, eventual move.
I'm changing the template title (only) from its present WP:OR 'interpretation' state to 'aire urbaine', and if the outrage from the masses isn't too (cough) overwhelming, I'll be proposing a template move to the 'aire urbaine' namespace later on. I (and another contributor), have made the reasons for this change more than clear in the discussions above, so there is no excuse for reverting. Let's wait and see what happens. Cheers. THEPROMENADER06:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are alone in knee-jerk reverting another contributor's edit, and there is no need for 'consensus' for every change that is not to another wikipedian's 'taste' - besides, it was after discussion with another contributor that we decided that the original French term - and not 'urban area' was the safest way to go. How can one ignore an entire talk page of discussion? Leave the edit, and if it's so bad, other contributors will edit/comment themselves. Continue and I'll seek outside help. THEPROMENADER17:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are alone in reverting this. The move ~to~ 'urban area' was opposed (even by myself), so apples to oranges - but thanks for again trying to skew the debate. This revert is a joke - either meatpuppeting or sockpuppeting. Such antics are more than pathetic and a waste of everyone's time. This is worthy of a report. THEPROMENADER17:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Just what happens when switching between different language wikipedias, since I'm an editor at various wikipedias, and en.wikipedia stupidly logs you in under the account of whichever other wikipedia you last checked, without even letting you know. Now, what about you debate the issue (your insistence on wishing to use a French name in that case), instead of always trying to use ad hominem and abuse the admin noticeboard against people who disagree with you? Der Statistiker (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy it, and too late, I've already filed the report. And of course I couldn't be aware of your excuse, so stop with the disingenuous accusations while you're at it. THEPROMENADER18:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paris_uu_ua_jms.png){kind=link}