Talk:Chemin de fer de Petite Ceinture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paris' or Paris's[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Paris' or Paris's. "Paris'" looks daft, and is not the style used by major news sources; is there any argument for using the "Paris'" form? If there is, please make it at the MoS discussion. --John (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paris' is correct, a fact that can be found by a simple google, and "daft" is just opinion. Hardly worth a revert war, n'est-ce pas? Anyway, cheers. THEPROMENADER 14:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing 'Paris' by 'the' is just silly! This I must revert, I'm afraid. THEPROMENADER 14:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the MoS question - yours - has no answer, so how to refer to it? Slow down... THEPROMENADER 14:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So who's revert-warring now? I strongly suggest you read changes before you revert them, consider the value of compromise over overt hostility, and contribute to the central discussion towards a solution. If you think it is a matter of a "simple google" you may need to think again. I have three real-world style guides on my side and you have, apparently, just your own opinion. --John (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a good-faith change that was quite acceptable. Reverting that was reverting (your first), and my reinstating my edits (plus the others you reverted over) was my first revert. One has to revert to start a revert war - like I said in my comment, talk pages are for expressing dissatisfaction (especially for questions of pure taste), not reverting. I don't particularily like the edit (fortifications) that came after mine, but I won't revert that as the reverter's argument (provided) was more than just a question of taste. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's an interesting way to look at it. I'd say your reversions were very much a matter of taste, that you were wrong to make them, and that you have made no real arguments at the MoS page other than supposed precedent, which isn't a strong argument hereabouts. --John (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, this amounts to one contributor's distaste of a commonly-used form against another contributor's use of it. Since both are correct, that sort of conflict would ~never~ end. One cannot (knee-jerk) blanket-revert over matters of taste - that's the only point to retain here. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 15:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Don't tell me, show me. --John (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction 'Fortifs'[edit]

@Andy Dingley, could you explain why the Fortifications are so important in the intro? I removed it because it was little-informative to the reader there (to any reader not knowing French history, that is) - I was in the process of elaborating that point later in the article. I actually see the same error (lack of explanation/context) throughout the article - a lot of it my own error - so if you have a better way of providing that, do tell. THEPROMENADER 15:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fortifications aren't, but the boundary is. Any tourist walking around Paris these days still sees an obvious boundary following what was the line of the wall. Little of this is still a stone wall, but the road layout follows it and there's still a huge cultural "inside" and "outside" aspect to the edge of Paris. Whether something was built in, or out, or in this case following that boundary, is significant to lead-inclusion level. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds fair. The image is quite strong and clear for sure. THEPROMENADER 16:50, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, what is it with the reverting? The text before was terrible and even ~wrong~ in places - and I can say that because it was my own contributions. Stop reverting just after anothor contributor contributes please, that's no way to edit. THEPROMENADER 16:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) PS: the 'L'Étoile' rail plan was drawn in 1842, not 1848, that's a ~huge~ error, so if you're just going to revert, fix it yourself. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Dude", get a clue before you take a hatchet to an article. There are things called "history" and "context". They matter. Maybe you've never been out of your state before, but for those who live in Paris, things like the Peripherique (which is yet another modern structure echoing the ancient boundary) split the world into civilised Parisians and boule-playing peasants. The historical context of the walls and their (somewhat archaic) mid-19th century expansion is the key to the whole reason why the railway was built and where it was built. It's also a particularly Gallic approach to fortification, something that lasted for another 100 years and was instrumental in four generations of France's military defeats after this, right up to Dien bien phu. Fix things if they need it, but blanking great chunks isn't the way to go forward. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er. I've been living in the 'state' of Paris since 1989. You reverted a section that I titled 'context' - and it was. All you indicate above was still mentioned in the text - or mentioned earlier - I removed melodrama and Bourbon kings. THEPROMENADER 17:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You did make me say 'dude' though, I'll give you that ; ) But again, if you're going to revert, do it wisely: I even mentioned the errors in my edit summary, so now, again, feel free to correct them yourself if you can do it better. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 17:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with retention per Andy. --John (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting work[edit]

It's been ages since I've had the time to work on this article, and now that I look at it with fresher eyes, I see that there's much improvement to be made (to writing mostly my own) as far as context and chronology is concerned. I'll be writing first and linking and sourcing later (using other tools), so please don't be alarmed if you see an all-black unsourced block of text; it's only temporary (but do pitch in!). Thanks and cheers. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 20:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly done the all-text writing, and will be linking, diversifying the sources, and adding pictures soon. Thanks to Aiken drum for pitching in (please continue!). THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 15:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, I don't really know anything about the subject but happy to copyedit. Aiken D 15:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would be perfect, thank you. If you're not sure of the meaning of something (so hesitate to fix it), do let me know here. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: there's no hurry, perhaps you can even allow me a couple days to go over it and see if I can shorten/simplify it a bit (to not waste your time), just let me know.THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 17:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chemin de fer de Petite Ceinture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chemin_de_fer_de_Petite_Ceinture&oldid=1206060255"