Talk:Paris/1st arrondissement

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There's a sandwich place called Nils?? I'll have to try it next time I am in Paris. :D -- Nils

Musee de la mode et du costume[edit]

If someone can verify that this exists, feel free to put it back (also for the decorative arts museum listed in the same section). --(WT-en) Wandering 14:53, 11 January 2008 (EST)

Samaritaine[edit]

Archiving listing here for a few years... (WT-en) Jpatokal 04:00, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

Samaritaine (Métro: Pont Neuf or Châtelet), +33 1 40 41 20 20. Closed until 2011 for assessment and reconstruction following a determination that the building has become unsafe. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 9:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Thursday from 9:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday from 9:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. One of the premier department stores, both in Paris and the world

Redundant article[edit]

Found an other article in the no-links section for the 1st arrondissement: http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Paris/1st_arrondissement.new

Maybe there are interesting extra's there to copy here so the redundant one can be deleted?

More attractions to list?[edit]

I never visited this church, but it seems to be of some interest. See this Featured Picture on Commons.

Any other places worth mentioning in this arrondissement? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add as many as you like. I will look into my Paris guide books when back home next week, by then our sister Wikipedia and especially its French version has some laundry lists to go by. That said, it really isn't a big district and a large chunk is taken by the park and the Louvre, so it is not that there is much more to be covered. It is a good guide IMHO, and I've spent quite a bit of time within the district itself due to my work at fashion weeks. PrinceGloria (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
I added a basic listing for this church. It seems interesting enough to add the Featured Picture by Diliff that I linked above. Can we find space for it? By the way, there is a very brief en.wikipedia article about the church, and perhaps this is interesting enough to include in the "content" for historical reasons: "During the Wars of Religion, its bell called 'Marie' sounded on the night of 23 August 1572, marking the beginning of the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. Thousands of Huguenots, who visited the city for a royal wedding, were killed by the mob of Paris." Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Brilliant, thanks! I also believe we should add more info on visiting the Louvre, perhaps even give it is own section. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. Thanks for all the great work you've done on this article! I fleshed out the entry on this parish church a bit and added that image. I hope we don't have too many images. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no such thing as too many images in a travel guide! PrinceGloria (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I think there is. Have you seen articles with so many photos left, right and center that they look chaotic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
How much I love to have many pictures in articles and find articles where you can scroll down for pages and pages and pages without a single one, ugly, I think pics should never drop below the status box at the bottom and they should never be shoehorned in by using left-alignment. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you. I think having a lot of photos is great, as long as they are pretty photos and don't mess up the overall look at feel of the article, such as in the ways you describe. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I do not think those cases apply here, so let us enjoy and add more quality content and perhaps pics if there are more things left to be illustrated. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
If you create a nice mini-guide to the Louvre, more photos of great artworks from that museum could be added, such as for example something from their Egyptian section. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I am quite afraid it's not me, I purposefully avoided the Louvre for many years and have never been in, despite spending a fair share of my professional life in the immediate vicinity. Perhaps a call to action in the Travellers' Pub? PrinceGloria (talk) 07:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I thought when you mentioned that "we should add more info on visiting the Louvre, perhaps even give it its own section", you might take the lead. I haven't been to the Louvre since 2002, so I'm not sure how much I could add, except by consulting their website and such. I do strongly recommend a visit or three, as it's one of the world's greatest art museums, and though La Gioconda is a great painting, there are many other paintings there, some of comparable greatness in my eyes, that aren't so mobbed. And their Egyptian section is fantastic. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Business photos[edit]

Keeping in mind the guidelines at Wikivoyage:Listings#Images, I would say:

(1) The photo of the restaurant at Le Meurice shows the room to be beautiful and obviously an attraction in its own right.

(2) The "Thrill is Gone" photo, which strikes me as per se uninteresting, and the caption "The Thrill is actually Never Gone when you enter Colette" look promotional and should be discussed here. On the face of it, I would support their removal, but I'd welcome an argument to the contrary.

(3) The photo of the restaurant at Hotel Vendome occupies a bit of a middle position, as the room doesn't look so unique; however, it's a pretty space and the photo is very good - certainly a Quality Image, if nominated on Commons - so I support keeping it in the article.

What do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Colette is an institution, it means a lot to people in the fashion industry (and those into art, design and such as well), and the mural is actually an acclaimed work of art. Think of it as Fortnum and Mason in London, who could be a "See" listing just as much as "Buy". Visiting the store is an experience, and not everybody actually buys anything there.
PS. For the record, I am not a big fan of Colette so I would have no probs with this being removed, but to me the place's prominence is obvious and it just felt natural to have a picture from there to portray its gist. PrinceGloria (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
PS2. If anything comes closer to beautiful, it's the Place Vendome restaurant actually - the Le Meurice one comes across as vulgar, but it's a historic monument. And the food is good :) Anyway, I wanted to use the pics to spruce up the section to show the diversity of styles and found pretty much every upscale hotel there to have a story in its own right so that I do not feel bad about "promoting" them that way.
Thanks, Prince. I'm satisfied with your explanation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I would delete photo (3). The restaurant does not look like anything special, seems to be a promotional picture from the hotel itself and contains clearly identifiable people. Plus, there are also already many much nicer and more useful pictures on this page, so I think there is no need to keep it. If you still think it is useful for the traveler, then a brief explanation in the image subtitle of why this is the case could help. But as it is right now, I don't see its usefulness. Xsobev (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Xsobev - Regarding your third point, there's nothing in our image policy that specifically prohibits photographs of identifiable people. Instead, the WV policy page refers the reader to Commons' policy, which states, in part: "The Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded." A restaurant certainly qualifies as a "public place" per Commons' definition. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the information about identifiable people in images - I'll keep it in mind. I still think my first two points hold: "the restaurant does not look like anything special" and "seems to be a promotional picture from the hotel itself" (author of the picture is "Hôtel de Vendôme"). On a related note, the recently added image "File:Restaurant,_Louvre,_Paris_2010.jpg" is not useful for the traveler in my view either, it mostly shows chairs and could be anywhere (at least here the image caption is more helpful than for the Hôtel de Vendôme picture). These points together with the fact that there are so many other nice and useful images on the page, I would remove the two. Xsobev (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the sleep section, and yet there are two "eat" pictures. Commons has a photo of a bedroom of the same hotel (and some of others) which would be better. I am also suspicious that the File:Restaurant 1 Place Vendôme.jpg photo could be posed by hotel staff rather than show genuine customers - nobody is eating, and the people don't look "right" for what I assume is an expensive restaurant. AlasdairW (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I just thought it's a nice photo and provides balance to the voluptous one from Le Meurice. Please feel free to shuffle around and replace. I checked the description and it is indeed a promo photo and probably posed. Still a nice one though :D I believe images are to give a sense of the place we are describing not just plain information, otherwise we would best post copies of menus. Look at the choice of photos in relevant sections of Eyewitness guides, which I believe excel in the world of print travel guides. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Too many images?[edit]

As per the discussion at Wikivoyage talk:Image policy#Minimal use of images - not appropriate, are there too many images on this page? Some can probably be removed without damaging the article. Which ones are not needed? Also, feel free to plunge forward and remove some if you don't think it will be controversial. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I deleted a few thumbnails. The rest should be redistributed so they're not all in a row with photoless screens. There are probably still too many images. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
More work. If you feel like I deleted the wrong image or removed too many images, restore one or two. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Good work. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 04:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)