Talk:List of tourist attractions in Paris

This article was nominated for deletion on 26 September, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

France: Paris Mid‑importance

	France portal This article 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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Paris task force.

Travel and Tourism Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Travel and Tourism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of travel and tourism related articles 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.Travel and TourismWikipedia:WikiProject Travel and TourismTemplate:WikiProject Travel and TourismTourism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Better as a category?

I think this would be better as a category than an article. Cordless Larry 13:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the category already exists as Category:Visitor attractions in Paris. Cordless Larry 13:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: The category should be for ALL attractions that have an article, and this page for the most notable/prominent ones, with a short but useful description that can't be given in a category. The usual difficulty is to find a source or an objective criteria for selecting what goes into this short-list of notables, but difficulty is no reason to destroy a page. My suggestion would be to select 3 prominent tourist/travel sites (from, say, the U.S., Russia, and Japan) and list attractions that feature in at least 2 out of 3 of such lists, or some such criteria. — Komusou ^talk @ 11:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation into an article

Okay, how to go about this? First off, if it is to become an article, it needs an introduction... perhaps something "Paris and its immediate region has many attractions to offer..." ... but it shouldn't sound like a sales pitch. For the rest of the article, perhaps the attractions could be divided into arrondissements - or areas? - with all of the attractions described in-text (not as a list) if possible... sound reasonable? Any other ideas? THEPROMENADER 07:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my thoughts to get us started:

You're right it needs an introduction. We should try hard to follow WP style for this. (For example: "The many visitor attractions in Paris comprise monuments, historical buildings, churches, museums, parks, etc. These attractions are found throughout the various arrondissements of Paris itself and also in the surrounding region.")
Moreover, it needs a new name. It won't be List of... any longer. It could be Visitor attractions in Paris (of course) or perhaps Tourist attractions in Paris. I say this, because there is an article here on tourist attractions, but not one on "visitor attractions." Ought we to be consistent? Are there negative connotations to "visitor" or "tourist"?
As to the order: hmmm... could be alphabetical, by type (museums, historical bldgs, monuments), by arrondissement, by importance in tour books (introduces subjectivity problems I know).
Agree with you, this should not look like a list... not a bulleted list anyway. I think perhaps one paragraph (of three to five sentences) describing the significance of each attraction would be appropriate.
Most of the attractions in the current list already link to existing WP articles. We should look to be consistent with each of these articles (at least not say things that conflict). Perhaps we simply extract our paragraph from the first few paragraphs of these articles.
We could illustrate our article with thumbnail photographs of each attraction. Clearly the Paris article has no room for this, but it might look very nice in this one. Have a look at this article. I do not like the list in it, but I do like the photo layout (the mark up uses a tag called "gallery").
We'll might also rework the Monuments and landmarks subsection in Paris, perhaps reducing it to a bare minimum.

I believe we can make a beautiful article and have fun doing it. Hult041956 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC) (Some edits made to my own remarks) Hult041956 19:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, by all means, go ahead - you're the first new contributor to Paris-based articles since ages, so your work and input is more than welcome (to all of them!). I have little time these days to do more than check up on those articles I have contributed to on my watchlist, but of course I will lend a hand should you need one; all the above sounds like it would be a reasoned definite improvement to both this and the Paris article, so please, go for it! Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have one idea for transforming this into a useful article suitable for reference purposes: dividing its contents into "sections of interest". For the monuments in particular, I would categorise them into eras... Louis XIII-XIV's Porte St. Denis and porte St. Martin for example, just to give them a bit of historical context that may contribute to a more "article" content. I also imagined a section consecrated to talking about "Paris nostalgia" attractions - such as the Lido, Café Procope, etc - so there we can describe the origins of their "visitor value" - again creating context for more "article-like" content, and escarting the need for repetitive explanations ("famous in the 1920's", etc). THEPROMENADER 10:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words

This article is plagued with weasel words, most likeley added by an over excited tourist or french national, this damages the quality of the article. Please, would anyone intrested help me by removing them on sight. Thanks, Zanusi 11:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After major rewrites - I have eradicated them. Zanusi 11:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of tourist attractions in Paris. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131218174055/http://the-world-map-image.blogspot.com/p/paris-france.html to http://the-world-map-image.blogspot.com/p/paris-france.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]