Talk:Paris Voyage Tips and guide

See also: Talk:Paris/Archive

Contents

Hi all, back in the day I argued for using arrondissement boundaries for Paris districts on the grounds that they're well defined and are how Parisien(ne) editors themselves see the city, however, in hindsight maybe it really isn't the best way to do it. Maybe we should reconsider, especially as some neighbourhoods cross arrondissement borders? -- (WV-en) Mark (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2012 (CEST)

I'd like to bump this up. Should we consider switching from the Arrondissements to named neighbourhoods, like say "Montmartre", "Bourse", "Belleville" ? There are good arguments on either side, and it might be interesting to have a discussion to give them a good airing. Originally the decision to use arrondissements was pretty much a fiat choice by none other than myself, so there's never been a real discussion. Thanks! -- MarkJaroski (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be an improvement to se the named neighborhoods, as they have cultural relevance and travellers will recognize them. The problem is just that it will be a gargantuan task to change them all... --Globe-trotter (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Named neighborhoods are almost always smaller than arrondissements: Montmartre is a part of the 18th, etc. It could make sense to group some arrondissements (1–4, 5—7, 8–9, 10–12, 13–15, 16–17, 18–20 would be my feeling), but such groups don't have readily-understood names. Arrondissements have the benefits of being unambiguous, marked on all maps, indicated in street addresses, present on street signs, and known by locals.

Lamellae (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, keep it by arrondissements - it is how the city is actually organised and how most people (residents and visitor alike) see the city. Some neighnourhoods such as Montmartre are well known, but would somewhere like the nearby Goutte d'Or be as well known to readers - I think not. 212.64.86.253 15:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree. As Lamellae notes, arrondisements are shown on all maps. There couldn't possibly be an easier way to divide up Paris. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK. These are all the same arguments I made back in the day. Looks like a consensus. -- Mark (talk) 07:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK now, due to me having too much and getting bored this weekend while planning my trip to Paris, all of the arrondissements now have custom banners (better or worse, feel free to judge and replace or request different ones if you feel so).

While adding custom banners to the arr's that didn't have them, I change "pgname" to "ZZth arrondissement". I found it looks much neater than "Paris/ZZth arrondissement", but this might get confusing when other cities that are split into arrondissements, like Marseille or Lyon, get districtified one day. On the other hand, "ZZth arrondissement of Paris", "ZZth arrondissement in Paris" or "ZZth arrondissement, Paris" and such seem to long to me and make banners look ugly, not to mention very hard to find graphics that would work well for them.

So, in short, I was wondering if you have any ideas how to pgname our arrondissement banners in a uniform way (for now they aren't and it depends on who placed them there). I was thinking of maybe "1st arr. of Paris" or something to keep it short...

Moreover, I was pondering the current general banner and the banner for Paris/4th arrondissement. I must say I am not a fan of the latter, why I majorly am of the former. That said, the current banner for the main article strikes me as very appropriate for the 4th, focusing on the islands and prominently displaying the old, medieval and small city of Paris. I would very much like to replace the current banner for the 4th with it.

On the other hand, I believe that the main article banner should reflect the unique character of Paris more. Unless you know Paris (which many people do, but just as many don't), the main banner is not very "Parisian" and has a similar feel to many other French / Western European cities with a medieval town core and lying on a river. Paris is not only that, but also the subsequent population boom and the 19th century Haussmannian redevelopment, boulevards, parks and champs, as well as indeed being the "City of Light". Finally, cliche as it is, I couldn't believe our banner for Paris does not include the Eiffel Tower :D

Therefore, I was thinking whether we could use some of the splendid panoramics of Paris available in the Commons, e.g. my favourite. I even made a banner of it for your consideration and to spark this discussion. What do you guys think? PrinceGloria (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Great piece of work, looks good. I tend to agree with you that the current Paris main page image should go to the 4th arrondissement, it represents that area well. The Paris at night I also agree would be good for the main Paris banner but then I think other pictures on the page should be changed, there is too much emphasis on the Eiffel tower. As for pgname, I think it should contain the word Paris but not the actual page name with the / . Alternative is 18th arrondissement, Paris. Traveler100 (talk) 06:09, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Should I plunge forward and replace the banners then?

As concerns pgname - 18th arrondissement, Paris is still very long, I was looking to shorten it to reasonable length. I drop "Paris" when pgnaming now, but perhaps we could go with 18th arr. of Paris, or does it look stupid and confusing? PrinceGloria (talk) 04:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Traveler100. The night banner looks good, and I would keep the long pgname. Long isn't necessarily bad, even if it does cover some of the photo. Most wouldn't understand what "arr." means. It could mean a Parisien district, a musical arrangement or a pirate's interjection! James A ▪ talk 05:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I apologise in advance that I edit this while I don't have an account here, and that I only do it in a critical manner.

I was surprised by the tenor of the 'Stay safe' section. Is it really necessary to denote the assumed continent of origin of the finger-tying scammers?. Or the likely ethnic background of pickpockets in the underground? "It is important to know that a majority of these pickpockets are almost never French." I wonder how it is important to know where your thief is most likely to be not from when your money and passport are gone...

I'd be quite sure that the visitors will be safe if warned against the scams and dangers themselves (not that they should trust people doing these tricks if they look European!), no need to make us wary of racial minorities.

Also, I never saw that wikivoyage articles ever warn against criminals indicating their race or national origin when they are white or western, so why single out Africans or Romanis? Other than this, thanks for the great article :-)

—The preceding comment was added by 87.198.57.52 (talk)

Hi, thanks for taking the time review the article and leave your comments here. You are quite right, this section did contain quite inappropriate bits, and I acted to remove the most blatant racism. Please indicate if there is anything else that needs changing.

That said, it would be brilliant, if you like Wikivoyage, if you registered and started editing yourself! There is no special requirements, and editing is really easy, everybody can do it and is encouraged to do it, that's how it works. Would be brilliant if you chose to join the community and help other travellers with even smallest edits!

Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bonsoir tlm. There have been three acts of terrorism in Paris in as many days and there could be more on the way. Admittedly, the Charlie Hebdo attack was directed at the magazine employees, but the shooting in Montrouge and the hostage situation this afternoon in Porte de Vincennes implicated seemingly random members of the public, so there is certainly an increased risk to the traveller at this time. I also know that both the French authorities and the Foreign Office of my country (the UK) are advising vigilance to those currently travelling in France and Paris in particular.

Not being sure of the procedure / threshold for the addition of a warning box (such as the one currently adorning the Ukraine page), I am asking the community if we think it is appropriate for one relating to the ongoing incident in Paris? Or would this just be a case of Captain Obvious strikes again, given the level of coverage this story is receiving in the world's media? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Unless national governments are issuing travel warnings, or travelers on the ground in Paris are reporting disruptions, I'd be opposed to warning boxes - I think Wikivoyage is at its worst when we overreact to the latest headlines instead of focusing on what is actually relevant to travelers (the attempt to add ebola warnings to our US articles was a recent example). At this time the US state department does not appear to have issued any warnings for France [1], and random violence can occur anywhere in the world, so I don't think there is any point to a warning box aside from making people aware that editors are watching the news. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Ryan, for your opinion; that's exactly what I wanted to check. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just throwing it out there. I think the sky is very dramatic, and the Louvre is a top tourist site. Has the "lights" you'd expect in the City Of, and this pic is from 2013 while the current is from 2008 (if that argument holds any water for you). Anyways, this isn't a picture of the Eiffel Tower, so it could be a no go on those grounds alone. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is not as spectacular as the current banner, in my opinion. Is there anything obviously dated about the view? Anyway, I would say some article should have this banner, but I'm not sure which, as Paris/1st arrondissement has part of the Mona Lisa. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm in favor of it, but you might get some pushback from others over copyleft issues re: the Louvre pyramid. See Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/March 2014#File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg and Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/September 2015#File:Baltimore pennstation banner.jpg and File:Baltimore pennstation banner EDITED.jpg for a similar case. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Eh, not a big loss. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Let's discuss this edit. I think the resulting wall of text for each super-arrondissement is user-unfriendly. Also, it's not the South Seine or North Seine but the Right Bank and Left Bank, and I don't think of a neighborhood like Montmartre as on a bank at all, as it's hilly and well beyond the Seine. Perhaps it would be best simply to revert; what do you think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agree about the wall of text. I was hoping it might inspire some editing! The current map is better than the old one (I think, but who knows), and I didn't put any of the made up "cluster names" onto the map, so someone with more knowledge than me could hopefully help out there. FWIW, the way it was before was also unhelpful. Just a list of stuff in each arr. with no context as to why it's important or cool.

I'm fine reverting too, but I think we could do a lot better with this article, especially since Paris is so evergreen. The lead in particular needs help along with the district sections. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

In theory, I don't mind arrondissement clustering, but in practice, I think it would be difficult, and not only because we'd have trouble agreeing on names for the clusters but also in large part because the primary division of Paris into arrondisements is so ingrained in Paris. But please tweak the descriptions of each arrondissement in whichever way the spirit moves you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Totally agree with all the issues you present. I've made another minor update using some suggestions further up the talk page. I also tried to make the names of the "clusters" super generic (since they're made up anyway) so readers can infer the arrondissements are the real stars here. Trying to keep edits to a minimum to make it easier to roll back. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I still really dislike the format. Not only is there a user-unfriendly wall of text in the description of each super-arrondissement, but if you don't read carefully, it looks like "Central Paris" is the 1e, "Left Bank" is 5e, etc. - in other words, whatever arrondissement happens to be first in the description gets overemphasized. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I was hoping someone with greater knowledge than me would come along to distill the "greatest hits" from each "cluster". When I visited as a tourist, I found trying to parse 20 districts to be initially overwhelming. It could be nice to start out general and get more specific from there, but perhaps this idea is barking up the wrong tree entirely. Maybe roll it back? I have no problem with that. Thanks Ikan! --ButteBag (talk) 03:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikivoyage_talk:Non-compliant_redistribution#Tourist_Inspiration for details, but in short there is content on several, if not all, of the arrondissement articles that has been republished elsewhere without observing the terms of our CC Licence. Your input on what we should do next is requested on the talk page of Wikivoyage:Non-compliant redistribution. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I suggest in the aim of being as current with times as we can to replace this over a decade old map with this moderately younger map. Unfortunately, the current French government seems to be not interested in slashing rail travel times further, but let's not get side-tracked here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The most obvious advantage of the older map is it transcends France's borders to cover much of western Europe. Most people reading this article don't live in France and comparatively few international visitors are going to be coming to Paris from somewhere else within the country's borders. More often, people enter the country via one of Paris' airports or rail / coach terminals, and then travel to their regional destination.

Plus, the new map's meaning is very unclear without reading the legend (which would be on a completely different page to Paris#Get in so far down that you can't read it without scrolling past the map entirely), and then you have to read a whole paragraph in order to understand what you're looking at. By contrast, the existing map needs no key because it's colourful and simple to instantly grasp.

Not only that, but there are no city names on the new map, leaving anyone who isn't intimately familiar with France's geography needing to look elsewhere to check which indistinguishable blob is the city they need to navigate from / to. Oh, and the limited written information (all irrelevant to the map's purpose, of course) is all in French. Bloody marvellous!

Overall, the new map is severely deficient for the needs of our readership, who are predominantly English-speaking travellers whom we must assume don't know France well if at all and are not expert cartographers. For these reasons and more, I would oppose its insertion into this article. Is the current one actually outdated in the information it presents? If so, we should look at getting it updated in its current form or something similar, rather than replacing it with this useless monstrosity. If not, I counsel against change for change's sake. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Several new HSLs have opened since ca. 2005. The two phases of LGV Est, cutting travel time to Strasbourg under 3 hours, the new Madrid Barcelona line, the Barcelona Perpignan line, something in the Southwest of France, too and there are still plans (though some of them killed by Macron [shakes fist angrily]) to better integrate the international connections into the HSL network. wikipedia for reference. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Another example of outdated information on the map...fails to include the addition (last year?) of 6.5 hour TGV service between Paris and Barcelona...from/to Gare de Lyon. Also, departures/arrivals from it are not reflected in the list of places it serves. This observation stems not from personal experience, but by reading [2], with intent to use that TGV. Hope this proves useful. Hennejohn (talk) 20:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

If Notre Dame were the only reason, or even the principal reason, for going to Paris, it might make sense to let people know at the top of the article that it had burned. By Notre Dame isn't even the only or principal reason to to go to the 4me arrondissement. Paris has art galleries, museums, architecture, restaurants, and shopping that rank among the best in the world. And there's the Eiffel Tower, and that cemetery that people seem to like. Festivals, cafes, beautiful parks, the list just goes on and on and on and on. Notre Dame is just one of the amazing things to see in Paris. We mention the fire in its listing, and don't need to put a second caution box, in addition to the one about the on-going yellow best protests that could actually disrupt a traveller's plans. It is just de trop. Ground Zero (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I take your point, but aren't you going too far the other way, at least in your rhetoric? What is the principal reason for going to the 4th, if not to visit Notre Dame? I'm looking at Paris/4th arrondissement#See, and there just isn't anything that remotely stacks up to it. The Centre Pompidou has some great classic modernist holdings, but I can't believe it's more of a draw than Notre Dame. So what else? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The atmosphere of the 4me is amazing. I stayed at an Airbnb's there for ten days a number of years ago. Place des Vosges is sublime. The Pompidou is great. ND is definitely a highlight, but I think would be a mistake to put a caution box about one site at the top of an article, especially when there is so much more on offer. Ground Zero (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

What purpose does a caution box serve in this case? This cultural tragedy is all over the news, so any traveller going to Paris with even a remote interest in Notre-Dame will know what has happened. By contrast, the Gilets Jaunes protests are far more complex and most travellers will not have a particularly sound understanding of what's going on with them. Besides, caution boxes are not there to report significant current events, they exist to let travellers know about non-life-threatening threats to safety or travel plans. Of course it is likely that the public won't be able to visit the vicinity of the cathedral for the foreseeable future, but other than that, there are no restrictions on where in Paris the traveller can go - from what I can see, not even the Cité Metro station is closed.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I would restore some of the details removed in this edit. For example:

Paris Le Bourget Airport (LBG ^IATA) is a 24 hour airport dedicated to private jets and business aviation, as well as military and government flights. 11 km northeast of Paris, Le Bourget has been the busiest executive airport in Europe since 2007. As result, there are three runways to accommodate planes, and seven private terminals for fast and discrete travel. Companies like Air Charter Advisors and Priority Jet offer access to a variety of aircraft rentals based at Le Bourget and around the world, ranging from economical single and twin engine props, to luxury Gulfstreams and business jets.

became

Paris Le Bourget Airport (LBG ^IATA) is a 24-hour airport for private jets and business aviation 11 km northeast of Paris. Companies like Air Charter Advisors and Priority Jet offer access to a variety of aircraft rentals based at Le Bourget.

I would suggest:

Paris Le Bourget Airport (LBG ^IATA) is a 24-hour airport for private jets and business aviation; it's 11 km northeast of Paris. With 3 runways and 7 private terminals, Le Bourget is the busiest executive airport in Europe. Companies like Air Charter Advisors and Priority Jet offer access to a variety of aircraft rentals based at Le Bourget, ranging from economical single and twin engine props to luxury Gulfstreams and business jets.

I also want to push back against this part of the edit summary a little: "private aviation will be of interest to only a few readers, so let's keep it brief":

(a) It's already brief. (b) Wikivoyage should cover private aviation in any way that's reasonably useful to this particular type of voyager. (c) We risk chasing away a valuable contributor. See User talk:ReadyJetGo#Atlantic City article for more on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've made a couple minor adjustments to the final suggestion ("11 km northeast of Paris" was stated twice), and I think it's the best choice. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

piggy-backing on this topic to ask another question regarding aviation - for pages like Augusta, GA with airport details pulled from Wikipedia, should I leave all of the wiki data being populated, or replace it with unique content? ReadyJetGo (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

If all the detail from Wikipedia is relevant, it's OK to copy it, providing that you credit your source in your edit summary. Credit is required per Wikipedia's Creative Commons Copyleft and Wikivoyage's Wikivoyage:Copyleft policy. I would suggest crediting your source in an edit summary even if you summarize or do a broad paraphrase. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is in the article about Paris. Come on. Paris is one of the great destinations of the world! The article is going to be one of the longest we have, because there's so much to see and do in Paris. Do we really have room to go into detail about private and business aviation? What percentage of readers going Paris will arrive by private plane? Is it less that 0.1%? Or is it less than 0.01%? I am not suggesting deleting it altogether, but the number of terminals and the number of runways and the services provided by companies based there risks boring the hugely vast proportion of readers who will never, ever travel by private or business planes. Let's keep it short enough to scroll past quickly for almost everybody who ever reads this article. Ground Zero (talk) 21:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's OK not to include those details here, but only if they can be included in the article for Le Bourget. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ikan Kekek, they are included in that article. Ground Zero (talk) 04:00, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Le Bourget definitely deserves its own article; I enjoyed researching for its one paragraph on Aviation history, and will happily contribute on the construction of a full article. Ibaman (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • I have started the Le Bourget article. Thanks to User: SelfieCity for the banner and temporal anomaly correction. Further contributions would be welcome. Ground Zero (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The map added by User:GNUtoo showing live protests and other incidents in Paris will probably be reverted by someone due to it falling foul of our external links policy. But I think might be useful for travellers in this one-off case. Non-Francophones can't find about protests by following local news or keeping track of the Préfecture de Police's Twitter feed, but most people can read a map.

What does anyone else think? It would be useful if GNUtoo could tell us a bit more about the service, if (s)he has used it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I agree. Tell us about that, and maybe we can make an exception from the guidelines for it if it's really useful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't know who is behind the map. It looks like a map made by and for protesters. It seems to be accurate as it's usually updated at the time where the protests take place, at places where they do take place. As the executive government is doing everything it can to crush down the protests by every mean possible, the protests are at least some of the times not legally declared. The various police forces are also used to fight against protests, blocking some roads, etc. Both makes it hard to predict in advance where the protests take place, especially because protests can move. It's also very hard to predict how violent they can be, as people in the protests could be surrounded by the police at any time and prevented to leave, while receiving tear gas. The individual police units are at least in some cases, not aware that they are preventing protesters to leave as there are only aware of the order given to them precisely and do not always have a complete view of the situation. That kind of situation also happened the first of may, which was typically a peaceful protest. GNUtoo (talk) 08:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

There shouldn't be any in a huge city article, to my understanding. Should we put a "movetocity" template on the article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

If you put a template there, you might as well just move it... --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

I lack the easy setup to do so while I'm on my iPhone, but let's at least have an agreement about what the policy is. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oh, still? That's terrible. I still think just putting a template up is counterproductive, so I can just move them into arrondissement articles when I'm next on my laptop. Presumably we're talking about the listings being added by User:ParisYank? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

And some preexisting ones. I am back in my apartment and do have some access to my computer now, but I was visiting relatives yesterday without my laptop. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Certainly I am a nooB so thank you for your interest in my recent entries. My biggest question is the philosophy of city v districts. I understand the point of separating a city because of the length of the article. From a visitors point of view, they would be forced to look in 20 districts in Paris for one activity, e.g., photography. Is there a reference or something I can read about separation of city v districts? ParisYank (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

First, no they wouldn't, because if these are really highlights of sights in Paris (and that's a very high bar), they can be summarized in Paris#See, with a link to the relevant district where their full listing is provided. To answer your question, please have a look at Wikivoyage:Huge city article template and Wikivoyage:District article template. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's ugly and is taking up space it shouldn't be taking up. The few numbered points on the dynamic map that aren't yet on the static map should be added to the static map, and then the dynamic map should be removed. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I haven't changed my mind about this. I have a good mind to try removing it if nothing's happened by the next time I come here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Agreed.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I removed this from the article; all of these protests have stopped and would be against the law during the pandemic. As they are liable to resume once normality ensues, I'll leave it here for reference:

--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• LouvreParis.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I notice that Paris#Stay safe in English is much, much, much longer than voy:fr::Paris#Sécurité. I think, too, that some of our content is very much out of date. The sentence about "unrest" making global headlines likely refers to events of almost 20 years ago. I wonder whether some of our French-speaking colleagues such as Omondi or Huguespotter could help us figure out what's real and what's history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

So i think that a first problem is that voy:fr::Paris#Sécurité is too small and not Paris#Stay safe that is too big. I think that Omondi and I are both belgian. So even if I have already go to Paris as a tourist, I am not a specialist of that city and so I am not sure I can say what is true and what is not in Paris#Stay safe. --Huguespotter (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's been a really long time since I've been to metropolitan France, but I can certainly confirm that most of what's in § Crime is true. The only thing I cannot confirm is the "Danger for identifiably Jewish people" section, only because I was never concerned about it but I'm not the best person to comment since it's been a really long time since I've been to Paris (or metro-France for that matter). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's also a long time, I didn't go to Paris (2016). You can have some informations about "Stay safety in Paris" on Embassies web site:

• Australia
• Belgium: "Petty crime is particularly high in the Paris region", "Always keep your identity card or passport with you but leave your valuables in the hotel safe".
• Canada
• United Kingdom
• USA: unfortunately they only have a link to the Paris Police Prefecture which is the most exhaustive but only in French, I'm sure "Google translator" is already behind the corner

--Omondi (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply