Talk:Paris

The pronunciation should be : /pa.ˈʁi/.

If English really use the French pronounciation, it should be. But I'm afraid, most English are unable to pronounce /ʁ/ bacause it does not exist in their language (not even in mine so neither can I though I learn French. Si les anglais utilisent la prononciation française, c'est ça. Mais ils ne peuvent pas prononser le /ʁ/ parce qu'il n'y a pas ce son en anglais (je apprends français mais je ne peux pas prononser aussi. C'est la vie :) ). Ferike333 18:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Paris
18 subsenses of "Any place named after the French city.". --Yair rand (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Boo, hiss. I will get so many points for the WT:FUN with these. --Downunder 11:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we have notability criteria for toponyms? Do we have other semantic criteria for the senses of toponyms? If not, move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 12:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * However, cf. Neustadt which has the same issue. -- Prince Kassad 16:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's completely different: my father grew up near one of them. DCDuring TALK 17:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, they are different senses of the word, not subsenses. It's normal that a word sometimes gets new senses, and each sense deserves a new line. These senses are not related at all, except etymologically, and the number of these senses is limited. It's not like John: each John is not a different sense of John (considered as a word). Toponyms are not chosen among a list of available toponyms, they are coined for each place, and sometimes borrowed from another place (with or without a New). Lmaltier 20:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's logically true, but common sense says that we should draw a line somewhere. Some place names are very common. A dictionary is concerned about the word, not about why it was chosen in each case (like why each parent called their son John). There are 199 lakes in Finland named Saarijärvi. If the places are listed in the Wikipedia, a link to the Wikipedia disambiguation page should be enough. At least the list of places should be hidden. See also Shemaiah, I'd remove the list if it would appear in the Wikipedia.--Makaokalani 15:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't we hid all encyclopedic content on dab or other pages at Wikipedia? DCDuring TALK 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Only minimal information about the place in question should be given. If the name is shared by several places, some of the places bearing the name can have a dedicated sense line, while other ones can be covered under a summary sense line such as "Any of a number of cities in Anglophone countries"." - WT:CFI. --Yair rand (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is where I disagree. This is a notoriety criterion. Such a criterion is required for Wikipedia, but not here, it's not a linguistic criterion at all. I agree that all encyclopedic content should be only for Wikipedia: here, the sense lines should only provide a short definition (such as Town of Texas). But linguistic information, such as gentilics and derived words, should be provided for each sense (i.e. for each town named Paris). Lmaltier 18:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we have to go farther than LMaltier says for polysemic proper names. The problem of favoring one particular sense based on a contributor's typically fact-free assessment of the "important" or "most common" meaning of a proper noun arises on almost every occasion. As a rule of thumb any content of a proper noun more than a single reference to a WP page, preferably a dab page if one exists, would seem suspect based on its likely encyclopedic content. The principal qualification would seem to be that truly distinct etymologies and PoSes might each require such a WP-linked sense line. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why likely encyclopedic content? No more than for cat, only a definition has to be provided. Each line should gets its sense, like other words: the etymology may be different, but also pronunciations, demonyms, derived words, etc. Again, senses are very different: inhabitants of Paris, Texas, don't feel that they live at Paris, France, no, these towns are only etymologically related. And, of course, each town should get its own Wikipedia link. Lmaltier 20:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If they have any differences at all in etymology, pronunciation, derived words, etc., then they are linguistically different and each that is different should have its own sense. If they are identical, then additional senses are no longer describing the language, they are giving encyclopedic content. Explaining that Paris is a place name that is pronounced a certain way is giving dictionary material, information about language. When all that's being done is explaining that it not only refers to a place in France, a place in Arkansas, and a place in Illinois but also a place in Idaho, that is encyclopedic content. --Yair rand (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no more than the different definitions of cat. What difference do you see? In a dictionary, the etymology is important, but the sense too. Lmaltier 21:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I very strongly want to delete these, and have done so for similar toponyms in the past, but it's unclear if the current criteria, whether I agreed with that vote or not, allows it. DAVilla 21:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See the portion of the CFI quoted by Yair above. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 07:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's very clear. Now deleted. Sorry, guys. DAVilla 06:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)