Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Cities (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 


Contents

Welcome sign[edit]

I took a picture of a sign when driving into Mount Morris that reads "Welcome to Mount Morris NY - Home of Pledge of Allegiance - Founded 1794". - Indeed on this page it shows "Francis Bellamy, author of the Pledge of Allegiance was born there."

Would this be something we would add to this page? And if so what is the next step? Upload it somewhere and update this with the link? I have a full version (8MP). JHolicky (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Realized after I wasn't posting to the actual link. I need to spend more time and review the WikiProject Cities concept. JHolicky (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Message left on Jholicky's talkpage. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Geography / History ordering[edit]

Having worked on a fair number of city and settlement articles over the 8 years I've been a Wikipedian, I have come to wonder why we recommend that the History section precedes the Geography section. Clearly (physical) geography is often a heavy influence on the history of a place and, as a consequence I find myself having to write about the geography of a place in the history section, in order to explain the history, or putting in clumsy and hard to read forward references.

Changing the order of these two sections would remove this need, or enable a much briefer description referring back to the description in the preceding section. As physical geography is rarely dependent on history, this would not introduce the opposite problem. Obviously that isn't true for other branches of geography, but generally WP covers these in other sections (demographics, economy, transport, etc).

So would it be a good idea to change the recommendation to have geography first?. Obviously this would leave us with lots of articles in the old order, but I don't see that as a huge problem. They could be left to gradually change as they are worked on, or even to stay as they are. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

(Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC))

Having history first is more logical, though people do not need to either read or write the article in the section order, and are free to move around the sections. Very few people actually read an article from top to bottom anyway. Most readers read just the lead, then the next highest group read the lead and one or more sections, depending on what they are interested in. Having History as the first section is an established listing that experienced readers will be familiar with in a variety of article topics: companies - BAE Systems; art - The Four Stages of Cruelty; architecture - Michigan State Capitol; schools - The Avery Coonley School; etc. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Generally, while history and geography are linked, it will vary in degreee from place to place. If Geography has a really significant role in the history, than it makes sense to explain those two things together. Thus, one could just somewhat shorten the subsequent "geography" section, where alot of pertinent geo-historical facts have already been covered in history. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with Chris Wood that I also like to see geography ahead of history. But it appears that we can decide this on a case-by-case basis, so it seems that the section order is not written in stone. -- P 1 9 9   18:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for input for move suggestion @ Prypiat[edit]

I've started a RfM on a page under this WikiProject.

Briefly: The suggestion is to move Prypiat -> Pripyat. The town in the Chernobyl Exlcusion Zone is much more predominantly known as with the Pripyat spelling.

I would just move this myself, but the has come up before, and there's a small amount of back-and-forth editing on the age, so I thought an RfM best.

Input very welcome. Discussion here: Talk:Prypiat#RFM to Pripyat (with better justification & references) --Cooper42(Talk)(Contr) 03:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Castle town[edit]

FYI, talk:Castle town has a discussion on what the coverage of this article should be. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

2000 U.S. Census data[edit]

Has a consensus been established for policy regarding outdated census numbers in city articles? For example, most U.S. city articles which have been updated with the 2010 demographic information replace/remove the 2000 numbers. However, some articles keep both sets of numbers, and attempts to remove the 2000 Census info after the article is updated with 2010 demographics are reverted.--Chimino (talk) 09:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where it has been discussed before, but I run a bot that updates pages and I was informed during the application process to run it that putting the 2000 census data into a subsection was desired over deleting it. At first I thought it was kind of pointless, but I've warmed up to the idea, especially for the huge number of pages that have virtually nothing in them but auto generated content. It allows users to compare the data over two censuses and see any trends that might be occurring.Jamo2008 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it seems pointless to me too, and a bit clunky, but it does make sense for the pages which have no other content (usually small towns/unincorporated communities).--Chimino (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I know that this is an old discussion, but I agree of the benefit of retaining 2000 Census data. Even in articles with additional content, the 2000 data provides the ability to compare, contrast and identify changes in relevant data, as Jamo2008 noted above. As I see it, the articles are better off with the data than without it, and keeping two census years worth of data on a rolling basis seems to make sense. Alansohn (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

FA review for Detroit[edit]

All's in the title : Wikipedia:Featured article review/Detroit/archive1. Thanks for your attention, Esprit Fugace (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Category:FA-Class_WikiProject_Cities_articles_all_leave_out_basic_information.[edit]

I'm sorry, I think that every FA-class city article I've looked at leaves out basic information that would make me oppose them at GA, let alone FA. I've raised the subject for review. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Black Rock, Buffalo, New York[edit]

There is currently a discussion taking place at the above page which may be of interest to members of this project. Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Percent of households with kids[edit]

As I've been updating US places to the 2010 census data I've been seeing a lot of confusion about which value should be used for the standard boilerplate sentence "There were X households out of which Y% had children under the age of 18 living with them", and in turn this is making me confused about which value I should be using. When you look at the data the census provides there is a entry called "With own children under 18 years" which is the value some people are using and then there is a entry called "Households with individuals under 18 years" that other people are using. These two numbers are only the same for places with a very small population. I believe the difference is that the second value accounts for situations similar to a grandparent raising their grandchild or people who do foster care, and the first value is the % of households with a parent raising their kids. I originally used the first value, but have since switched to the second one and changed the old pages I had edited to the second value as well. I feel that the sentence implies all households so it shouldn't just be the percentage of family households with kids, but am I mistaken is believing this and using that value? As I said before I've seen other editors using both values so is there a standard on which one is correct? Jamo2008 (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is an example for both cases, I did not write the 2010 census section for either one of these pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farmingdale,_Maine&oldid=530922121 This is an older version, I changed the value this morning and it was after doing that I started to worry that I could be wrong about which value I was using, but as you can see it uses the 28.8%, which is the value for "With own children under 18 years".
Corvallis, Oregon uses the "Households with individuals under 18 years" value. Jamo2008 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Error correction re: Calcium, NY article[edit]

In the Demographics section, the first line in the last paragraph (concerning median family income) reads, "...median income for a family is 3 cows, 7 goats and 29 sheep."

I edited this page last night, and the bot kicked it out. I protested the bot's choice but it seems to want the upper hand! Any chance a human on your staff could rewrite that line to help raise the article's credibility?

Thanks!

97.89.62.71 (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Mark Mattoon, 01/08/2013

PS. Please understand that I love Wikipedia!

I reverted the vandalism. In the future, you should revert vandalism rather than commenting about it in the body of the article. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 22:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Boston FAR[edit]

I have nominated Boston for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ELEKHHT 13:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Financial capital of the world[edit]

There is a discussion on whether any city should be described as the 'financial capital of the world' at Talk:World_financial_capital. Because of a limited number of editors, we are struggling to come to a consensus about anything, so we would warmly welcome and encourage any editors from this project to take part. Regards, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Said discussion is on a talk page with no actual article page attached to it. I'm not really sure exactly what the debate is about? The Earth has no official "financial capital". Anyone referring to a financial capital is just media tossing around some arbitrary, self-designated title, in the same way that the Weather Channel arbitrarily decided to call the latest snowstorm "Nemo". London and New York could probably both call themselves the "financial capital of the world" in a huge, high stakes, dick waving contest, but the rest of the world doesn't really care. Maybe the Chinese do, though, because Shanghai is moving up, and Hong Kong is pretty established, too. Perhaps a better solution is to forego assigning a title like "THE Financial Capital of the World" and designate something like "global financial centers", which would allow more than one city to fit the designation. WTF? (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
In the discussion there I only see talk about whether New York or London would be the capital (or both). To me it is not clear what it would add in addition to the article Financial centre, which is an overview of several rankings. I could see it being a worthwhile addition if there was a historic overview as well, which would mean that there would not be a choice of only one city to list there. CRwikiCA (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
If the dispute is over "financial centre", then I say that London can be the capital of improperly-spelled "financial centres", and New York can be the capital of properly-spelled "financial centers". =) WTF? (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
And, of course Financial centres is a rather useless overlap with Global Cities. Ah, well. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

City squares[edit]

Hi, can someone advise whether there is an infobox template appropriate to use with a city square? Shahbagh Square currently uses Infobox Civil Conflict, which is not appropriate for the page about the place. Thanks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Russia by population[edit]

This is a courtesy note to inform the participants of this WikiProject of a discussion currently taking place at Talk:List of cities and towns in Russia by population. A suggestion has been made to remove the entities with the population of fewer than 100,000 from the list and to rename the article. Additionally, it was proposed to replace the reference (currently the official Census results) with an English-language list hosted on the http://citypopulation.de website (a discussion thread regarding the merits of that source is open at WP:RS/N#City Population). Additional input would be welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 11, 2013; 16:14 (UTC)

Peer review of Giffnock[edit]

Hello WP:Cities.

I've recently submitted a settlement article I've been working on for a peer review: Giffnock. If any of you are able to take a glance over it and point out some areas for improvement I'd greatly appreciate it. Cheers, Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 17:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Residents section instead of References[edit]

In New Vineyard, Maine the footnote section was called "Residents", so I fixed it following Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Standard appendices and footers. Later I noticed that there are several cities with the footnote section called "Residents": can I fix them? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 09:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Go ahead, in these cases it clearly is an error that should be fixed. CRwikiCA (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dutch municipalities[edit]

The WikiProject Dutch municipalities is active again. CRwikiCA (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

US largest city templates up for deletion[edit]

{{Largest cities and metro areas of the United States}} & {{Largest cities of the United States}} & {{Largest cities of California}} have been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

{{Largest cities of New Hampshire}} has also been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
And tens more have shown up at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 April 13 -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Your attention is called to this section, Use Mapping L.A. as reliable source?, which could use your expert input. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding that one of Celoron de Blainville's lead plates (claiming the area for France) was found in Celoron, NY; hence the name of the village. If this is true, this should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrstewart (talkcontribs) 17:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comment; Istanbul's history and the city infobox[edit]

Should Istanbul's pre-Byzantine history be mentioned in the city's infobox? Newer research shows that Istanbul's historic peninsula had been inhabited longer than previously thought (newspaper article: [1]; abstract of the journal article [2]). Government of Istanbul also says the city is older than what the current infobox states [3]. Basically, should this change be made in the article [4]? Some editors are opposing this change, based on tertiary sources such as encyclopedias, [5] which predate newer research. Note that no one is suggesting removing anything from the current infobox, just adding more information for a more complete portrayal of city's history.
See: Talk:Istanbul#RFC Cavann (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Article about Iquitos to be expanded[edit]

The article about Iquitos on Wikipedia in English could be expanded with data of Iquitos in Wikipedia in Spanish. The article in Spanish has been expanded with a lot of information and could be translated to be put in the article in English. I was adding information for some time, but I realized that it would need help to nourish the article about the city, including its sub-articles. I placed a maintenance template above the lead stating that the article requires translation from Spanish. --Percy Meza (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Largest cities of the United Kingdom[edit]

{{Largest cities of the United Kingdom}} has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Cervinara-Stemma.png[edit]

File:Cervinara-Stemma.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Updating of maps with newer data[edit]

I am here to inform you of this discussion regarding Arkyan's 2007 maps of US cities. That will be all.  — TORTOISEWRATH 01:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's so nice to talk on the talk page !!Good communication !! But speaking and listening are better ways to communicate !!!! Don't you think so ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.126.194 (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Colour of weatherboxes[edit]

There is a discussion and a vote happening at the weatherbox to determine which colours should be used. Since different cities use the template with different colours (green or blue), there should be a discussion on it in order to reach a consensus, given that this template is widely used in almost all major city articles. There should be more opinions from other users in order to reach a consensus. Ssbbplayer (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from WikiProject Cities editors could be helpful in resolving this dispute and achieving consensus on this issue. Ssbbplayer (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of the daily mean in the Climate section weather box table[edit]

I have posted a request for comment on the Dodge City, Kansas article talk page: Talk:Dodge_City,_Kansas#Inclusion_of_the_daily_mean_in_the_Climate_section_weather_box_table. User:Guerrilla of the Renmin and I are in dispute over whether or not:

  • Daily Mean data should be included in the weather box table on U.S. city articles;
  • average temperature data available from National Weather Service websites is valid for populating the Daily Mean section of the table.

Comments from WikiProject Cities editors could be helpful in resolving this dispute and achieving consensus on this issue. FUBAR007 (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem lead RfC[edit]

There is currently a request for comments open about the lead section of the Jerusalem article, and all editors are welcome to give their opinions. The dispute over the lead section is one of the oldest on Wikipedia, dating back to 2003, and focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result will be binding for three years. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and will be open until 22 June 2013 (UTC). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Are all settlements called city ?[edit]

In the scope it reads; "Cities" include municipalities and other civil divisions, including cities, towns, villages, hamlets, townships, unincorporated communities, sections of municipalities, and neighborhoods. Well this is something which I find hard to grasp. How can we see the names of NY City and a small hamlet in the very same list ? There must a be a lower limit of the concept of city and those settlements which fail to satisfy this creteria should be eliminated. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference in the word city itself and the scope of this WikiProject. It might be better if this gets clarified and the scope is changed to: "This WikiProject aims primarily to provide information and a consistent format for cities of the world. For this WikiProject this includes municipalities and other civil divisions, including cities, towns, villages, hamlets, townships, unincorporated communities, sections of municipalities, and neighborhoods. " With the text change in italics. Maybe the name of the WikiProject is not perfect, but I do think it is fine to have the large scope. CRwikiCA talk 19:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
The term "City" is not easily defined. Even within a single country, each region may be different. For instance, all incorporated communities in North Dakota are called cities. In Massachusetts cities and towns are distinguished by the type of governance. In England cities are any settlements with a royal charter. This project is just a way to focus editors and get them to unify page presentation. What lower limit do you suggest and why should it have a different page layout? --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not a member of this project and I don't suggest any specific lower limit. But a population limit may be useful. (Like a city is settlement with a population of at least 100 000) Another limit may be municipality. In any case the present scope seems to be too wide. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
My favourite "city" is Soldier, Kansas, population 136. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Nedim, you've been around Wikipedia long enough to know we don't just pick a number out of thin air. Unless you have some source that actually demonstrates a widely accepted distinction between city and municipality, I don't know what you are asking of us. I have been working with the city project for a long time and have never seen such a source. Additionally, I don't see that you have made any argument as to why the scope is too big other than you "find it hard to grasp". The link I provided above to the city page discuses the very issue of non-specificity of the term. I personally find the scope fine in that every article page that fits in that list should have the same page format and be guided by the same Wikiproject. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have been around WP long enough to observe the articles about the settlements. Please use the random article button. You'll see that about 10 % of the articles are about the so-called populated places. That makes 400000 articles. Supposing all are tagged for the project, wouldn't it be a bit too much ? I repeat, I am not a member of this project and I only want to be helpful. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
It is a big number of articles, but if the goal is to have a consistent lay-out, why would that be a problem? Of course it is not feasible for one or even a couple of editors to check over all articles in the WikiProject. It does however also provide guidance to people working on specific regional articles, which would be a more manageable subset of articles. CRwikiCA talk 13:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
This issue is not unique to this Wikiproject. WikiProject Biography has even more articles under its subset and will likley grow at a faster pace than this subset. I appreciate your feedback and agree that the issue of management needs to be considered. But as CRwikiCA points out, divesting different populated places into different wikiprojecst won't increase the number of editors managing these articles. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Paris#RfC[edit]

WikiProject members may be interesting in commenting on this issue.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

US Counties[edit]

Are US Counties within the scope of this project? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

No. A county is not the same thing as a city. As there are already an overwhelmingly large amount of cities, large and small, in this project, including counties would be a clusterf**k of epic proportions. I would recommend against their inclusion. WTF? (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a separate project for counties: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties Omnedon (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
That's what I thought, I'll carafy Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/U.S. municipality notes. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sister cities[edit]

I would like to formally propose that the Sister cities section be removed from guidelines for city and settlement articles. Unfortunately, a good number of major city articles have extensive lists of sister or partner cities (often unsourced), with no indication of what makes them important. The sister city and partner city designation is already largely meaningless for many municipalities, and if nothing more can be said than "These are a list of this city's sister cities and partners:", they should not be included directly in the article. Without any suggestion of actual notable cooperation with sister cities, the section provides no information that helps readers understand the city better and clutters the article. So, instead I suggest the article have a link in the See also section to the relevant List of sister cities of X article (where X is the city itself or the state, country, or continent where the city is located). -- tariqabjotu 15:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

While you might make some good argument about the meaningless of a relationship between some single sister city pairings, trying to argue that the entire Twin towns and sister cities program is meaningless and thus deserving of a centralized call to removal all listings will not likely happen in my opinion. There are too many municipalities where the relationship is well established and plays some role in the character of that place. If you were by chance able to convince a few editors here and then go and try to implement it, you will get a lot of blow back from editors who actually edit these cities. That would not be consensus. Just my two cents. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
One possibility would be to create a "List of" page for all sister city relationships. That might be a way to organizing removal from the city pages. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
As I said, there are cities where sister city relationships have meaning and more can be said about them. An example I can think of is Paris and Rome (although, interestingly, the former does not mention the partnership). But there seems to be an understanding that these lists are a standard part of articles and should be included. Note, for example, the response I received when I removed these sister cities from the Rio de Janeiro article: such a list was reinstated for no other reason than virtually every city article on Wikipedia has this section. I don't know how to change such a pervasive culture, but I believe modifying Wikiproject guidelines to emphasize something more than "here is a list of cities" needs to be said about a city's partnerships to warrant inclusion within the article. Alternatively, or additionally, it should be emphasized that this should be placed somewhere else in the article in a prose format.
The list articles you speak of seem to already exist, often on national and continental levels (e.g. List of twin towns and sister cities in Argentina or List of twin towns and sister cities in South America), so that framework seems to already exist. I don't think what I'm suggesting here is particularly novel; bulleted lists are already discouraged in articles. -- tariqabjotu 02:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Hm, if the list already exists, than why not just move the mention in the city article to the "See also" section. There is a policy somewhere about having repetition of lists. I can dig for that if need be. It would be similar to "List of people from" pages, in that you shouldn't replicate the list on the city page if it exists as a separate list page. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
That's actually what I did. But the reversion was understandable, because sister cities are in city article guidelines and many (most?) articles slavishly include them without any context. I'm not going to go around Wikipedia removing sister cities on articles in a bot-like fashion; I just want some indication that this is not an essential part of a city article, the impression our articles and guidelines currently give. -- tariqabjotu 14:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
It seems that a widespread consensus did develop that noting such international relationships is a standard part of such articles. So, why should that consensus change? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, for one, I see no evidence such widespread consensus ever existed. This is just a practice that has become commonplace on city articles for no apparent reason, and the guidelines were initially written to reflect that. Thankfully, of the city article guidelines provided here, the U.S. and the Japanese guidelines are the only ones that have the sections. Some of the other guidelines seem to include it, but they make it clearer that it's not particularly important. For the U.S. guideline (which seems to be the best-written, and off which other guidelines are based), there was a brief discussion about this matter in 2008, after which the guideline was rephrased slightly to suggest the listing was optional (although, as noted there, the rewording is a bit ambiguous).
That being said, with the lack of any strong consensus either way or any serious discussion about this matter, I think it is more than appropriate to at least raise the point. As I said, yes, there are some cities for which their partnerships say something about the city, and that's fine. But there are many where they do not, and this is a simple, small step we can take to changing the culture that perpetuates these lists, without cause, in city articles. Note that the "Notable residents" sections seem to have organically fallen out of favor in city articles (despite still being in guidelines, interestingly), likely because they were also lists that didn't reveal much about the city (although they were probably even less useful and even longer). -- tariqabjotu 16:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I thought the last problem was with the use of flag icons not the sister city/twin town sections. The logic behind twinning arrangements is not so clear, but one might privately guess why a historic spa town is paired with other historic spa towns or a why a port is twinned with other ports. There are often regular events connected with twinning, so the information can occasionally be useful. I fear that centralised lists cannot be properly maintained, which is why it is a good idea to have both the lists and the separate entries in the article (as a check). Mathsci (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Multiple editors over multiple articles and project pages, over multiple years have evidenced the consensus. These city authorities make these international agreements for a reason, (including trade, commerce, culture, academic exchange, etc.) relating to their own city and nation, so it seems logical to note them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
For the United States see article and links at Sister Cities International. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Ugh. Alan, you are doing your darndest to show how fruitless even raising a simple point is. You seem content repeating that a mythical consensus was developed, with no indication where and when that was achieved. And your suggestion that it was achieved by "multiple editors over multiple articles and project pages, over multiple years" is a blatant excuse for not addressing the point.
I pointed you to a discussion, however brief, where there was agreement to at least lessen the importance of sister cities in a guideline. And some of the other city guidelines have omitted the section altogether, although not necessarily intentionally. So, there certainly isn't a consensus as pervasive as the one you suggest. As far as I can see, searching through the archives of this project -- which seems to be the main one devoted to cities -- the issue of the importance of this section itself (as opposed to just tangential issues like flag icons or government sources) has rarely been discussed, with a very small handful of people objecting.
I have no doubt there are cities for whom the partnerships are important -- I too have seen cities that have erected monuments noting their partner cities. And I have no doubt that one might learn something by the cities with which they consider partners. But that information is rarely in city articles, abiding by a WP:CITY guideline (not to mention a culture) that says sister cities may simply be listed in alphabetical order. So look at Haifa#Twin towns - sister cities, for example. From that list, and the seven words that preface them, what do you learn about Haifa's partnership with Portsmouth? Can you surmise why this partnership exists? Would you guess it's because the Israeli Navy performed exercises in and around the city? No, probably not, because that information is not in the article. And unfortunately, the deficiency in the Haifa article is not a one-off case; most articles, even for major, global cities, just contain a list and no other remarks that describe those other cities.
Even superficial comparisons (e.g. a port town choosing another port town) cannot be made unless that the common characteristic is actually mentioned. How is one supposed to know that Bergen is a major port city (which may or may not be the reason Seattle selected it as a port town) unless that's actually stated in the Seattle article? Background knowledge? Clicking through to the article? And what do we learn about Seattle from that again? What do we learn about the way this partnership manifests itself (if at all)?
This version of the New York City article, on the other hand, is a decent (although still far from perfect) way to provide some context. That is the direction these sections, where they exist, should go. And when nothing more useful can be said (or nothing more useful wants to be written) than Here is a list of sister cities, a link to one of the relevant list articles should be provided instead.
Now, I don't know the best way to encourage editors to write more prose on sister cities. Perhaps removing the Sister cities section altogether from city article guidelines and hoping editors on individual articles would use their best judgment as expected elsewhere would do it. Alternatively, and maybe this would be more effective, we could rewrite the Sister cities section (and add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure) to say the article needs to elaborate beyond a simple list to warrant inclusion in the main article. But to outright dismiss this query because 'it's been discussed years ago somewhere else that I refuse to point to' is not acceptable. -- tariqabjotu 22:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I am not trying my darndest to do anything. In a way you seem to be at cross purposes in that either the mention is given too much weight or it is given too little in your view, but you reject the evident status quo that it is in general just fine. The links among these cities are noted and in the appropriate place where people would look to where a city fits in the world, its article -- but it's always a balance of how much detail is enough without going overboard. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Tariqabjotu, I've come up with a compromise on the Rio de Janeiro article; a collapsible wikitable. What do you think?
Best Regards -- Marek.69 talk 01:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Sure, that looks better, but this isn't a issue about making that particular article look better; it's about changing a culture where a list of sister cities, on its own, is informative and a useful thing to include. I don't believe I have cross purposes here. If there is more to say about a city's partnerships beyond "Here is a list of them", the can be included (with that explanatory prose); otherwise, they should be omitted, relegated to a See also link. -- tariqabjotu 18:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Reaching consensus through editing is no less consensus (WP:CON#Reaching consensus through editing). And that in no way precludes us from discussion the issue and attempting to reach a new consensus. Consensus does not mean case closed.
I think the simple fact is that many of the sister city lists fail to implement the guidelines for Wp:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. Specifically, no lead, no explanation of notability, no pros explaining relationship, no citations. For similar lists like 'Lists of notable people from...', an assumption is made that these poorly developed lists are just place holders for further development. The difference with sister city lists is that there may not be anymore expansion. The pairings don't necessary serve any notable relationship. They may be nothing more than a political maneuver at a single point in time that even then was not notable.
So a question to ask: Does a sister city relations alone constitute WP:Notability?
If not, I think sister city relationships should only be mentioned in the city article if there is significant pros discussing the relationship. Otherwise, a "See also" link to the separate List of...page should suffice. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You are likely correct about the why for of the placeholder. But notability is not required for the inclusion of info in a notable topic (ie., the article topic needs to be WP:notable, but not every sentence), although verifiability is required (for example, for these article sections, it would be fine to cite what some may want to argue over are "primary sources"). There is an assumption that guidelines will be read together but if the concern is that they are not, then a simple pointer to the other guideline would be fine. We also need to avoid being too proscriptive in guideline writing so that normal article development and content creation is not short-circuited and distracted from by arguments over mere form. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
True enough. I guess I was looking at the issue a bit differently. I was thinking of these lists as a separate consideration for each city and that those lists without mention of relevance were no more than WP:Trivia. In that, if they are simply listed with no mention as to why they are notable for the city, then they are simply meaningless trivia lacking notable mention in their own right. In order to take this view you would have to look at the inclusion of a sister city list for each city separately and as a separate issue not guided by what is true for other cities where the relationship is notable. Thus the editors of each city are left to make a decision of what is appropriate for their article. I think this project should simply acknowledge that and give guidance that includes the option of using the "See Also" section for lists that cannot be expanded due to lack of adequate citations. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion[edit]

Through this way, I inform I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, (Cork (city) and New York (city) have been mentioned in the past). There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect of this WikiProject naming conventions. Thanks. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Anniversaries[edit]

Need help with Talk:Cape_Canaveral,_Florida#50th_anniversary.2C_51st.2C_52nd.2C_etc.. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bridgehampton, N.Y.[edit]

I am a newcomer to Wikipedia Talk, and a foreigner (British) to boot. I was reading the Wikipedia article about Bridgehampton, N.Y., and was very surprised to find that nowhere was it mentioned that the hamlet (village?) of that name is physically situated on Long Island. Everything administrative, historical and official was provided, including its location in Suffolk County, N.Y. But the more glaringly obvious physical fact of Long Island was tacitly ignored. Even the small-scale census map provided failed to include the name Long Island. Am I alone in finding that (a) perverse and (b) unhelpful to Wikipedia users? Is it part of a general Wikipedia policy?

William Longland — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Longland (talkcontribs) 11:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Feel free to include the fact that it is on Long Island in the body of the text. Because Long Island is not an official subdivision, there is no reason for it to occur in the infobox. Note that the map only lists names used by the US Census Bureau, which might (I don't know) not use Long Island. It might be good to read WP:BOLD to judge what you want to edit. Also note that Wikipedia is not complete and that when you see missing information from articles you are welcomed to add it. As a last note, it is customary on talk pages to sign your comments by using ~~~~, so others know who says what. CRwikiCA talk 13:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

"Downtown"[edit]

FYI, Downtown (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) was mentioned as the topic of a school assignment at [6] by Zarishasif (talk · contribs) ; so you may want to check for changes to the article in the next while.-- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move for Lorca[edit]

There's a move request to place Lorca at Lorca, Spain to avoid ambiguity of the title with Federico García Lorca. Diego (talk) 09:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE at Salem, Missouri[edit]

There apparently was a dog bite case in the above town a few months back that attracted some attention from Inside Edition. Some local editors have grabbed onto it and have been pushing for a large section regarding it in the above article. It seems so silly to me, but apparently I am about the only one from outside the town that watches the article. Could some experienced city-article editors please stop by the talk page and offer an opinion and possibly make an appropriate edit? Thanks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The issue appears to be resolved--Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:15, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Durham NC is[edit]

Durham NC is also located in Orange county in addition to Durham and Wake 71.20.227.177 (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The article for Durham, North Carolina reflects this information: "It is the county seat of Durham County,[6] though portions also extend into Wake County in the east and Orange County in the west". It is not clear what you are requesting by mentioning this information here. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Current events[edit]

There has been an ongoing debate at Steubenville, Ohio about the relative weight a current event should have in a settlement article. The city article guidelines do not address this. If anyone would care to participate in the discussion, please see Talk:Steubenville, Ohio. Perhaps the outcome there could be used to add something to the city article guidelines on the subject. John from Idegon (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

World city population lists[edit]

It seems to me we have too many world population lists i.e. List of urban agglomerations by population (United Nations), List of cities proper by population, World's largest municipalities by population, List of agglomerations by population and List of urban areas by population. Whilst it is accepted that these are not all measuring the same thing and that there will be differences between city limits and wider urban areas, do we really need 5 separate articles for this. Could the metropolitan/urban area/agglomeration lists be combined into one article? Perhaps this topic has been discussed before? Eldumpo (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, first I think you should tag the respective articles so those editors can participate. The List of cities proper by population and World's largest municipalities by population seem like two lists that should logically combine, especially since the municipalities list defines itself as a city proper list: "list of the world's most populous municipalities, defined according to the concept of city proper." Unfortunately, they both use widely differing population numbers. Example: Shanghai is either 17,836,133 or 25,019,148 and is either the largest or second largest depending on which list you look at. I think the two lists should be combined and if there are two differing measures being used, they should be reflected with parallel columns, not separate lists. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 11:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
As for the List of urban agglomerations by population (United Nations), List of agglomerations by population, and List of urban areas by population; they seem to be using different numbers, but the difference might also be due to the fact that they are using data from three different years. The numbers are close enough that they might just be a year to year difference, in which case, we should only be creating a list for the most recent year of the data. If the three data sets are different and worthy of inclusion, then we should create an all in one list that reflects the three different calculation methods. (example: List of countries by GDP (nominal)). --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 11:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for response. I have since tagged the talk pages of the articles and asked a couple of other editors to post here. I have also noticed that the municipality article was previously put up for AfD and the decision was Redirect/Merge. Eldumpo (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes. The encyclopedia tends to be a bit almanac-y, despite warning not to be "merely a list." I would support Afd. If you think a list is particularly non-noteworthy, please don't let a prior failed Afd stop you, though a delay of six months might be appropriate. While we are not supposed to canvass, I would, nevertheless, like to be informed of the nomination. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Skip the AfD - there was already consensus to merge or redirect, so just do it. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made a post at World's largest municipalities by population about redirect/merge. Post there if you want to make specific comments, or if you agree with the proposal you could start merging sourced comments. Eldumpo (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

My comment at World's largest municipalities by population, with a few additions:
World's largest municipalities by population was started in order to reflect the exact official population within city limits. This list would be superfluous if List of cities proper by population would reflect the exact official population within city limits, as its intro claims, and as defined by City proper, i.e. a "locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government", or the area within the city limits.
However, the List of cities proper by population does not always do that. It often counts sometimes arbitrary core districts, or other subdivisions of populated places, to adjust for cities that have - in the eyes of some editors - boundaries that are drawn too wide, and to avoid a list where Chinese cities "would rank disproportionately high on the list." On the other hand, the list also gives the city proper population for places like Lagos which are not a single municipality, have therefore no joint city administration, and hence no legally fixed boundaries.
Some examples for the arbitrary counting of core districts are Shanghai, Beijing, or Guangzhou, while the much larger (in area) neighboring Shenzhen is reflected by total population within city limits.
Occasionally, data in List of cities proper by population are blatantly OR. For instance, the list defines the alleged core districts of Beijing as "Dongcheng, Xicheng, Chaoyang, Fengtai, Shijingshan, and Haidian," without giving a reference. Then, it goes into CITYPOPULATION.DE, extracts the population figures for each district, adds them up, and presents them as the city proper population. Why go through these contortions while official census data are readily available? No wonder the resulting number is about half of what it officially is. No wonder people are confused and complain that there are too many lists with differing numbers if each list invents a new and different yardstick.
Sure, Chinese cities are drawn wide. Some western scholars think Chinese cities are drawn too wide, while Chinese are perfectly happy with their cities. Lagos sure looks like a city. These are valid opinions. These opinions don't give us the right to change official facts.
List of cities proper by population rewrites demography and geography to reflect what some think it should be. The facts are what they are. WP needs to reflect facts, not opinions. Many attempts to correct this un-encyclopedic approach, and to compile a list that delivers what its title promises, were denied.
World's largest municipalities by population was created after a long discussion, and after editors of List of cities proper by population claimed that municipalities are different than cities (municipalities are not always cities, but cities are always municipalities), and after they recommended to go away and to create a separate list for municipalities. This was done.
I have always been for merging as User:Dkriegls proposes (one column for the sometimes arbitrary core districts, one column for the exact official population within city limits)). However, this was not accepted at List of cities proper by population. I still am for a merge as defined above, but I am strongly opposed to a redirect. If necessary, I will support a deletion of both articles for the sake of peace. BsBsBs (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: I have not been editing World's largest municipalities by population for a while. I just notice that for the second time, large parts of the article have been wiped out by the same editor:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World%27s_largest_municipalities_by_population&diff=next&oldid=519968694

And:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World%27s_largest_municipalities_by_population&diff=591079896&oldid=590922969

If the article sounded ridiculous, now you know why. Restored. BsBsBs (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)-

If, as BsBsBs indicated, there is OR going into these numbers, by all means feel free to merge and use verifiable information. No need for AfD in my opinion, OR alone should motivate us to use Be Bold initiative to clean these lists up. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Some discussion is occurring at [7] regarding merging the metro list into the city proper list, although there are only two of us in the discussion, so need more input. I will direct the other people who originally posted above to the discussion. Eldumpo (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


My comment.

World's largest municipalities by population would not be needed and would be immediately deleted if List of cities proper by population would be a List of cities proper by population. Sadly, it is not. You don't even have to read the data. All you have to do is read its introduction. It admits that List of cities proper by population is in total violation of Wikipedia's core principles. To wit:

“This is an attempt to list the most populous cities in the world defined according to a concept of city proper. A city proper is a locality defined according to legal or political boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government. A city proper may not include suburbs.”

The reader assumes to get a list of populations within the boundaries of cities.

"World Urbanization Prospects", a United Nations publication, defines the population of a city proper as "the population living within the administrative boundaries of a city." The book continues to say that "city proper as defined by administrative boundaries may not include suburban areas where an important proportion of the population working or studying in the city lives."

The reader again assumes to get a list of populations within the boundaries of cities.

However, should the reader proceed (most have long skipped the intro and headed to the list), the reader will find a surprise.

“However, several cities on this list do not follow this definition because it is potentially misleading."

The authors admit that they mislead the reader. Why compile a list, if its list definition is misleading? The article claims that the world's demographers, who, under the auspices of the United Nation, year after year agree that the population of a city proper is "the population living within the administrative boundaries of a city" are misleading us.

For example, many cities in China govern a territory that extends well beyond the traditional "city proper" into suburban and rural areas, and sometimes even include other smaller places that are also called "cities." "

Definition of “traditional city proper?" Do "World Urbanization Prospects." or the many given sources for “city proper” say it is not allowed to contain suburban and rural areas? No, they don’t. Sure, Chinese cities traditionally have wider boundaries than those in North Dakota, or that of Soldier, Kansas (thank you for that). There are no right or wrong cities. Only different ones. The “traditional city proper” is a (misguided) POV of the authors.

“Going strictly by the administrative definition of a city, the cities of China would rank disproportionately high on the list.”

So that’s the reason. We fudge the inclusion criteria to discredit cities of a certain country.

“For the purposes of this list, the definition of a city as a primarily urban locality is used. The goal is to provide a set of population figures that can be compared reasonably and informatively to one another.”

This list contradicts its stated goal. By using different criteria, a reasonable comparison is no longer possible. And why doesn't it rename itself to "List of primarily urban localities by population"?

“This list enumerates the populations of some of the world's largest cities, the boundaries of which may or may not correspond to those of municipalities.

And finally, complete nonsense. The boundaries of cities always are those of municipalities, because a city, a village, a hamlet, or a whole city state all are municipalities.

The populations listed are not necessarily for the administratively defined city and may be for the urban area, the metropolitan area, or one of countless variations of municipalities as indicated in the Definition column.”

It is accepted among geographers and demographers that “city proper”, “urban agglomeration”, and “metropolitan area” are the three basic concepts used to define urban areas and their populations, and that they may not be confused. List of cities proper by population confuses the basic concepts, and the reader.

It uses highly questionable Original Research to push an admitted POV. Its claims are not verifiable. The list fails all three of Wikipedia’s core content policies. BsBsBs (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Airports in infoboxes[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question: For a major city (like the primary city in a metro area), should the city's major airport be listed in the infobox? Seattle, Los Angeles, and New York City do this, while Atlanta, London and Paris do not, and this is currently being discussed at Las Vegas. A second question is whether it matters if the city's major airport is not in city limits. Seattle's major airport is not, and New York City lists two major airports that are and one that is not, and you could make an argument for adding other area airports to LA. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to the attention of the WikiProject. Note that {{Infobox settlement}} contains an example which includes the major airport, just to clarify that this is not a new concept. I do not think it matters if the airport is in city limits, as this is often the case for the primary airports serving a given city. Additional, non-primary yet still major airports perhaps should be listed as a secondary airport, as is the case with Dallas Love Field and Dallas.
If we agree adding airports is in general a good idea (and I think it is), I'd like to propose adding a field for airports to {{Infobox settlement}}. Implementation will require the assistance of a template editor or administrator. I guess we will get to specifics at a later time... Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 17:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If you elect to go this way a lot of details need to be resolved. The title for the entry in the infobox is one. 'Airport' is not good since it is meaningless as to the purpose as pointed out above. The more correct is 'major airport serving the settlement' which is too long. Also does this then get used on all articles? Airports can be listed for settlements in multiple states since some are the major airports for parts of 4 or more states. That is potentially hundreds of settlements per airport! Is this for commercial flights or what? Also Wikipedia is not a travel guide so why is knowing which airport serves the settlement not related to becoming a travel guide? Also from Help:Infobox, consistently present a summary of some unifying aspect that the articles share and sometimes to improve navigation to other interrelated articles. I'm not convinced that the airport serving the area meets this. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Note. The examples of where airports exist in the infoboxes is not an indication of consensus or precedence. As was pointed out by the closer in an edit war administrative action, these were recently added by User:Msloewengart who was behind the edits that brought the discussion here and is now blocked so they will not be able to participate in this discussion for a while. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Totally agree with Vegaswikian for the reasons stated. Best, epicAdam(talk) 23:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I currently offering my week oppose. I do generally like the idea, but I am not sure what the inclusion line is that differentiates an airport from other ports and major rail stations. Should Grand Central Terminal go in the info box? If not, what differentiates it from JFK Airport. Surly passengers arriving by plane can't be our cut off line. However, to Vegaswikian's concern about what airports to include, I think limiting it to International Airports might solve that problem. But other types of ports are also international, hence my week oppose. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 10:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
International airports are something else. In the US, many international airports don't have international flights. In Europe, I believe that virtually all airports have international flights. So as a decision criteria, that has more problems. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
I move my position from weak to strong oppose. Vegaswikian is correct. I was applying Amera-centric conclusions here. What airports to include is a big issue. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose (Agree with above editors). The infobox is supposed to be a summary of a few easily digestible facts about the city to grab the reader's attention, not a summary of everything in the article.
Worse, a lot of cities have no airport. The airport is far outside city and sometimes county (or equivalent) limits. Their adherents don't want to admit this. So it's an opportunity for silly claims. We know who the mayor is and a few other salient facts. Let's not get into crazy land wars in what is supposed to be a simple summary in the info box. Student7 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I now agree. Student7 makes a good argument, this data just seems too complicated and subject to debate for a section that's supposed to accessibly include indisputable facts about the subject. — MusikAnimal talk 20:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Notwithstanding what appears to be a general consensus here to refrain from adding airports willy-nilly to info boxes, User:Msloewengart is continuing to do so. I've reverted a couple of recent edits, and left a couple of messages on his / her Talk page, but without much effect. I don't have much stake in this one way or the other, but it does bug me when editors so plainly exhibit WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT syndrome. JohnInDC (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


Seven days have past since the last opinion on the matter was made. I'm closing this discussion with the result of not including airports in infoboxes as that seems to be a clear consensus. Ample time was allowed for opposing parties to make their points. I have opted for formal closure since we have a lot of edits to undo, and a formally written out consensus should help justify removal of content (link here in the edit summary). Feel free to challenge the closure if you see fit. Thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't overlook Special:Contributions/68.191.43.129. JohnInDC (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I just discovered this discussion after seeing a link to it in one of MusikAnimal's edit summaries (good job providing that, thanks). The way that the blocked editor was adding the airport information was by adding the full names of the airports, followed by the airport codes. Lengthy airport names such as Novosibirsk Tolmachevo Airport, George Bush Intercontinental Airport and Ürümqi Diwopu International Airport are the norm, but if just the codes and link(s) were provided, for example as (URC/ZWWW) the information could be conveyed succinctly. It's more or less on a par with the time zone, postal codes, telephone dialling prefixes and vehicle registration codes that are typically included in infoboxes for cities. As for airports outside the boundaries of a city, that is very common. If reliable sources refer to an airport as serving the city, that should be enough for us to associate it with the city. —rybec 00:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence of "typically included" and "very common", because it appears to be the conclusion of the above discussion that this is not the norm, which is also my own editing experience. Your airport code suggestion also doesn't address several other issues brought up in the above discussion. Namely, why airports and not other ports of entry like train stations and sea ports? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're asking me to show that airports outside the boundaries of their cities are commonplace, which is what I meant by "As for airports outside the boundaries of a city, that is very common." Although I chose them as examples of lengthy names, two of the examples I gave are also airports outside the boundaries of the cities they serve: Novosibirsk Tolmachevo Airport is in the town of Ob, not in Novosibirsk; Ürümqi Diwopu International Airport is in Diwopu township but not, it seems in Ürümqi. Only part of the Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport is in Atlanta; Orly Airport is not in Paris—further examples may easily be found.
The article on Novosibirsk has a telephone dialling code and several postal codes; the article on Houston has telephone dialling codes, a FIPS code and a GNIS feature ID (I didn't know that FIPS codes or GNIS feature IDs existed before seeing them in Wikipedia infoboxes). The article for Ürümqi has a telephone dialling code, a postal code, a license plate prefix and an ISO 3166-2 code. Further examples may easily be found.
The airport codes lend themselves to succinct presentation as a parameter followed by a value, and many readers will recognise them. If other modes of transport can be presented briefly and understandably, perhaps they could be included too. Although steamship travel isn't what it used to be, the Port of Tianjin and Port of Rotterdam are important to the economies of their respective cities. —rybec 08:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess the point is, as you rightly point out using airport names instead of codes is what people do, but my point is that listing airports is not the norm on city infoboxes. Pointing out WP:OTHERSTUFF on infoboxes doesn't negate the other points made in the above discussion that led to its closure. Like, if we include airports why not other ports of entry like Grand Central and the Port Authority Bus terminal in NYC? What size airports and why? There's no easy way to scale that list down. A city like Chicago would have to list over 10 airports used by local residents. Etc. see above discussion. I don't think using airport codes helps with any of that, and it's best to not include airports in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkriegls (talkcontribs) 2014-02-04T22:04:58

Albany, Vermont[edit]

Apparently, I should have posted here, in "talk", rather than editing the Albany, Vermont "History" section. My apologies. I just wanted to note that there was a "History of Albany, Vermont, 1806-1991" published (circa 1992?), edited by Virginia Wharton. I am attempting to find out if the Vermont Historical Society has a copy of this book and some formal reference. Trlong01 (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It does exist, unfortunatly Google Books doesn't have a digital copy. Amazon has it here for $30 used, or you could support this Independent Vermont Bookseller and buy it for $40 here. Of course getting it through your historical society is a good bet. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Capital Hill or Capitol Hill ?[edit]

Is the capital of the Northern Mariana Islands "Capital Hill" or "Capitol Hill"? Please weigh in at Talk:Capital Hill, Saipan if you care. —  AjaxSmack  22:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

New to Wiki editing[edit]

Hi everyone! I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I'm a graduate broadcast journalism student at American University and am taking a class on Wikipedia. I've posted some pictures from my study abroad trip to Paris on Wikimedia Commons. Any feedback or advice for future posts is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3C80:244:28BE:AED0:62E1:224 (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Eastside_Los_Angeles#New_definition_of_East_Side[edit]

Neutral notification of ongoing discussion of where the boundaries of the East side of Los Angeles are taking place now for your editing pleasure at the above noted link! Bonne santé, mes citoyens!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of Newport[edit]

A requested moves discussion has been started at Talk:Newport#Requested_move on a proposal to rename the article Newport to Newport, Wales.

This article falls within the scope of this project, so project members may wish to contribute to discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Best city this and that[edit]

In quite many articles, there are prominent mentions that Lonely Planet or some other travel organization has named the city as the best for this of best for that some time in the past. Given that many travel organizations make several such lists (best city, best for nightlife, best for shopping etc) every year, and with new cities each year, I don't really see the relevance. Unless there's an official ranking of some sort, I would recommend removing all such mentions from city articles, or at least only keep the most recent (2013-2014). If Sarajevo was ranked best by Lonely Planet for something in 2006 or Thessaloniki best for something else in 2009, I'm not sure it's on any encyclopaedic value. This mentions are not proper rankings so saying the city is best is rather dubious. Particularly when there have been several rankings since in which the city is not mentioned.Jeppiz (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I could see an article specific due-weight argument against what you have pointed to, but I am having difficulty seeing a top-down ban as a good idea (as a related issue, do you have an opinion on use in tourism articles or sections?) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Not looking for any ban, more in terms of proper representation and due weight. In other words, I don't think it should ever be in the introduction to a city (as is the case with Sarajevo, the article that brought me here as I had just seen a similar thing at Thessaloniki). The tourism section could be a relevant place for it, but then with wording such as In 20XX, Lonely Planet named the city as one of the best destinations that year instead of The city has been ranked as one of the best in world followed by a ref to Lonely Planet.Jeppiz (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that any type of ranking should always be put into context: what group gave the ranking and the year it was given. I do that with schools too. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I think you would be hard pressed to make an argument for removing such listings, even from the lead. All the major cities include their top rankings from one index or another in their lead. So simply listing such rankings in the lead is widespread practice. Now, the second question (which was actually the first one posed), is Lonely Planet's rankings somehow less deserving? The only support for this argument I read above was that these aren't "proper rankings". If most major cities have some ranking they are tops on in their lead, what makes a WP:Notable source like a Lonely Planet ranking different? I'm not against this, just asking the question. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Good question. I would say there are two main differences. The first is that most other rankings tend to be based on some measurable fact, while the LP rankings are usually the opinion of a small number of personsl. The second is that most other rankings tend to be rather stable. If city X has the highest literacy rate, the most number of millionaires, highest ratio of doctors per inhabitant, or highest proportion of cyclists this year, it's very likely it will rank highly on the same criteria next year as well. LP is fundamentally different as the very idea is to find new spots, and usually the cities included on their lists (not rankings) are only included once. I do think that that is enough to be mentioned in the tourism sections, but I really don't see how it's relevant for the lead that somebody at LP thought the city was a good party city ten years ago.Jeppiz (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Note that for colleges, ratings are normally not summarized in the lead. Why not do that here? They are subjective. Nearly every city over 100,000 can claim something in the "top 10" in the US, however trivial it may seem to the reader. Student7 (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Be aware that the more top 10s we add the more pressure there will be to add those bottom 10s. Also most of these are based on some really arbitrary set of criteria and the results vary of time, so how much value are they in an article? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on guidelines for article outline[edit]

Hi. I recently joined the project, and on the guidelines pages, I had a brief discussion (with a single other editor - Dkriegls) regarding trying to conform all the top US cities (as per List of United States cities by population) to follow the guidelines as closely as possible.

As has been pointed out in other discussions on this talkpage, while there is no strict policy on the format, it is also a quality of Wikipedia that folks don't necessary read an article all the way through, but simply go to the section in a city article which they are interested in. Additionally, even though this project is unique in that it is user-regulated, if we are striving to make articles as encyclopedic as possible (as indicated by the ratings scale), shouldn't we also be attempting to make the project as a whole as encyclopedic as well?

All that being said, I'd like to have a discussion regarding the viability of standardizing the city guidelines, and then beginning a project of bringing them all into that standard format. To me, this would solve two issues: first, the upgrading of the entire project to more closely resemble the historical conformity of encyclopedias (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica); and second, it would aid people looking for a particular fact in an article, if the order was standardized. I've already gone through the first 26 cities on the list, and have gotten mostly positive feedback. In fact, only on two articles were any negative comments made, on Chicago, where my edits were reverted, but after explaining that they were per the guidelines, no further comments were made. Only on Washington DC was there an editor who simply does not like the guidelines, was there any significant negativity. Also, not sure if this is the right talkpage (should it be on the guidelines talkpage)? Onel5969 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Having a uniform format helps increase clarity, which I would encourage and agree with. Note that there are some different guidelines, I have never compared them. But it might be worth trying to unify them worldwide, if the guidelines are not to different from each other (of course while allowing the necessary locally needed adjustments). CRwikiCA talk 16:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I am the one who objected on Chicago, and it was primarily that the format became worse, after your first edit - which you later rectified in subsequent edits, after the reversion. To impose binding conformity would require a binding decision of the whole editor corp, probabely at WP:VPP in an WP:RfC. But, it seems doubtful to me that a very strict rule would pass. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree, that on Wikipedia we cannot impose article formatting rules. Guidelines and striving for uniformity is good, although it should never be imposed against consensus on an individual article. I would definitely recommend discussing major formatting changes on the talk page especially for articles that have FA or GA status and might be formatted different from guidelines in their respective review processes. CRwikiCA talk 17:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This is a great sentiment, but, as I mentioned earlier, it will take some very patient editors to work on a page by page basis to bring uniformity and won't likely come from on high by changing some Wikipedia rule. But I fully support the effort. Looks like the Chicago edit when okay. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for all the input. I'm through the top 30 cities in the US so far, and the only issue remains Washington DC. I've attempted to engage in discussion, but the folks there don't seem interested in discussion. Oh, well. The other 29 have gone well. I post a notice on the talk page first, eliciting discussion, then if there is none, I go forward and restructure the page. It'll take me a month or so to get through the top 100 US Cities, then I'll move on to the top 100 World cities. When I do, I'll attempt to get some type of consensus regarding reconciling the structure with the US structure, and let you all know how it turns out. I'm not jazzed myself on some of the choices (e.g. why is crime under government, not demographics? I understand the arguments, just disagree with them), but will make the changes per the consensus.Onel5969 (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study[edit]

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC).

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"Plymouth"[edit]

The usage of Plymouth (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) is under discussion, see talk:Plymouth -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Large scale removal of twin towns in city articles[edit]

I am writing here to see what the consensus is, Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) has been progressively removing twin town listings from city articles labeling it as cruft. he provides some explanation here but I don't think there is any community consensus for this removal. what do people think? LibStar (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion of deleting Sister cities on this very page (here). There was not a consensus for project wide delete. In that discussion, I generally supported deleting if the relationship lacked reference proving its notability and not just its existence. I think Ohconfucius should be reverted and he should be referred here if he wants to build consensus for his project wide deletes. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Portal:New York City FPO nomination[edit]

Hello. I have nominated Portal:New York City for Featured Portal status. Please engage in discussion at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:New York City. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please consider commenting at the above page regarding the nomination of the NYC portal for featured status. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Riverdale Park, Maryland[edit]

Could we get some more eyes on this please? I have to leave the net for the weekend in a few minutes, and I do not really have the time to try to deal with the very over-eager new editor there. From the appearance of his talk page, this may well end up at AN/I. John from Idegon (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at it right now, John from Idegon, and the article is certainly a mess. I'm leaving message on the city's talk page, and let's see how he responds to it. Onel5969 (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)