This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Cities to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man03:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I've asked this question on other forums and nobody has had an answer ...
I am specifically asking this question with regard to U.S. metropolitan areas but the question more broadly applies to any unofficial (i.e. not legally defined) entity. On articles which mention U.S. metro areas there seems to be a lot of inconsistency in terms of how these are referred to, which seems to reflect varying opinions among editors. Some editors tend to favor the common names for the metro areas (e.g. "Chicagoland" or "Greater Chicago") whereas others will tend to favor names used by some particular government entity, usually the MSA designations of the OMB (e.g. "Chicago-Joliet-Naperville"). The lack of consistency across articles is, at best, a little ugly, and, at worst, a little confusing for the uninitiated reader. I am not suggesting that one or the other name should not be mentioned in any particular article, just that there should be some consistency.
Has this been discussed somewhere? Has anybody proposed a particular policy?
All of these cities are arguably of global, world class importance. What would it take to raise all of these articles up to featured article standards?
Of course, Port-au-Prince isn't exactly a "global" or "world class" city, and is on the popularity list primarily due to the recent earthquake. However, I include it here more for inspirational reasons, to challenge Wikipedians to try to raise the standards of the article in honor of those that have fallen.
Have a look at the change lists. There's a small group of minor Canadian settlements in Saskatchewan that are repeatedly - daily - reassessed, flip-flopping class and importance ratings. One I've checked has no change history ... ! Anyone know what's going on? Is someone showing compulsive behaviour or is there a mad bot? Folks at 137 (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll deal with the rest. Does this mean that these are the only ones with duplicate banners? Thanks for the diagnosis. It's an odd indicator of a benign error. Folks at 137 (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'd think so. You're welcome; only found out about it myself the other day, from here. I agreed it's certainly one of the quirky ones! –Whitehorse109:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
US City Maps
Hey folks, a good while back I created a large batch of maps for US municipalites showing city boundaries within counties, such as the one that can be seen at File:Jefferson County Alabama Incorporated and Unincorporated areas Birmingham Highlighted.svg. Due to some objections in a few northeastern states these maps were not applied to all articles for US cities. A slow-moving effort to revamp these maps with more current data, as well as ideas to improve the maps stylistically, has been discussed here over the last several weeks.
Recently another editor has expressed dissatisfaction with the outline style maps and began replacing them with pushpin style maps; to their credit, they stopped doing so when someone objected but have been systematically adding a second, pushpin style map to various city articles. This has made me realize that I have recieved a fairly narrow range of input regarding the style of the maps, and I would greatly appreciate any input from this community as to a preferred solution as far as maps are concerned, and if there is any merit in continuing to develop the outline-style maps if the community decides they are inferior. Thank you, Shereth21:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
There are two areas I'd like to address when it comes to the US City article infobox maps: The compromise between pushpin vs. boundary maps and the supposed quality shortcomings of the existing city/county boundary maps.
First, User:Himalayan Explorer and User:Shereth have reached a tenative compromise in that some sort of clickable-replacable map would be the best compromise for the US City infoboxes; having a larger state and national-context pushpin map as the visible and having the more localized city/county boundary map as the hidden. I agree with this but what does everyone else think about this solution?
I took a look at the clickable-replacable example map on the French Wikipedia given as the proposed compromise on the map issue (this one) and tried digging a little further. I don't speak French, but from what I can decipher of the way their location infoboxes work, I can't find any explicit Javascript or CSS within the infobox itself that can be easily copy-pasted to make a "click-replacable" map within the existing location infoboxes on the English Wikipedia articles. The French Wikipedia seems to make use of some field called "geolocalization" ("géolocalisation" in French) in its various geographical infoboxes to facilitate this switch. Unless there's something I am missing (and I admit I don't fully know how these "intricate features of template syntax" work), some technical change will likely have to be made in the Template:Infobox_settlement or even above that to allow for these clickable maps to work.
It would be most helpful if there is anyone who has more extensive experience or who worked on the [Mountain Infobox Template] on the French language Wikipedia who understands fully how this "click-replacable" map was implemented to help implement it on the English Wikipedia.
Secondly, User:Himalayan Explorer has said that (s)he and others have found the existing city/county boundary maps in much of the US city articles to be of poor quality. These maps are admittedly not complex, but I respectfully disagree with the notion that complexity correlates to quality. That being said, the plain white, tan and red fields of these maps are lacking in the realm of high-quality full color maps on the various Wikis out there. Input is desired on the 2009/2010 Mapping Project page on what the boundary maps should be, but here is what I think would be most ideal:
Here, "city" means any incorporated or unincorporated-CDP area as defined by US Census Bureau or most recent maps. These boundary maps should show the boundaries of the cities within the context of it's metropolitan or micropolitan area. Some cities have a vast area but small population while others have a large population in a small area, and I feel it is of great encyclopedic value to be able to quickly understand the city's scope within its area of influence, and this can't be done with a pushpin map alone.
Previously, the maps just showed the city and the county it resided in, but even this simple delineation has been insufficient for some contexts (especially since many metro areas spread across several counties). Therefore, a goal should be to aim for these maps to be the city within it's larger metro area (this map of the Twin Cities is a very good example, though it doesn't show all of the explicit city boundaries).
Previously, the boundary maps were simplistic; black lines for boundaries, plain white for unincorporated areas and CDPs, gray for incorporated areas and red for the highlighted area. These maps also do no justice at all for water, as can be seen in this map (compared to this map). And because of the lack of color variety and other geographical information to relate to, these maps are showing their "quaintness." I think that, aside from including standard land and water color distinctions and city boundaries, these maps should also include water and river info as well as highway/major road paths at least, and possibly Indian reservations and national/state park/forest boundaries at most. Again, this Twin Cities map is a good example.
It's important to note that though the core content of these maps can be generated automatically, there needs to be some additional manual post-processing to make them graphically clean and finalized. The amount of additional detail compressed into these maps should be reconciled with the amount of manual preparation that needs to be done.
The last three paragraphs were just my opinion on what the boundary maps should be, so it would be most helpful to get other users' input on the quality issue. Again, please visit the mapping project page for more detail/discussion.
Compare these two. The top one looks professional and quality and the bottom one looks less so in my view and considerably less attractive. If we had a similar map for Mobile, Alabama and all other census areas this would look a lot better I think. If you are concerned about state county locator this could always be made as a window in the corner of the image like the pin map for Ulan-Ude. My ideal would be a similar map for every community like the Twin Cities one in full color coexisting alongside a standard pin map..‡ Himalayan ‡ΨMonastery
I think the quality would be much improved with this sort of graphic. Maybe a slight tweak in colors though..
I don't live in the US and I have limited knowledge of US geography. Probably quite representative of Wiki readers. The first map is quite pretty and places the settlement within its locality, but it gives no scale; the second format is even less helpful since I get no sense of the immediate locality or of its geography. Neither has scale; neither places the settlement within the US. As a foreigner I only have a general idea of US geography, but mere isolated outlines are of no real help. What would help is an outline of the US with the settlement or its state marked and then go into the detail as proposed. Location maps for Russian settlements are a good example, eg, Anadyr (town). Folks at 137 (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that the bottom map shows more information more clearly than the alternatives proposed. The bottom example provides an accurate outline of the incorporated boundary of the city (Mobile), indicating its size and shape and position relative to other incorporated areas within Mobile County, and locates the county within the state of Alabama. The push-pin maps that have been replacing this style provide only a dot (rendered fancifully as a pushpin) at the geographic center of the incorporated area. There is no information about the size and shape of the city, nor its relationship to other incorporated areas. The only new contextual information is the river system and its extension into neighboring states. Neither map does much to orient a reader unfamiliar with the USA to the rest of the continent. I understand that improvements have been suggested to the base map to overcome this issue, but I am speaking of the present. Note that the reader is one click away from an article about the state of Alabama with a good locator map. The reader is also one click away from Geo-Hack's worldwide pushpin map and scores of links to locate Mobile on an array of online mapping services. Perhaps these clicks are just as useful to the reader as those required under the proposals for zoomable maps in the infobox. --Dystopos (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The lower maps certainly have clarity, but they show the county & state only in isolation. From my (limited) knowledge of US cities, I know that urban areas overlap formal boundaries, county or state (New York is an example). For an appreciation of the hinterland of, in this case, Mobile, I want to know whether the urban area extends into the next county or whether it terminates sharply at that boundary. For a casual reader, the location of a place, indicated by a simple pushpin, can be more useful than the exact shape of the urban area, unincorporated areas, etc. All this, and the location of the state within the US, are certainly available elsewhere, but that's as much an argument against any map as against improvements. This is an encyclopedia and should be as complete and universally helpful as reasonably possible. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Inc. area of Leeds showing its relationship to other incorporated areas in Jefferson County and the location of Jefferson County in the state of AlabamaThe relationship between a particular city (the subject of the articles in WikiProject Cities) and the urbanized area of the region is best conveyed by aerial imagery rather than maps. USGS topographic maps have attempted to show urbanized vs. non-urbanized areas but often are quite out of date. There is no data set that can unproblematically be applied to show a boundary of urban area. What Arkyan, Ixnayonthetimmay, et al have done by creating maps of incorporated areas makes the best use of available data to clearly present a lot of information. Observe the map of Leeds, Alabama. It shows a small municipality bleeding over the edge of the county and nestled into a much larger incorporated area with numerous complicated municipal boundaries. That is all accurate information. Compare it with the pushpin map which conveys nothing more than a coordinate location on a canvas of rivers and county lines. We can talk all day about what is the best possible map, but my aim here is to say that the present campaign of replacing these informative maps with pushpins is counterproductive. It seems the only missing elements about which there is any consensus are (1) a graphic scale, and (2) a way to locate the city in a national context. Adding a scale would be of great value. Adding a small US map with the state shaded would be fine, however. I don't think it's too much to expect for the reader to click on either "Alabama" or the Lat/Long coordinates for a quick view of a wider context. One of the great features of Wikipedia is the immediacy of linked articles to provide help for readers unfamiliar with the context. Trying to cram a great deal of context into a specific article is working against that feature. --Dystopos (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, I do not find much use for cramped municipal boundary maps that provide no other context. I do find the pushpin maps very useful as I am often more interested in the general location of the place than the specific boundaries. But that said, I see no reason the two types of maps could not co-exist. older ≠ wiser19:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah well then. Count me aggrieved as being alone in thinking a map can tell more than a dot. --Dystopos (talk) 00
58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
No not alone - but it's a matter of purpose and context. It occurs to me that an infobox is just a summary, it omits detail to aid quick reference and for some that is the requirement. The same applies to the detailed and pushpin style maps. Pushpin, or similar, is fine for location, which is fine in an infobox (and widely used, see St Albans, Ghent, Guangzhou, Mombasa, Qom and São Paulo). The more detailed maps are probably better suited to illustrating sections on demographics, suburban sprawl, etc. I can still think of US urban areas that overlap county and/or state boundaries and I think it's important to place a settlement in context. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Folks at 137 has a good point and a good example with Russian maps.
I had a map complaint with Quebec/Canada. A few years ago, they were placing little bitty red dots at the bottom of a huge map of (for instance) Quebec. Canada is mostly inhabited along the boundary of the US and the St. Lawrence. So they switched. Now look: Stanstead, Quebec (for example). No context whatsoever for someone not already familiar with geography. We should go with the Russian example for the US (and Canada) IMO. The St Albans example given above is good, but I was confused by Ireland thrown in for good measure! Student7 (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Gush Hispin deletion proposal, general problem with unreferenced articles about Israeli kibbutzim and towns in Golan Heights
{{Golan Regional Council}}
There has been a recent proposal to speedily delete the article about Gush Hispin on the grounds that it is unreferenced. However, it seems to me that this area is notable and many of the sources about it may be in Hebrew or Arabic. Going through the articles in the Template above, which include the towns in the "Gush Hispin" area, I've noticed that a lack of references in these articles is a very common problem. I believe I've just tagged more than half the articles in this Template with "unreferenced" or "nofootnotes." Could someone please help address this problem? Thanks, AFriedman (talk)02:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Cities in nations of disputed status
I just wondered what the policy of this project was for settlements that fall within territories who's sovereignty is not widely accepted. The reason I ask is that I noticed that all references to Georgia were removed from articles dealing with cities in Abkhazia, who's status is disputed. I tried to insert a neutral statement into the articles on these settlements which stated that Abkhazia "was an autonomous republic of Georgia whose sovereignty is disputed", however all my edits were reverted, with the rational that "We don't need to discuss Abkhazia's status in every related article". I feel that it is important to mention the sovereign nation in which a city falls, and only mentioning Abkhazia isn't a WP:NPOV. The majority of these articles are stubs, so size clearly isn't an issue. Looking at cities in Kosovo, there seems to be a precedent for such a notice (see Dečani) for example. Considering that Kosovo has far more international recognition than Abkhazia (65 to 4) I would think that it would only be more important to mention that Abkazia is considered to be a part of Georgia by the majority of the world. Anyone have any thoughts on this? TDL (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
The distinction is not necessarily "obvious" to the casual reader; I see no harm in mentioning, on each of these city articles, that Abkhazia is disputed territory. Shereth20:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for starting a discussion on this - I reverted many of your additions because I felt that they were in fact unbalanced, because I think they are not very useful and because you hadn't proposed such a sweeping change on any of the article's talk pages.
Let me explain myself. Consider the Faroe Islands. They are uncontroversially part of Denmark. Yet this is not something discussed in articles about its settlements, not even in the article about the capital Tórshavn. I think this makes sense. The political situation of the Faroe Islands is made clear right in the introduction of the main article, and it would be cumbersome to discuss it in every related article. I think the same applies here, and even more so.
The problem is that it is hard or even impossible to give a short neutral characterisation of Abkhazia's status - instead the complete picture is given in the introduction of the main article Abkhazia. Including a run-down of this into every related article only results in weekly modifications by someone who wants to add or remove something - we don't want that I think. Consider your own version: it is not at all neutral to say that Abkhazia is an autonomous republic of Georgia, this exactly reflects one side's POV - Georgia's. sephia karta | dimmi22:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
What would be wrong with borrowing the language from the example provided earlier? Something like :
Abkhazia is the subject of a territorial dispute between Georgia and the self-proclaimed Republic of Abkhazia. The Abkhaz faction of the Georgian Supreme Council unilaterally declared its independence on 23 July 1992, later recognised by four of the 192 UN member states, but not by other UN member states. Georgia claims it as part of its own sovereign territory as an autonomous republic.
I guess there are two issues here. Number one, is the dispute worth mentioning at all in the articles, and number two, if it is how do we do so in a neutral manor.
I don't think your comparison to the Faroe Islands is a fair one, since, as you mentioned, there is no dispute over sovereignty there. Constitutionally, the Faroe Islands have a high degree of autonomy, and technically they aren't a part of Denmark. Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands collectively make up the Kingdom of Denmark, and each constituent region is autonomous from the rest.
However, in Abkhazia there is a dispute over sovereignty. If you look at other cases of cites in disputed territories (Stepanakert, Hargeisa) virtually all mention the dispute in the lead. I would argue that not mentioning the dispute, and simply stating that the city is in Abkhazia, is a non-neutral POV. In fact, Georgia is not even mentioned in virtually all the articles I edited. This, to me anyways, implicitly leads the reader to believe that Abkhazia is independent. It would be like if there was no mention of the USA in Texas' article.
So I guess my position is that it is important to include. However, I agree with you that it's difficult to do so in a neutral way. I was attempting to be neutral in my phrasing, as I never referred to Abkhazia as an "autonomous republic of Georgia" exclusively. This was always accompanied by "who's sovereignty is disputed" in an attempt to cover both points of view. However, we can certainly try and find a better way to say this. I like Shereth's proposal, but I'd even shorten it to "Abkhazia, an autonomous republic of Georgia which unilaterally declared its independence and has been recognised by four of the 192 UN member states." Or "a de facto independent republic which is recognized as a part of Georgia by 188 of 192 US member states"? Then a link can be provided to the article on the dispute where a detailed account of the status is given.
I'm not trying to push a POV here, so if you have a more neutral phrasing I'd welcome that as well. But I do think that it is important to mention the fact that many consider these cities to be in Georgia. TDL (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I realise that you're not trying to push a POV, I just think that the conflict over Abkhazia's status is not relevant for the articles covering individual villages. I think that WP:MNA applies here. Note that I did not remove the status question from Sukhumi, Abkhazia's capital.
Apparently there is a third question here: is not including the status question in accordance with NPOV? According to your logic, people who read the Tórshavn article will think that the Faroe Islands are independent, since the Kingdom of Denmark is mentioned nowhere. But of course people familiar with the Faroe Islands don't need to be told about its being part of the Kingdom of Denmark every time they want to read about a Faroer village, and people not already familiar will go to the main article, where they will find the necessary information right in the introduction. By anyone's account, Abkhazia is not a normal part of Georgia the way Texas is part of the US, so I think the Faroe Islands comparison is very relevant. sephia karta | dimmi16:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm with you on WP:MNA, but if you read the last sentence it states: "Some brief, unobtrusive pointer might be appropriate, however." That's all I'm advocating for, a breif note stating that this is a complicated issue, and a link to an article with more information.
Again, I think your analogy with the Faroe Islands is flawed since the Kingdom of Denmark constitutionally recognizes that the Faroe Islands have significant independence (for example the Faroe Islands has their own currency, football team, etc.). Conversly, Georgia considers Abkhazia to be an integral part of their teritory. By treating Abkhazia equivalent to the Faroe Islands, you are implicitly taking the Abkhazian/Russian POV.
A far more relavant comparison is to other regions of disputed sovereignty, which showns that it is quite standard to include a note on every settlement in a disputed region. For instance, settlements in Kosovo have a note that states "Kosovo is the subject of a territorial dispute between the Republic of Serbia and the self-proclaimed Republic of Kosovo. The Assembly of Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence on 17 February 2008, a move that is recognised by 65 of the 192 UN member states and the Republic of China (Taiwan), but not by other UN member states. Serbia claims it as part of its own sovereign territory." on every settlement that I checked. TDL (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're being inaccurate here in several ways. First of all, stating that "Abkhazia's status is like the status of the Faroe Islands" is the Abkhazian (and Russian) POV, really puts things on their head. This is exactly Georgia's position: maximal autonomy within a common state. Abkhazia, Russia et al. of course hold that Abkhazia is independent, period. So if anything, comparing Abkhazia to the Faroe Islands is the conservative position. But what is more important is that you cannot possibly argue that readers will get the impression that Abkhazia is uncontroversially an independent state from reading that X is a village in Abkhazia, if they don't get this impression from reading that Y is a village in the Faroe Islands.
Secondly, I went to the articles of 4 random Kosovar villages, and three of them just say the village is in Kosovo: Jazince, Kuqishtë, Përlepnica - only Stanovci has the footnote you mention. Settlements in Taiwan also just say that they are in Taiwan. But what is more important: I'm making the comparison with the Faroe Islands because I think the same reasoning applies, of course I think that this reasoning also applies to Kosovo, Somaliland, Taiwan, Transnistria, etc.
That said, perhaps we can indeed add a footnote as with Kosovar villages, which I agree is relatively unobtrusive. I propose the following wording:
Abkhazia's status is disputed. It considers itself to be an independent state, but this is recognised only by a few other countries. The Georgian government and most of the world's other states consider Abkhazia de jure a part of Georgia's territory. In Georgia's official subdivision it is an autonomous republic, whose government sits in exile in Tblisi.
I still disagree that Abkhazia is equivalent to the Faroe Islands. Georgia considers Abkhazia to be an integral part of the motherland, while Denmark considers the Faroe Islands to be external to the motherland (ie a Dependent territory). As far as I'm aware, Georgia has only granted Abkhazia atonomy over local issues, whereas the Faroe Islands have significant independence over their foreign relations. For example, while Denmark is a part of the EU, both the Faroe Islands and Greenland have chosen to remain outside of the EU. The Faroe Islands is an associate member of various agencies of the UN (International Maritime Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization), as well as a member of several international organizations (Universal Postal Union, Nordic Council) independent from Denmark's membership. So while Abkhazia de facto has more independence than the Faroe Islands, de jure they have less.
As for Kosovar settlements, virtually every article linked from Municipalities of Kosovo has the note. I noticed that the "3 un-noted" articles you provied were created within the last 6 months or so, so I suspect that they just haven't been standardized as of yet.
Obviously the real issue here is that there is no consensus on how this is handeled across wikipedia, as we've both been able to find examples which support our position. However, your proposed footnote certainly satisfies my concerns. The only modification I would propose is to replace "considers itself to be" with "is de facto" so that the fact that Abkhazia currently controls the territory is noted. Also, to address the concern you initially raised about this been "tweeked" by partisans on either side of the debate, we could put this text in a template to ensure that it is standardized across all articles. These are just sugestions though, so feel free to disagree with me. TDL (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I still maintain that whether the Faroe Islands have more autonomy than Abkhazia (according to Georgia) is less important than the fact that in neither case, there would be confusion for readers. Also, the same situation holds for villages in Scotland or French Guyana, which certainly are integral parts of the United Kingdom and France, although the latter are not mentioned. But I'm happy that we have reached something we can both live with. I think a template for the footnote is a very good idea, I created it at Template:Abkhazia-note. We can add it to the articles when we agree on the wording. I prefer "considers itself to be" over "is de facto" because the dispute is over status, and the former sort of presupposes the latter anyway (it couldn't consider itself independent if it weren't in control over its territory), while I'm not sure the opposite is necessarily true - I would say that in the nineties, Kurdistan was de facto independent even though it didn't consider itself to be so. But if you disagree, please say so, this is not a major issue for me.sephia karta | dimmi23:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm...well a brief look through these articles reveals that most seem to mention the settlements are "a commune of French Guiana, an overseas region and department of France". The Scottish articles only occasionally mention the UK. Personally, I feel that every settlement should mention which sovereign state they are located in, regardless of the degree of local autonomy, as I think that it does lead to confusion. However, I suspect that this would cause quite the dirt storm.
Anyways, we seem to have come to an agreement so there's no point debating the issue further. The reason I proposed the change in phrasing was due the fact that there are some regions which don't control large swaths of the territory they claim for an independent state (see Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, State of Palestine when they made their declaration, even Abkhazia didn't control portions of their claimed territory until the war in 2008). However, you make a good point that control over a territory does not imply claims on sovereignty. We could mention both: "It is de facto an independent state which declared independence in 1992, but this is only recognized by a few ...". However, I'm not bothered either way, so if you prefer not to include this I'm fine with that. TDL (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Renaming Cities, towns and villages categories
I have propose merging all instances of "Category:Cities, towns and villages in COUNTRYNAME" to "Category:Settlements in COUNTRYNAME". 150 categories are included in this proposal.
A series of discussions at CFD over the last few days have revealed a number of problems in the naming conventions of the top-level categories for inhabited human settlements.
Since I did not get any response to my last query let me ask something more specific. There seems to be some increasing debates going on regarding how to name articles for conurbations/metropolitan areas. In some cases, of course, a conurbation is a legal entity designated by a central government (e.g. Greater London) and as such the name is obvious. In most cases, however, these are not legal entities and, while a government may publish demographic statistics for the conurbations, the names they choose do not necessarily reflect common names for the regions and often a given city may belong to more than one conurbation defined by the government (e.g. for Austin, Texas there is the Austin Urban Area, the Austin Metropolitan Statistical Area, the Austin Combined Statistical Area, and the Austin Economic Area; having more than one article on the conurbation, though, would be silly). So should government-designated names and definitions be used exclusively and, if so, how does one choose which one to use if there are overlapping definitions? And if no government recognizes a region which other reliable sources recognize as a major conurbation, should the article be created?
Can there be some standard guideline established regarding naming such articles so as to minimize the churn?
I would think one "overview" article with sub-sections linked to whatever constituent articles would be enough... so far as "naming conventions," I would go with whatever the preponderance of sources say about the area, or the terms that are used to designate the area, including but not limiting to government sources (while ignoring, you know, just any website, which I am mentioning because I've encountered some prolific editors here without much familiarity with scholarly method) as opposed to mandating a en-wide regional naming convention for the sake of doing so. The various issues should be addressed individually on a case by case basis. Ameriquedialectics05:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
There is not always a single name that is used predominantly by sources.
In cases like Los Angeles, one name can be in common use that refers to substantially different definitions which editors feel merit two articles.
Some editors feel that if a government agency publishes definitions for an area then the agency's name for the area should be used, regardless of what the commonly used name is.
Some editors object to using expressions such as "metropolitan area" in the article title if the region is not described by some government, regardless of what sources call the area.
There have been some quiet renaming efforts going on and, additionally, some editors have gone to changing names used in the lead sentences of articles to something different than the article name (i.e. as an end-around because they cannot get consensus for changing the article names). Addressing all of this on a case-by-case basis doesn't seem like an efficient use of everybody's time.
Well, yeah. I have direct experience with what you are talking about. I agree it is deeply frustrating. Perhaps an editing guideline would help matters, but given the multiplicity of sources using conflicting terminology and definitions of regional areas I'm not sure what an effective guideline would look like. Ameriquedialectics17:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Anyway, I think government sources should predominate. Conturbations should not be named by the media, whose sole aim is to attract attention. If they, desperately trying, cannot get government support for their new name, why should Wikipedia vote for them? Why should we "pick sides."
Everyplace on earth is "growing towards" every other place on earth. We can go nuts trying to keep up with "tomorrow's" conturbations and not create anything new of value. Only one more article that has to maintained with almost exactly what we are putting in every other subordinate article, sometimes multiple times already. This does not make sense when these conturbations are more or less arbitrary anyway. "Big Town" plus "Smallville" is one name, Big Town plus Smallville plus Littletown, is another. Let the media fight their own battle. If they win, and it is recognized by government, we use it. If not, we don't. Student7 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.
Actually part of what I was implying was that there should be fewer conurbation articles. For example, I have seen cases of people trying to create separate articles for the U.S. MSA and CSA areas around given cities even though for most cities the MSA and CSA are only distinguished in the U.S. Census, certainly not notable enough to merit separate articles for most urban areas.
Treating governments, or any source, as having somehow more authority in dictating reality flies in the face of Wikipedia's policies and standards. A given source should only be treated as more authoritative than others about something if there actually is real evidence that it is more knowledgeable about the topic than other sources. Additionally we should not try to read into things more than what the sources are saying. For example, some editors have tried to argue in the past that if the U.S. Census calls a metro area A-B-C then by definition this is the most common name for the area (or even the official name). Yet I am aware of no publication by the federal government that says anything like this. So claiming things like that amount to WP:OR.
Usually one of the best places to start looking for information about a U.S. metro area, including the proper name to call it, is the chamber of commerce or convention and visitors bureau. Certainly these organizations are at least as authoritative in defining the conurbations as the federal government is (with the caveat that the chambers are a bit closer to being primary sources and the federal government is more of a secondary source).
I like fewer. But would prefer that material in them follow WP:TOPIC. That is, if an event or place is over their defined boundary, they go into the county (in the US) article and not into the "nearest" conurbation. Student7 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I mean the boundaries are not vague; therefore neither is the article bondaries vague. Like a bio of Lincoln doesn't contain information about Washington because "he was president too." Or lots of information about Polk, cause Lincoln might have met Polk once. Crisp boundaries. Student7 (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
(undent) Still not clear. The identity of Lincoln is agreed upon in general by all experts and nobody thinks that Lincoln and Washington were the same person. Again, what does "defined" mean in this context? --Mcorazao (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I realize that on Wikipedia, we have a tendency to want to break things down into discreet, logical quantities. We enjoy clear guidelines that describe how to name an article, what categories articles should be placed in, what kind of content fits in an article, and so on. In my experience one of the most contentious types of debates that come up are naming guidelines; I have borne witness to (and participated in) extremely detailed and protracted debates on naming conventions for cities. I believe some of the lessons learned from that debate can be applied here.
The problem, as I see it, is not merely the diversity of sources and the lack of agreement among them. Concepts like municipal boundaries, MSA/CSAs as defined by the Census, county boundaries and so on are not universal by any means. Our understanding of a city and its boundaries as applied to Los Angeles and its suburbs does not necessarily apply to Paris and its suburbs due to differences in administrative structures and cultural context. To try and invent a guideline or a convention that would dictate how these articles are named, organized and categorized may prove to be a fruitless endeavor due to these inherent differences.
Even among US cities the problems abound. It is convenient to try and pick an "authoritative" source and choose to demarcate conurbations according to the MSA model, as they have well-defined boundaries found in a single, authoritative source. However this is forgetting that MSAs and CSAs are statistical rather than geopolitical entities and do not always reflect the reality of the situation. Phoenix metropolitan area, for example, relies far too heavily on the boundaries and definitions of the MSA as defined by the Census bureau, but this ignores the reality of the situation that two large and geographically diverse counties do not a conurbation make; the MSA contains numerous outlying cities that are most assuredly not a part of the "Valley of the Sun" refered to in the lede.
Naturally we do not want to have multiple articles on the same topic, but sometimes topics may have a fair amount of overlap while still covering separate topics. Greater Los Angeles Area and Los Angeles metropolitan area are not the same thing. While it is possible that the two might be merged into a single article there is no compelling reason to do so; the unecessary overlap between the two could be dealt with by exersizing some editorial discretion.
In summary : I understand the desire to have coherent and well-defined guidelines regarding conurbations, how to name them, and what they should cover. However, it appears to me that the very concept of a conurbation is sufficiently "fuzzy" and broad that to try and encapsulate it into an objective and non-arbitrary guideline may simply not be a feasible goal. I do hate to come across as saying that there is no solution and thus we should throw our hands up in defeat, but sometimes the best guideline is no guideline other than to follow some common sense. Shereth20:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed essay. I most definitely agree that there can never be a single guideline for this that makes writing these articles simple. And certainly I am not suggesting anything that would establish a "formula" for writing them; the "fuzziness" of them makes that impossible. However, IMHO there have been a number of blind alleys that editors repeatedly have gone down with respect to this particular category of topics and could be avoided by simply stating them as no-nos. In particular a lot of discussions have tended to rat-hole on some of the same issues, issues that are not unique to any particular article. If an issue is common to many articles it is not productive to discuss it repeatedly on each article. That is not to say that the debate will permanently end but at least let's debate it in one place (i.e. the guideline's talk page). --Mcorazao (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
P.S. For the sake of clarity, please prepend your opinions with Support, Weak support, Oppose, or Weak oppose. Note that "Support" does not mean "release in its present form" but rather the guideline is generally acceptable though some refinements and minor debate may still be necessary. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I was asked to rephrase the request so let me try again.
Question: Do you support creating a guideline under WikiProject Cities that is similar to this one (with the proviso that some of the content may still need additional debate)? Please respond with Support, Weak support, Oppose, or Weak oppose as well as a brief explanation. --Mcorazao (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
(copied from above) ... I think government sources should predominate. Conturbations should not be named by the media, whose sole aim is to attract attention. If they, desperately trying, cannot get government support for their new name, why should Wikipedia vote for them? Why should we "pick sides." Everyplace on earth is "growing towards" every other place on earth. We can go nuts trying to keep up with "tomorrow's" conturbations and not create anything new of value. Only one more article that has to maintained with almost exactly what we are putting in every other subordinate article, sometimes multiple times already. This does not make sense when these conturbations are more or less arbitrary anyway. "Big Town" plus "Smallville" is one name, Big Town plus Smallville plus Littletown, is another. Let the media fight their own battle. If they win, and it is recognized by government, we use it. If not, we don't. Student7 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
(copied from above) I understand the desire to have coherent and well-defined guidelines regarding conurbations, how to name them, and what they should cover. However, it appears to me that the very concept of a conurbation is sufficiently "fuzzy" and broad that to try and encapsulate it into an objective and non-arbitrary guideline may simply not be a feasible goal. I do hate to come across as saying that there is no solution and thus we should throw our hands up in defeat, but sometimes the best guideline is no guideline other than to follow some common sense. Shereth20:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I think this could be useful as a companion guideline to WP:USCITY. I'm not sure about applying it to regional areas outside of the US or metropolitan regions that cross international boundaries. (The last section, #6, is probably unnecessary, as the relevant points have already been made in the sections before it.) Overall however, I think it presents a well-thought out and pragmatic approach to mitigating several prevalent problems as regards to articles on US metropolitan regions. If implemented as a guideline further work could take place as other problems present themselves. Ameriquedialectics19:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Weak support I would tend to agree we don't need articles on every MSA, CSA, or Micro SA in the United States (which I'm presuming is the primary focus on this survey). However, I would caution against completely eliminating government sources for naming. The United States Board on Geographical Names and the Geographic Names Information System are the official government records of the "official" name of a physical feature or populated place. This isn't necessarily the "Government" deciding to name it that, the names are based on officially submitted records and justifications by the communities at large. These are official names to be used on maps, so we should probably use the source. Yes, statisical areas probably are named by the Census and included in GNIS, but Census does undergo an annual "Boundary and Annexation Survey" where it solicits this data from local governments. So, again, the names are routed have the stamp of local input and involvement. I would also point out that we already use Census designated place in articles, which are U.S. Census statistical area rather than geopolitical areas. But, they are nonetheless the formal names for many unincorporated communities that laymen would otherwise consider cities or towns. See Springfield, Virginia and Blackhawk, South Dakota).
So, I think the guidline should focus on using the government-named source (from GNIS) unless there are multiple reliable sources that support the use of a different term for the same area. Wikipedia shouldn't be inventing names or picking winners and losers among regional interests. Siouxland (which includes Sioux City metropolitan area and Sioux Falls metropolitan area) would be one such example. I'm not suggesting all three should be merged, I just pose that as an example from my part of the country.
Another comment I would make is that that we avoid using population as a notability criterion. I know some editors think that if the place is small, then it must not be notable. Other editors have the view that any place that ever existed is notable. My view is the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I've found reliable, notable sources for many small towns that have helped improve Wikipedia. There are a lot of reasons beyond population that can make a city or region notable.DCmacnut<>21:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments:
Thanks for the feedback!
Nobody has proposed eliminating government sources. Governments are typically important resources for information for any metro area article.
Nobody has proposed inventing names. Part of the intent of the guideline was to explicitly forbid that practice (maybe the point is not made strongly enough).
In principal I agree that population is not a primary criterion and certainly I don't oppose amending the proposal (mind you, I did explicitly say that if a conurbation or distinction is notable then the population is irrelevant). I only included population to provide a "starting point". Some editors use as a starting point the fact that they found some publication that made a certain distinction therefore the distinction requires separate articles. I was simply suggesting that a better starting point is to say "If the difference in population is not that great ask yourself why you think an extra article is necessary." Sometimes there are very good reasons but 9 times out of 10 there are not.
I wasn't aware that GNIS actually lists metro areas. I just did some quick searches and couldn't find metro areas I was looking for under either the census names or the "common" names. Can you give examples?
Thanks for the clarifications. I may have spoken too broadly about the inclusion of MSAs in GNIS. It appears that multi-county Metro/Micropolitan areas are not listed in GNIS. Could be that I mistakenly thought they were included because GNIS has "Census" feature type for purely statistical areas. For example, Census County Divisions are Census statistical areas in states that do not subdivide counties into towns or townships. Alberton Division, Montana, for example. Unorganized Territory is another, and is the closest in form to MSAs, such as West Adams. CDPs are also listed, as in Sprinfield CDP, which has also has a populated place record.DCmacnut<>22:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Comment -- I'm ambivalent about having guidelines for this. But if this is going to go forward, I'd prefer that any further development happen on a dedicated page outside of a user sandbox. Maurreen (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Reply: - Fine with me. Since I have not been an active member of this project I did not want to presume to start polluting the project areas with proposals without at least approval of active members. Shall I move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Conurbation guidelines with a big banner on top saying this is a proposal under discussion? --Mcorazao (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated New York City 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Arsenikk(talk)12:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if I could get some help digging up some references on the Demographics of Stephens City, Virginia. I am working to get the article to Good Article status (and one day Featured) and that is one of the sections that needs extensive referencing. If someone could take a look and dig them up, I would be most greatful. Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion
What about creating pages for a list of major cities by altitude, longitude, and latitude, or incorporating this information in the city pages' info boxes? Could be handy, and I can't find it anywhere on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.36.41 (talk • contribs)
BTW, one of the last things we need is more info on longitude and latitude which is ubiquitous in most articles, usually only twice, if you are lucky. Three times, if not. Once would be more than enough for me. But that's just me, I guess. Student7 (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
If anyone monitoring this page would kindly put {{Greater Los Angeles Area}} on their watchlist i'm sure people interested in reading about this area would appreciate it. Thanks, Ameriquedialectics 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UT
FAR for Ann Arbor
I have nominated Ann Arbor, Michigan 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
Delhi FAR
I have nominated Delhi 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Data Quality As Seen in DBPedia
I'm using DBPedia and I've found that the quality of rdf:type assignments to dbpedia-owl:City is really bad. For instance, DBpedia has Dresden as a city, but not Tokyo, London, Sao Paulo, New York City, or Manchester, New Hampshire. The DBpedia tell me that has to do with inconsistent use of infoboxes. Now some of those "cities" have ontological difficulties, for instance, both London and Tokyo are composite entities which have multiple "cities" and other sorts of municipalities in their boundaries -- however, there are a lot of places that are "cities" that aren't being recognized as such.
Anyhow, I need a good list of cities, and I've got pretty good data cleaning technology, so I'm inclined to merge with CC-BY data from Freebase to make myself a list. I'd be interested in pushing these changes back into WP, but that involves understanding exactly what I should be doing, not stepping on people's toes, and making sure that we're all cool about what "City" means. Personally I think that the vernacular concept of "City" is primary (The first picture of a "City" in Wikipedia's "City" entry is from Tokyo, which is technically a non-City) and that more specific legal definitions (which are specific to particular jurisdictions) should be secondary. For instance, in the U.S.A., the legal status of municipalities is defined by state law, so "CityInNewYork" and "TownInNewYork" are good concepts for precise reasoning, but, so far as most people are concerned, too granular.
Any thoughts?
Can't help with "List of cities," but Wikipedia should be fairly clear on what a city is and what a metro is and have two distinct articles on each: eg. "New York City" and "New York metropolitan area." While the boundaries of the latter are sometimes treated more vaguely than they should be, they are defined by the US census bureau. I can appreciate that there may not be that crisp definition elsewhere. But, yes, the legal entity has a mayor in nearly every nation. And so, the legal definition is primary, the vague metro definition definitely secondary. IMO. Both need lots of editorial attention because of extra junk that people try to put in them, "pushing" articles on legal entities into including attributes unique to the metro only, and "pushing" articles on metro articles to have "nearby" attributes that really aren't in the metro at all. Student7 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit help on Shanghai and Beijing articles
Hi editors, your help is needed on the Shanghai article. User:BsBsBs removed several sourced statements [2] regarding Shanghai's population statistics in the lead introduction but insist on keeping a statement ("After Chongqing and Beijing, Shanghai is the third largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China") in which he did not find a reference for, but insist "it doesn't need a reference, it is evident to anyone who knows math". And this has led to edit conflict on the article. See the Talk:Shanghai#Population. Likewise in the Beijing article, the user insist on keeping a statement in the lead and in the demographic section in which wasn't referenced [3]. I'm trying to avoid an edit war with BsBsBs. But your input and help is needed at these two articles. Thanks!--TheLeopard (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
FAR nom Canberra
I have nominated Canberra 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
The scope of this project is defined by the second sentence on the project's page: "Cities" include municipalities and other civil divisions, including cities, towns, villages, hamlets, townships, unincorporated communities, sections of municipalities, and neighborhoods. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 6, 2010; 13:36 (UTC)
Climate data
A well-meaning editor has been editing a lot of the larger city articles' Climate sections, first adding extra charts (most of which were removed) and now additional lines to the existing climate charts. I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on the additions. The most recent one involved adding the "sun hours" parameter to the climate chart using data collected by the Hong Kong Observatory from 1961-1990. I removed this from the Cleveland article (twice) citing that the data is largely outdated and shouldn't be included with the other data from NOAA and The Weather Channel since that comes from this decade (2001-2010). It's like meshing data from two different census reports and assuming the older one hasn't changed much (for reasons other than comparing them to show trends). It wouldn't surprise me if the sun hours from 1961-1990 are very close to what they are now, but unless we have recent data, there is no way to be sure and having data sets from two comepletely separate time periods like that on the same chart is an inaccurate presentation of data. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
"International relations"
A prolific and otherwise responsible editor has been going about Polish articles (I hope limited to there) adding "International relations" as a supersection title to "Twin towns" which he has changed to the American "Sister cities and twin towns" group category. Cities do not conduct "international relations." Nations do. This is not a recognized subsection title in any outline that I have run across. I would like to see this process stopped. He is extremely prolific and I cannot easily scan his contributions to find out what he has done exactly! (Maybe he's a bot! :) Student7 (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Camden Children's Garden
The Children's garden has been a wonderful feature on the water front for a good many years. Many children and their parents or teachers visit and enjoy this faciltiy. I think that more details need to be added about this feature in the article about Camden.
Lorraine Kiefer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.151.13 (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
What should the Tokyo article be about?
There's a controversy at talk:Tokyo#Definiton of 'city'. The article is currently specifically about the prefecture. A user is insisting the article should be about the "city" and not specifically about the prefecture. Other knowledgeable opinions might be helpful. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Bot to add title coordinates to about 65,000 articles
A recent bot request (perm) seeks to add title coordinates to a bunch of articles using Infobox settlement. This is going to be rolled together with another planned task set to |coordinates_region= to the infobox as well. (Example edit)
A user wants to add a second climate chart template to the right of an article that is already using {{Infobox weather}} at the bottom of the same section (see Richmond, Virginia). The data in both is the same, it's just presented in different ways. It's really horribly redundant, not to mention the fact that using two templates in an article instead of just one adds contributes to slowing an article's download times unnecessarily. The discussion is at Talk:Richmond, Virginia#climate chart. WTF? (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I posted about this back in May when the same editor first tried adding this second chart and the "sunshine hours" data into several larger city articles (see my previous post under Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Cities#Climate data). While it appears the NOAA data most city articles use is from 1971-2000, (which compares with the Hong Kong Observatory's 1961-1990 data collection period) the other issue is excessive detail with "sunshine hours" using number values most people don't use (like "245.6 hours") and no indicated methodology as to what constitutes an hour of "sunshine". The added chart needs removed in my opinion (this has already happened on other city articles) but he is pretty adamant that it not be removed from any "Climate of..." articles (almost to the point of ownership). Would appreciate any comments here regarding this or at the Richmond talk page. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi All. User:The Universe Is Cool has gone on a sweep of several articles replacing prose content on race and ethnicity into bullet list form. I believe this is in contrast to general practice and the Manual of Style's recommendation that content be presented as prose whenever possible. However, I wanted to bring this issue up for discussion here in order to arrive at some sort of consensus. Best, epicAdam(talk)16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Prose just reads and looks better. Bullet lists tend to emphasize the individual pieces of information at the expense of the context the article is trying to convey. In my opinions, the demographics sections for city articles have problems of their own (the prose is very stale and not very compelling), but converting to bulleted lists enhance the problem rather than correcting it.DCmacnut<>16:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what is wrong with my way of formatting the data. I've seen it before, but now it's all wrong? What the hell? It's easier to read bullet lists than it is to read a paragraphs. I love editing demography sections and now my way of formatting is "wrong". This is BS. The Universe Is Cool (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool
First you need to make sure you're familiar with the Manual of Style. Lists within an article are generally seen in the early stages and as the article or section develops, they are integrated into prose. Prose is always preferred over a list wherever possible. Basically, putting prose into a bulleted list is seen as a step backwards in the article's development. What most demographic sections need is more comparison with past Census results (to show possible trends if noteworthy) and comparison with state and national results for the same information to help give more perspective to the demographics of a city (especially when certain aspects of a city are noticeably higher or lower than a state and/or federal averages in the same area). In other words, they need a lot more expansion and dynamics (but not speculation) which is what WP:USCITY suggests. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that in general an encyclopedia (and specifically Wikipedia) should be based mostly in prose, and that is certainly recommended. However, Wikipedia:MOS#Bulleted_and_numbered_lists states "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." The implication is that lists are acceptable in some cases. I'm not sure the current prose method of presenting demographics "reads easily"; it seems to be unnaturally forced into prose format. Furthermore, I wouldn't agree that presenting at least some demographic information in list format would enhance the problem; some things are easier to read and comprehend when presented in list format, and I think another important over-arching principle here is that the encyclopedia should be easy to read and easy to use. In a nutshell -- prose is certainly the preference in Wikipedia, but it doesn't fit every situation. Omnedon (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
That's the point I was making above. The prose for the demographics is awkward and reads poorly. That's the way the articles were imported by Rambot. They need to be improved, but I not sure a list is the right way.DCmacnut<>01:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess that's what I'm trying to say too. Rather than spend the time putting them into list when the MOS clearly wants them to end up in prose, focus on including additional reliable data to make them a bit more dynamic and less dry. Many cities do their own studies using the Census data or comparisons can be made with nearby cities as well as county, state, and national data available from the Census Bureau. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead and put bulleted lists into city articles. Then, try and get that article passed at WP:GAN or WP:FAC. What a demographics section should be, is a discussion about the general types of people living in a particular city, how they got there, where they came from, what kind of trends in these population types are we seeing as the city develops. The bulleted lists are something you'd see in an Almanac, but I remind everyone that Wikipedia is the "free ENCYCLOPEDIA that anyone can edit". An encyclopedia is not an almanac. WTF? (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
If a discussion can be presented on demographics and trends and the like, fine. But to force raw quantities and percentages into a paragraph form doesn't make the information easier to read or use -- rather the reverse. Yet that information is important to the article. Once again: yes, prose is preferred, but that doesn't mean that 100% of all article content must be prose. Omnedon (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I sympathize with "Universe.." on his writing style. That is my gut reaction, as well. And I think it is sometimes easier to read for someone interested in a few facts, kind of confirming what Omnedon has said. However, I confess that it is not a great writing style and is not preferred here. Having said that, most of the articles I heavily edit could use the reverse of me - someone to modify my automatic "bullet" style into readable prose!Student7 (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Capital cities
Is it a must for a capital city to be defined by a law or a statute? Can it simply be a matter of conventions, especially under English common law traditions? 112.118.163.236 (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
A capital city is primarily defined by where the country's (or state/province's) legislature meets. Such a location is almost always defined by statute. Some countries, South Africa for example, officially claim to have three capitals because the nation's legislature, executive, and judicial bodies meet in three different places. That too, however, is dictated by law. Is there some specific example you have in mind of a place whose capital is not so easily defined by custom or statute? Best, epicAdam(talk)20:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, the legislature meets in each of the places you mentioned above. I do not know, specifically, if that has been codified in law (haven't had a chance to study it) but I imagine that they are, in some manner, legally recognized. Is there a dispute about the status of any of these? I'm just not clear why you're asking the question. Best, epicAdam(talk)21:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Basically around Victoria. The name has fallen into disuse among the population, except within the structures of a few organisations, but its boundary is still defined in law. 112.118.163.236 (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Interesting. However, Hong Kong is now a unified political body consisting of a single regional authority; I don't think there's much controversy there. Best, epicAdam(talk)21:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
There has never been any council or authority specifically for the City of Victoria. It's only an area defined in law. (There used to be two councils tho, one for Hong Kong Island, on which Victoria City is located, Kowloon and New Kowloon, another for the rest of the territory.) 112.118.163.236 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
This trolling and banned POV sockpuppet has been pushing this issue for five years. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
At both of the recent FAC reviews for the current city articles, Kent, Ohio and Stephens City, Virginia the issue of the use of city seals has been brought up. Both times concern has been expressed that if the seal is copyrighted, it does not meet WP:NFCC. Obviously having the seal is not required for a city article, but it seems like making a consistent policy would be in order (like either they are a necessary part ot not) since it will come up at FAC. My personal opinion is that since a city seal is usually quite visible on various signs, buildings, and other items in a given city, having it in the article could be defended with a rationale as an element of the city rather than simply as decorating the infobox. Of course many seals aren't copyrighted, but still. What do others think?
Is there guidance available on defining the scope of an article? Should an article on a city scrupulously avoid mentioning anything outside the city limits, or is there room for suburban elements to be incorporated where they have a strong association with the city proper? PowersT19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It's up to consensus. Typically, city articles try to stick to events in the city proper, but it's perfectly acceptable to mention things like the metropolitan population or "suburban elements", as you put it, if there is a strong connection. It's really more of a case-by-case thing than some hard-and-fast rule. Best, epicAdam(talk)21:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
It's case-by-case but also a common sense thing too. City articles are about that specific city, which is defined by its actual boundaries. It doesn't mean things outside the city cannot, under any circumstances, be mentioned, but care must be made to state why any mention of those things outside of the city affect it whether it be historical or current influence. Too many city articles include quite a few things outside the city itself much like a chamber of commerce or other promotional site would to make the city look better. I've always erred on the side of sticking to the city boundaries and then taking those exceptions one by one. Those "suburban connections" need to be "strong" as Epicadam stated AND properly sourced and it needs to be made clear not only why the connection exists but that whatever it is IS located in a different city/town (which will have its own article of course). --JonRidinger (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
To me, that's very different from what Adam said. Your claim that "city articles are about that specific city", with no room for leeway, is very different from "It's up to consensus". It is precisely that question which I am trying to address. Many people mean much more than just "what's within the city limits" when they talk about "the city of so-and-so". PowersT15:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Epicadam stated "city articles try to stick to events in the city proper". The city proper is the actual physical boundaries of the city as opposed to the "greater city" which includes its suburbs or related neighbors. From what he said and what I said it's basically stick to the physical boundaries and take the exceptions one by one. I never said there was no leeway, but the leeway isn't as wide as many editors and many average readers would like it to be. Exceptions DO exist, but when they do, the connections are clearly visible through the information available (reliable sources). Simply relying on the fact that many locals may not distinguish between one city or another (because, for example, ZIP codes do not always follow municipal boundaries) or lump them all together is largely irrelevant unless that lack of distinction can be shown with WP:RS. That's also why articles about larger metropolitan areas were created. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a middle ground, though, between the multi-county metro areas and the area around a city known by the city's name, that I don't think is being covered the way it should be if we limit the city article to the city limits. It's not just confusion caused by ZIP codes, it's that people have a broader perception of what "the city" is than just where the lines fall on the map. PowersT14:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely different people have different perceptions of what "the city" is and how it is defined. I see it even in my hometown. That's why sticking to the actual boundaries and taking the exceptions one by one is the best route so that all of the city articles have some sort of similarity and standard. Remember, in the end, these are Wikipedia articles, not articles by each city, so they need to conform to certain standards and guidelines. As an editor, we have to think along the lines of Wikipedia standards and policies as opposed to acting as residents (i.e. simply applying our local understandings that may or may not even be sourced) for the respective town/city we live in when we edit. What one considers "the city" others might not for various reasons. This is particularly true of larger cities. Many in the main city may consider the nearby suburbs part of their definition of "the city", but unless there is a published survey we have no way to know that. What I've seen is that the defintion of a "greater city" is very ambiguous (Greater Cleveland comes to mind). Even with Metro areas, there are published sources that sometimes reference how one metro area is "officially defined" but also address how it is perceived by locals (like a smaller city that is officially in one metro area but borders another). The key is sources. Anything that you think fits a statement like "is often considered part of XXXXX city..." would need some type of source to verify. Otherwise it's just heresay. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, everything must be sourced. But I would contend that we don't need sources that literally say "is often considered part of XXXXX city", merely that they say a particular "thing" is in "XXXXX city". I've had that contention dismissed as "confusion" on the part of the writer (based on ZIP codes) and not something we can use because we "know" the thing isn't within the city limits. PowersT17:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi LtPowers. Let me see if I can try to clarify. This Wikiproject provides guidelines that are meant to apply to all cities. For this reason, the general consensus is that articles about a particular city should remain confined to information about the city proper, meaning the physical lines on the map. However, these guidelines, like all Wiki guidelines, are not hard-and-fast rules. That is what I meant by exceptions made on a case-by-case basis through consensus.
Using a familiar example, the article on Washington, D.C. contains information about the September 11 attacks, even though the Pentagon is physically located in Arlington, Virginia. The decision to include the information that falls outside the city proper was based on the fact that there exists a strong connection between the Pentagon and Washington as the U.S. capital, and because the attacks had an extremely significant effect on the city. That addition, however, is an exception to the rule. Is there a specific city article where you believe information should be included despite being outside the city proper? It may help to provide better guidance if we knew what in particular may be a problem. Best, epicAdam(talk)15:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, the specific issue is a long-running (because I'm slow to respond) debate on Talk:Rochester, New York. Some time ago, User:Beirne undertook to excise any and all companies and institutions that are located outside the city limits. My concern is that doing so leaves out much of what is widely considered "iconic" about "Rochester" (as a concept, versus as a geographic entity) such as Rochester Institute of Technology and Wegmans. The response (from Beirne and others) was that such things could go in the article for the Rochester metro area, but that article's remit is far too broad to convey the close association that exists between the city and these technically-suburban entities. For example, Rochester is widely considered a center for education, but only the University of Rochester and a satellite campus of Monroe Community College are within the city limits; the large number of suburban colleges is absolutely relevant to the city but apparently not allowed to be mentioned. This, I feel, is a disservice to the reader, who, for example, may have a perception of Rochester as an educational center but reads the article, sees only a couple of institutions mentioned, and figures she must have heard wrong. PowersT17:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I just found this so I guess I'll jump in. The problem here is the repeated references to many people believing things about Rochester that are not in fact true. Jon mentioned this above when he stressed the importance of reliable sources. A map is generally a reliable source, but trying to base what goes in the article on a vague sense of what many people believe will not lead to an accurate article. In the case of Rochester being considered a center for education, it apparently is not actually so, with only one medium sized university and a branch of a community college. I believe everything mentioned in the article is in Monroe County, so perhaps that could serve as a reasonably sized location for this information. --Beirne (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
But that wouldn't jive with what the sources say. That's what I mean about substituting our own judgment for that of the sources. If the sources attribute something to Rochester, we shouldn't look at a map, shrug, and say "I guess they're wrong." PowersT18:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
There are competing sources so some judgment is required. Many businesses have a post office named for the major city while they are in the suburbs. This should not define what is in a city, but for many people it does. My definition, though, post offices do not necessarily stick to city boundaries, so the city name is only a rough guideline. This leads to my second problem with making a city article cover its metro area. When it happens there is then no article about the city. If the article on Rochester includes things in the suburbs, then someone reading the article will not be able to learn about what is in the city itself. This is how I came to work on the article. I've never been to the city, but after finding an ancestor lived there for a while I read the article. I found it was full of things outside of the city, leading me to believe, for example, that the Rochester Institute of Technology and Wegmans, along with many other businesses were in the city. This gave me and likely others false information about the city of Rochester. Including things that people think are in the city just to avoid some kind of "disservice" leads to a misleading article. When people go to read the article Wikipedia's duty is to give them the truth, not confirm people's erroneous perceptions. --Beirne (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Ahh. This makes much more sense now. And I have to say, I agree with LtPowers. The Rochester Institute of Technology actually being located in Henrietta is a minor point. The overall connection of the university to the city is undeniable; just like the connections between Harvard University (in Cambridge) and Boston, or the New York Giants (in New Jersey) and New York City. In these types of instances, I completely support inclusion of closely associated entities/institutions in the primary city article. To do otherwise would be to throw common sense out the window to the detriment of readers in order to satisfy what is a strictly editorial . In these instances, however, articles should note if the formal location is indeed in another town; that way readers are informed but not mislead.
That said, however, some things do not warrant inclusion. I would hold that where companies generally do not meet the threshold necessary to warrant an exception; where companies have their headquarters is largely irrelevant. There are only a few instances I can think of where companies headquartered outside the city proper warrant mention; for example, the inclusion of Ford and Chrysler in the article on Detroit. Despite the fact those companies are technically located outside Detroit proper, the connection between them and Detroit is central to the story of Detroit. Best, epicAdam(talk)19:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
RIT being in Henrietta is a major point. It left Rochester in 1968. Because of the historic tie and Rochester being in the name, I put a sentence in the Rochester article explaining that the institute was founded in the city and moved to Henrietta in 1968. This fit because the founding happened in the city and it clarified what happened to it. In the case of Harvard, I took it out of the Boston article a while back because it is not in the city, nor was it founded there. Some people pointed out that parts of the university are in Boston and put those parts in the article, which was perfect.
Sticking to city boundaries is not an editorial , it is a way to get accurate articles that are not filled with unrelated material. If something outside of the boundaries of the city relate to it, then it is suitable for mention. The relationship needs to be clearly defined, though, and explained in the article. People thinking something is in the city is not a basis for inclusion. In the example of Wegman's that was mentioned earlier, it used to be in the article and I took it out. I know of nothing notable in the fact that Wegman's is near Rochester. If something interesting can be said about that then it may fit in the article, but to just drop it in the article because it is in Greater Rochester adds clutter and confusion. --Beirne (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
But that's exactly the sort of thing that does a disservice to our readers -- they expect to read something about Wegmans when they come to the Rochester article, and about deaf people, and about Buffalo Bills training camp, and about the Erie Canal, and about Lou Gramm and Brian Gionta. At least, many of them do -- apparently, you did not. =) But I honestly think you're an outlier in that respect. PowersT21:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Eh, not so fast LtPowers... I wouldn't go to an article on Rochester expecting to read about Wegman's. Really, companies should only be mentioned if they're either major employers or otherwise significant. I'm willing to go so far as to include information about major universities and sports teams, etc. that are culturally significant and strongly relate to the city but I don't see how Wegman's and other companies fit in. Being perfectly honest, the only company I really associate with Rochester is Eastman Kodak; you could get by mentioning it because it's a rather sizable Fortune 500 company. It would be really great if you could find a list of the top employers in the city; that is far more relevant than just a list of companies. Best, epicAdam(talk)21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Wegmans is absolutely culturally significant to the city. It's a major part of the city's identity. The East Avenue store is always referred to as "the last remaining Wegmans in the city". Not to the extent Kodak was in its heyday, of course, but it's still relevant, just like Xerox and B&L are still. As for top employers, such lists are usually centered around the county or metro, even when they say "Rochester" (like this one), so it's very hard to find that kind of data. And I'm not sure whether you'd be looking for a list of city employers or a list of employers of city residents. PowersT23:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Wegman's does not sound significant to Rochester if the headquarters is in another community and only one grocery store is left in the city. An in general, we do a service for the readers who come to the Rochester article by writing about things and people that are related to the city of Rochester and not adding to their confusion. B&L and Xerox are examples of businesses in the city (I assume) that are significant and are the kind of ones that should be included. --Beirne (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Once again, you're advocating substituting our own judgment for that of the sources. "Rochester's Big Three" were always Kodak, Xerox, and B&L, even after Xerox moved its HQ to Connecticut. And countless sources talk about Wegmans when writing about Rochester, and Rochester is almost always listed as Wegmans' HQ location, and yet you look at a map and say "Well, they're wrong." PowersT23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know what the problem is about Xerox, and B&L. I said they should be included in the article. I didn't say anything about Kodak but it should obviously be there too. Regarding Wegmans, here's the deal. According to the Wegmans FAQ, the HQ is at 1500 Brooks Ave. with a Rochester post office. This, as we all know, tells us nothing definitive about what community the headquarters is in. So I looked up the address in the Monroe County Real Property Data, and found that the address is in Gates. I consider this definitive but it takes a couple of steps to get there. Here's a secondary source, though, that says the HQ is in Gates. So saying that the Wegmans HQ is in Rochester would mislead readers, such as myself when I started reading the article. --Beirne (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
To answer the original question - no, articles on cities are bound like other articles to WP:TOPIC. Slopping over city boundaries distracts from the Metro article which is better scoped to handle such material. It also places material in two (or more) places, all of which require updating and maintenance. There is no need to create problems for other editors later. One place is enough for most items. Water systems (for example) may have to be included in both articles because it is the same system. So there are logical exceptions because they cannot be avoided.
My classic example for this was Hoboken which was (at one time anyway) claiming LaGuardia as a "local airport", in another state, another city and a long time away during rush hour.
As far as including DC in the 9/11 attacks, this only makes sense because DC itself was threatened (the White House). And perhaps involved in treating the injured. Otherwise it would not be well placed. Note that having this in three local articles, all requiring maintenance, is nuisance enough: the Pentagon, Arlington and the Metro area. Student7 (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hoboken, sure. But surely you wouldn't advocate removing all mention of Newark Liberty from the New York City article, would you? And I strongly challenge your assertion about the Metro article, which has a scope far, far larger than that of the city. The two are not comparable alternatives to each other. PowersT12:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It is common practice to list the airports that serve a major city, so it is reasonable to list Newark Liberty in the NYC article. Regarding the Metro article, if you put metro Rochester content in the Rochester article, you leave the city of Rochester with no article of its own. If you put it in the bigger Metro Rochester article, you have added content that easily fits in with no confusion. If you feel that the Metro article covers too much ground, add the content to the Monroe County article. That will include a lot of metro Rochester, such as Henrietta, Gates, and Pittsford. Or if you can find a valid smaller definition of metro Rochester than create a new article. So far, though, I haven't heard of one that is defined by a valid secondary source. Instead the Rochester article was inflated with content from an undefined notion of what is Greater Rochester. --Beirne (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
What sources? I showed via solid sources that RIT is in Henrietta and Wegman's HQ is in Gates, which we both know are correct. There is no reason to favor sources that say they are in Rochester when we know they aren't. --Beirne (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
No, we can continue the discussion here. The question is the which type of source is more important, one that is correct or one that supports one's point. If it can be proven via valid sources that something is not in the city, they why consider ones that say it is? --Beirne (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
See, that's why I really don't think you get my point. As I've explained repeatedly, I'm not interested in trying to say "Wegmans is headquartered in the city of Rochester." I don't believe it, I'm not trying to find sources that say that, and I don't think such sources exist. You're continuing to argue against a position I don't take. PowersT19:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, what do you want to say about Wegmans in the Rochester article? With the HQ in Gates and one store in the city, there does not seem to be much of a relationship between Wegmans and the city. --Beirne (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the problems with this discussion is that some editors apparently believe that place articles differ from other articles. They do not. There is potential overlap between "mathematics" and "geometry." "Philosophy" and "Religion." "Physics" and "Electricity." One of the guiding precepts in all these articles is not to include stuff that is definitely going to be, and therefore maintained, in another article. A pointer/link to the other article will do nicely. "Centerville is a city in Indiana. It is part of the[[Centeville metropolitan statistical area]]. No different than any other topic. These discussions seem to pretend that there is horrible confusion that cannot be resolved without needlessly duplicating information that belongs in a parent (metro) article. I don't see the problem here.
Bayonne is a part of the NYC metro area. There is no one wringing their hands over Bayonne because it has a different name than its metro. What is in Bayonne stays in Bayonne! There is no requirement to claim attributes outside city boundaries, nor is there any advantage. Who cares? So what? If the reader cares, let them go to the higher level article, as they would in "Mathematics" from "Geometry." No need to duplicate both articles in both articles. See WP:TOPIC. Student7 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
.png)
.png){kind=link}
Resolved