Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline

Questions about these lists of notable people that live in town X

Wikipedia articles are about notable subjects, not about trivial links between subjects. More and more, the lists of people born in town X or residing in town X don't rise above the level of trivia. Only in relatively few cases is there a notable link between a town and a resident as, for example, between Key West and Jimmy "Margaritaville" Buffet. Question: In the past, has there been any discussion about what to do with the loads of triviality carried in these lists? Shouldn't we have a guideline that says to limit the contents of these lists to the cases where the link between town and person is notable beyond birth or residence? I'm ready to write such a guideline. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• In the past I've considered them to be trivia (like Edmonton#Notable People's 'list of names'). I'm ok with the Shaw and Crompton#Notable people-style prose. In general, individual people living there can be important/interesting to the city. So I don't object to their inclusion as long as the section is written like Shaw and Crompton's. --maclean 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the lists of notable people that I've seen are trivial, uncited, and a magnet for vandalism. I'd like to see Iterator12n's guideline proposal. Strobilus (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, they are very popular. Readers like to add to them. What must be done, however, is to make sure that the names are truly Notable and Sourced. What ever happened to Iterator's proposal? Querulously, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the listings of notable people associated with given towns are popular – although it seems that their popularity is limited to the editors that happen to live in the particular town or village, and to local readers. I haven’t seen much enthusiasm for these listings outside each circle of local editors and local readers, so it seems the listings satisfy our provincialistic urge. On the subject of provincialism, note that articles about large-scale entities such as New York City, Los Angeles, Beijing, Tokyo, Berlin, and London don’t feature the listings. Good for them. Finally, in the year since I suggested a guideline I have learned about the useful-but-limited quality of Wikipedia. Useful? Yes! However, an encyclopedic quality, in the sense of not only enumerating pieces of knowledge but also laying out whatever substantial connections may exist or be seen between the pieces? No way! From the perspective that Wikipedia's ways and means of editing determine the quality (I'm writing this trying to avoid expressing an appreciation or a lack of appreciation of the present ways and means, just an observation) the present listings of notable people are not better or worse than the rest - realistically, you can't do much better. Happy editing! -- Iterator12n ^Talk 17:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Popularity should not be limited to the town or region in which they live. They must be notable outside the geographic limits of the article. So a mayor, if only that, cannot by definition be "notable" to that city. Other people should be compared to the city (or whatever) most notable mayor, to determine whether they should be included or not. Their accomplishments must exceed his/hers!

While a guideline has been given above, it is (alas) not widely followed. My thought about the material that gets listed with the notable should be brief. I was hoping to limit phrases following. For example, "X, professional swimmer" is too often changed to "X, swam for the Miami Dolphins in 2002, and the Hawaii Sharks in 2003" I don't think we need a running resume. Interested people can go to the notable's article. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cities like Los Angeles are not exempt from this phenomenon. Numerous articles on its districts and neighborhoods (~20% of them) feature this type of "information." ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal [of Notable natives and residents]?

There's not much in the way of support for lists of notable people either here or in the Notable Natives discussion at the project page's talk page. I'd like to propose replacing the section in this guideline with wording indicating that people who are not directly related with the founding, establishment, or government of the city not be enumerated. That is, that these lists are, as a patter of guideline (and eventually policy) not to be included in city articles. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A city consists entirely of people. Omitting notable individuals who have resided overlooks the most important element of any kind of settlement. —EncMstr (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

EncMstr is absolutely correct. Omitting notable individuals would be a serious error. However, the debate is not whether people should be omitted but rather if a separate list or section is the appropriate way to include notable individuals in articles. I think there first has to be some recognition that long lists of people generally do not aid the reader's understanding of a city. If individuals are truly notable, then it should be easy to weave mention of them into the article's prose. Therefore I agree with removing separate "lists" of such names, especially within the main articles. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Listing athletes and entertainers seems farcial to me, too. Saying that lists should not be presented as lists is fine but unworkable. I've seen a few well-written non-lists in various cities. This writing is simply beyond most editors including me. It requires literary talent relegating editing to literary majors rather than a people-written encyclopedia. It has not worked in the past and people will ignore it, because they have no real choice when it comes down to it.

While it is true that 80% of the people (and therefore notables) in a nation come from 20% of the (larger) places, there is an important collorary. 20% of the people come from the other 80% of the places that are tiny and have nothing else of significance other than they produced a Horace Tabor, or a Henry M. Leland, or (in a small state) a US Senator or a Governor. In these cases (most of the place articles), there are but a few people in the list and it makes the article more interesting. The place did produce the people after all. It wasn't a coincidence as it often seems with athletes or musicians. Maintaining lengthy, unfootnoted lists of people from cities (usually forked, mercifully) has gotten completely out of hand. A few people voting here cannot be taken seriously. This is a fairly big proposition IMO. For many editors, this is the only section they look at! Student7 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Another problem arises from the fact that lists are ubiquitous. Remove them here and they will creep back from other areas, like schools, for example. I tried to maintain Order_of_St._Gregory_the_Great#Notable_members by allowing only people I had heard of! Editors tired of me owning the article and fired me!  :) Unfortunately, the Vatican gave these medals out like cocktail peanuts. There were probably several thousand awardees over the years, of which at least several hundred will wind up with articles.

We may wake up some morning and some bright guy has written a bot that extracts "born in" from every bio, and dropped each name in a list "someplace" corresponding to the birthplace. There's a nightmare for you!  :) 00:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A city is a location. It contains natural features because of that location (resources, physical geography, and so on)--and secondary aspects related to that location (relationships to other cities and land features; climate, and so on). It also contains a government as a set of laws. There's a ton of man-made aspects to cities, such as parks, notable buildings, and so on. It's clearly false, then, to say that a city "consists entirely of people". I'm not sure how to entertain a discussion based solely on this falsehood. One way might be to suppose that it were true. Then what? If a city is what it is because a certain professional athlete lives there, then what happens to that city when he moves? Or dies? Even if it were true, it seems like this aphorism is too weak to actually support the inclusion of lists of people resident in a city. -- Mikeblas (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A city has a location: true. But if the people leave, it is no longer a city. A few cities have been relocated, so even "location" might be a transitory attribute. I've been in a few so-called "third world" areas where the cities—better called "communities"—have no permanent structures. It's narrow thinking to assume all cities have buildings, parks, monuments, etc. —EncMstr (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If the people leave, the city is still there: List of ghost towns. A group of people is not a city; as you point out yourself, it's just a community, or a tribe, or a gathering. Those people might not even share propinquity, as the Internet has shown us. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

College towns

I have been wondering if there is, or should be, any type of policy regarding notable people who are connected to a town or city because they went to college there, particularly in college towns where the notable alumni of the school greatly outnumber notable natives/residents. The general rule I have followed in a notable people list for a city is to not list people who only lived in a particular city as a student at whatever school is located there (see List of people from Kent, Ohio). In the notable people section (as prose), I have a "See also" to the list of notable alumni for the school and make mention of a few, specifying that their connection is that they attended the school (see Kent, Ohio#Notable people). I guess my feeling is that unless an alum decided to make their home in that town or was already from there, you'd never say they were from that town or even connect them with it without first mentioning the school. I'm not saying my way is correct, but would like to see what others think or if there should be any type of further explanation in the guidelines. It has come up as I have looked at the Stillwater, Oklahoma article, which mixes Stillwater residents and natives as well as those who are exclusively Oklahoma State University alumni like Bryant Reeves and T. Boone Pickens. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. No notable college people "reside" in town. Or "notable" professors either. Having said that, I am usually not monitoring the town with every college. While I like your "text" way of mentioning "a few notables", I am amazed you have succeeded so well. Any article I have ever had, if you mentioned any notable, you would soon wind up with all of them, placed there, as usual, by well-meaning newbies, who have to be argued with for a week to convince them. Best to fork all notables anyway, as soon as possible. Can't be monitored as easily, on one hand; on the other, nobody really reads it either!  :( Student7 (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"general references"

I still remain strongly opposed to the use of so-called "general references". There simply unacceptable, especially in the case of a wiki that "anyone can edit." While it is ok to use a reference to back up an entire article in the early stages of the article's development, as articles are edited by many people, and more sources are used, the article's content rapidly diverges away from said "general reference". So stating that the article is "cited" "as a whole" by a given reference is thoroughly inaccurate, and very misleading to readers. I still have absolutely no problems with these being under the 'further reading' section, since these sources may, of course, still be used to help edit the article, but they're not explicitly citing content, so they can't be confused with a true "source".

It should also be pointed out that, despite what the manual of style says, most articles that I see on wikipedia, at least at the GA and FA stage and above, do not use "general references", either, preferring to cite things directly as inline citations, with any additional sources listed under 'further reading'. So really, we're just putting into words what's already largely being done in practice. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're strong opposition is noted. However that alone is not sufficient to warrant making changes that are not supported by WP:CITE. If you have a problem with general references, I suggest you take it up there. 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkonrad (talk • contribs)

I already have. But I will continue to revert you because you're just plain wrong here. Sorry. You lose. Play again next time. Dr. Cash (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ta, well if you want to play that game, you've already lost -- until you gain support for your change you are more plainly wrong than I. older ≠ wiser 12:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Now, you appear to be playing with a sock puppet account. Sorry, I don't listen to socks,... Dr. Cash (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to gather some evidence before tossing such accusations about. And you might want to avoid inserting your preferred version that so far has had no support whatsoever. FWIW, I agree with the suggestion by maclean above that there is really little point to have such detail in this guideline when the guidance at WP:CITE is far more comprehensive and subject to far more scrutiny that this page. older ≠ wiser 17:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Not too sure about some of the latter remarks, but I support specific in-line references for all post-baseline material. "General references" are just too vague. You can't tell, particularly for controversial articles, what pertains to which comment. Or sometimes, people slip stuff in that is spam or pov and come back with the "general reference" when you ask. Not really acceptable IMO. I can appreciate, having done it myself a few times, that to start an article, the references are sometimes a bit vague and you almost have to play along with the "general reference" for a little while til things get going which is usually soon. Easy enough to allow for even controversial topics but certainly for place articles. Student7 (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Student7, yes I think most would agree that in-line references are preferable. However, it is quite another thing altogether for someone to unilaterally decide to change this project guidance to state that general references should not be listed as references despite the conflicting guidance at the overarching WP:CITE guideline. older ≠ wiser 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I still strongly disagree with you, and I don't appreciate you reporting me as a 3RR violation; as far as I know, I did not violate 3RR, but went to the line. So I don't like your tactics and I don't like your strong-arming of your ways here, which I think is wrong. But I am not going to use this page as a vehicle to eliminate general references; I've initiated a discussion on this topic here. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying that you don't like my "strong arming" ways here is rich irony coming from someone whose edits were based primarily on their certainty with regards to their own correctness, despite having demonstrated no support for their changes on the talk page here or in existing guidelines.

As I've said elsewhere, it is indisputable that you (and I) were edit-warring over this page, which is what 3RR is about. Getting legalistic about technicalities is a poor excuse for continuing to revert without any clear support for your change. And I don't appreciate being accused of sock puppetry. I think we both went over the line in this interaction, which is unfortunate because I can see that you are a good editor and valuable contributor to the Wikipedia. I don't agree with you about general references, but that is a matter for further discussion. I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources‎. older ≠ wiser 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for referring to you as a "sock puppet"; looking at your user name and nickname, I see now that you are not. I think we still disagree on the issue, but I won't get hostile any more about it,... Dr. Cash (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Separating Notes from References

It is easy, and simple to separate notes from references. Put the notes in a "Notes" field with the reflist template and list references, if any, in a "Further reading" field. I don't think that that is too complex a notion for this guideline, but if it is preferred that editors seek guidance from WP:CITE or Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout, then don't confuse them here, but have this guideline send them directly there. It appears that a number of editors of articles about cities and towns only come here, and don't understand how to deal with in-line citations in an appropriate way. Can we give them guidance either directly or through linking without conflicting with Wikipedia guidelines? --Bejnar (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've adjust the title of the section from 'references' to 'references/notes'. Either title seems to be acceptable here, and I don't think we want to favor one over the other. I do think that this guideline should focus more on the actual meat-and-bones sections that are important to city articles, and largely leave the finer details of semantics to the manual of style. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Cash is, of course, correct. We (me!) should leave off lecturing people here. Already covered in a higher level reference. Not an appropriate topic for us. Already "settled." I hope. :) Student7 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Can the Guideline recommend that?

• "Footnotes" or "Notes" section be limited to using the Template "Cnote" and "Cref"

to provide footnotes clarifying or elaborating specific material in an article.

• "References" section be limited to using the Template "Reflist", along with "Refbegin" and "Refend" for general references; and

using the tag "ref name=" along with the Template "cite" to provide footnoted citations within an article.

LeheckaG (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Where do libraries go?

Many cities have notable libraries, either because the library is exceptionally good or sometimes in small cities because there are few other cultural features besides the public library. Where in the template should libraries be placed? New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago put theirs in Education, which makes sense. Boston spreads their around under Geography and Culture. Seattle uses Landmarks. San Francisco doesn't mention theirs. If there is a consensus on this I would like to have it noted in the guidelines. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there is no consensus. Which makes sense. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have an admin in San Diego who claims that the decision has been made to include them in "education." Many of us have a soft spot for libraries having spent a bit of time in them. Nevertheless, they are threatened since everything they have today is downloadable. In ten years, who knows what will happen to them. Despite the fact that they lend mostly fiction and discard classics (no one wants to borrow them), some people want to include them in "education." This smacks to me, of politics more than organization. Yes, politically, libraries would be better off being supported by a gullible and awash-in-money education system, but they have historically been associated with "cultural" in the past. Putting them under a tent where other institutions are supported by a school board, it seems like promotion to me. Student7 (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think "no consensus" is probably appropriate - and there is not a need for consistency on this point. Libraries could play different roles in different cities, as Uncia's research indicates. I have also seen them lumped together with Parks in a kind of "public facilities" or "public infrastructure" section. To me the biggest argument against putting them under education is that they are not funded or administered as education. I know of no city where libraries are under the jurisdiction of the school board. So the position that libraries are not a form of "education" is not simply a matter of opinion - it is how they are treated by outside authority. Very Wikipedian.

But meanwhile, the change was abruptly made on the San Diego page by an editor who stated flatly "libraries belong in education." They had been under "culture". Any thoughts about that? --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

I disagree that libraries belong in education as they have nothing to do with local school boards, for the most part, but instead are administered by the city government. Depending on how complete the rest of the article is, I think it makes more sense to put libraries into either "Government" or "Infrastructure". "Museums and other points of interest" could also work, especially if the library building itself is historic. Since libraries are standard equipment, if you will, in most cities, however, I wouldn't necessarily think of them as any more of a "point of interest" than any other government building. Katr67 (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I put them under "Education" in Minneapolis, administered by the county who found some money from a new stadium for the Twins to keep it open. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, libraries funded by something other than the city certainly may have more options for placement. I noticed while looking at a State of Oregon website of a city profile that they list media (print, radio, etc.), Internet providers, telecommunications providers and libraries under "Communications Resources". That might be a good addition to our WP:USCITY guideline. Just call the section "Communications", of course, because as we all know Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Katr67 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm waaaaaay late on this, but where a library mention is made can vary by state and country. Here in Ohio, libraries are very much connected with the local school district. The library's "district" often coincides with the school district. That may or may not be true in other locations. While I included it in education in the main article I edited, it could easily be justified in other locations. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a shock! I suppose it is not a "coincidence" that Ohios libraries coincide with the school district. Are they then funded by the school/education? For starters, this information, which I believe is unique to Ohio, should go into a general article on US libraries (or US subsection); into Education in Ohio, and probably several other places I can't think of right now.Student7 (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Most library money comes from a separate state library fund. In limited cases, libraries will go to their "district" and ask for a levy if needed, but most libraries in the state do not operate on any locally-funded levy. This happened in my hometown and it paid for construction of a huge addition in 2004. The "library district" isn't as rigid as a school district (anyone can use the library even people that don't live in the school district). Kent Free Library is classified as a "school district library" according to the history written about it by a grad student back in the early 1990s and at one point the high school library was considered a "branch" of the library. Like school districts, libraries also have their own "boards". So no, it isn't a perfect correspondence between the school district and the library, but there is still a strong connection. Like I said in December, I think there is justification for including it in Education sections (that is inherently the point of libraries), but it could also be seen as a function of local government. It really depends on how they're funded. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In Florida, brand new libraries might be funded by the state, but I doubt it. The Library District is coincident with the School District. But this is true for the country outside the Northeast. The County Board is also coincident with the school district (really vice-versa). The County has nothing to do with the schools but appoints Library Boards and funds them. They do not get noticeable money from the state which is why they are pinched right now. Local money only. Nowdays you have chunks of money spent on Cds, DVDs, online subscriptions, web access for any reason. Shelves with Romance novels. Education?? Hmmm. Student7 (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Consistency issues

• What is the intent of the Guideline recommending placing a coordinates link under External links when it is already in the Infobox?

I forgot that that links was in there. It is redundant, since the coordinates are in the infobox and many times in the 'geography' section as well. Template removed. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully people will catch that change. LeheckaG (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The specific issue which I have been seeing is "City" (and other "Geo") articles which have multiple-different coordinates:

the Infobox has one coordinate, another coordinate may be in the text of the article (under Geography), and an external link may have yet another.

• Also there is often lack of consistency (DMS, DM, or Decimal Degree formats) between such separate occurences.
• They are often "unsourced". There should be a "one-click" link (in references or next to the coordinates) to retrieve the source of the coordinates (like the Gnis template does, and not the GR3 template which does not).
• While Decimal degrees may be "easier" (lazy?) to cut and paste,

Decimal Degrees do not readily convey the information which DM or DMS do:

• a DM/DMS "minute" approximates a Nautical Mile of latitude or longitude

(the latter, longitude, at least closer to the equator and not at the North and South pole).

One small problem is that there is often an (unexplained) conflict with the coord in the externals and the one in the info box. One has to be deleted to stop the overwrite of the second at the top right of the article. People have complained generally about this, probably to the wrong people because I don't believe it has been fixed.Student7 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the Geo template used, coord template has a display= parameter which can be set: "=inline" puts it in the text, "=title" puts it at the top, and "=inline,title" does both. coor template similarly has "at" and "title" sub-templates, coor normally places them inline, "title" places them in the title bar, and "at" does both. So in most Geo template cases, it is a matter of either setting a parameter or using a different template. Yes, for cities/settlements, one single set of coordinates is appropriate, though recently, I can point out several examples where a "name" refers to several entities: census-designated place, civil, populated place, ... with different coordinates (and correspondingly different boundaries/maps).

In the "unique" case of linear features (highways, railroads, rivers, ...), they potentially can benefit from having their two endpoints in the title bar (which does not work properly, now), and if Google or other Geo search engines could locate them by either endpoint. LeheckaG (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• If the intent of the External links/coordinates is to consistently place the article's coordinates in the "title" bar (so that Google and others find them), a better way would be to use a coord template within the Infobox and supply the display=inline,title parameters. While the coord template supercedes the coor and other similar templates; one can achieve similar results with the "coor at" template, which also places the coordinates in-line as well as in the title bar (so that they are searchable by Google and others).
• I have seen Wikipedians remove links from External links and/or See also because they were already elsewhere in the article (associated with a particular section of the text), in several cases "unnecessarily" removing "duplicate" links makes them much more difficult to find in the article text. My take on coordinates in External links is that the coordinates should already be associated with the Infobox and Title, and possibly under either the lead paragraph or geography if it makes sense there to disambiguate from a different similar coordinate. But also having coordinates under external links does not "add value" when it is already in the Infobox (and Title).

Thanks for straightening me out on placing the two coords. The advantage of two coords, I assume, is to put a dot on a map for the reader in the info box. The coord at the end, as I am sure you are aware, gives the reader many potential map displays.Student7 (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• While Wikipedia is not a "link farm": when a civil sub-division (city/town/village/borough/county/township) does not have a single "official" government web site with links to their various "major" agencies or departments. I see value if the "standard" ones can be enumerated under external links:
• Auditor/Taxes
• Court(s)
• Executive/legislature
• Law enforcement
• Recorder

I like to see elected officials named, and maybe one appointed executive (city manager, for example).Student7 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

... I have seen several instances where each of the above civil agencies/departments go off and establish their own "official" website because either their overall government has neglected to, or more often, that the design/hosting job was "bid out" to different private contractors separately by each department, resulting in the "hodge podge" of official web sites. For the "Wikipedia" consumer, I see value in providing their citizens/residents that "one-stop" umbrella (go to the Wikipedia article and select the appropriate major agency or deparment).

It's seriously unnecessary to link to every city department from the external links section when the link to the main government website will suffice. Wikipedia is not a directory, and the target audience of a wikipedia article on a city or town goes far beyond the residents of that town only. Some links are good to have though; for example, links to the official government site, chamber of commerce, and/or tourism bureau are perfectly appropriate, as they all serve different purposes, and often the chamber of commerce and tourism bureaus stand alone separately from government as it is. But specific departments, like public safety, assessors, and public works, should all be covered under the city government sites, and separate links are discouraged. For similar reasons, we don't list the corporate websites of every corporation or business that exists in a town, either. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By no means proposing a link to every department, but where a local government does not have a "unified" official web site, at least the appropriate agencies/departments of value. Personally, I have often used county auditor, courts, and recorder sites to perform searches for information. LeheckaG (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have been seeing issues with ambiguous names. Contributors not checking first which other similar items might exist by the same name, or searching to see if an article already exists under a different name. With cities in the U.S., the "official"/long article name should be disambiguated by adding the appropriate Borough/County or Township to the name: "City/Town/Village...-name , Named-county County, State" (or similar with a Borough or Township), and then a Wiki redirect article(s) created with the appropriate common/short-names pointing to either a disambiguation page or the "most appropriate" article (provided such article has an "otheruses4" template at the top pointing to an appropriate disambiguation page).

• I suppose what is "gnawing" at me in particular, is many Wiki U.S. "city" articles "over-relying" on U.S. Census-provided data? and then not having any local "official" and background information. To me "official" means the local civil government's official web site (or levels of government above them) even if they are hosted on something other than .Gov (I have seen official U.S. civil/local government sites on .Com, .Gov, .Org, and .US).

For most cities and towns, the best source IS the US census website, and it is updated at least every year (usually in July) with estimates (the official census count is done every 10 years). If some of the larger cities and towns have better and more up-to-date sources for population figures, that's certainly allowed (as long as the source is provided, and reliable). But I think that's going to be hard to find for the vast majority of cities.

Census data only goes so far in being valuable information. Many civil sub-division have more (non-Census) information available. And if Wiki is only "parroting" what is already on the U.S. Census site as well as on several other sites which replicate it, then what is the added-value? LeheckaG (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Having read your thoughtful questions and answers, I am sure you mean something different than what I am reading here. What I mainly do with census figures is try to display them so they are readable. Parroting? I guess. But I don't editorialize though I may find a simple conclusion to draw ("smallest in the county"). So I'm sure your question was aimed elsewhere.Student7 (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Most city government's are actually found in .US, although some of the larger cities have a .GOV address. No official city government website should be in .COM or .ORG, as those are for commercial and non-profit websites; although I suppose there might be some idiotic city government workers that don't know better and buy a .COM for their government website. They probably are the ones that should be impeached. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are people in town governments who have "official" .com sites! I was annoyed too, but whaddya gonna do! These are not large cash-rich government entities BTW. Student7 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Especially with the smaller civil sub-divisions, I am guessing there are more .Com "official" city/county web sites than .US ones? LeheckaG (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• What also bothers me is people removing material rather than "dealing with it". I believe contributors spend a lot of time researching what they put in an article (even if they fail to include ref tags for each "fact") or format things "nicely". To have someone else come along and "arbitrarily" delete material or undo contributions to me is the "wrong" direction, especially on many articles which are little more than "stubs" which are otherwise copies of U.S. Census data. If an article is claimed to have "unsourced" material, should not such items be "flagged" with the "fact" template or another similar one rather than deleted/contributions undone? Such has only happened to me on a few contributions, but I have seen it happen to others more frequently, and even when they cited the source(s) for what they added (the issue mostly has to do with the scope of an "undo" - rather than manually fixing one or two problem or troublesome items, I have seen some "lazy undos" where several other contributions of value were also undone.

LeheckaG (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting actual material without actually doing anything about it is actually a form of WP:VANDALISM, and should not be done, unless, of course, you're deleting vandalism or spam itself. If someone deletes something that you believe is valid material, feel free to revert them and initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. You might even want to send a personal message on the talk page of the user that reverted you, inquiring why they did so? Dr. Cash (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of ideas here. If you would like broader input, you might consider breaking these out into separate sections/subsections. Student7 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To a certain degree, "venting", my specific frustrations are with a few articles with different coordinates, especially when they are in different formats (DMS in the Infobox, and someone cutting and pasting decimal degrees from who knows where? into the Geography section and/or External links). Then when I check them against a reference source, the "cited" reference has different coordinates than the ones in the article (mostly happens when USGS and U.S. Census bureau have different definitions/views of a name potentially resulting in 4 or more coordinates: Civil, Populated Place, Census-Designated, (historical), ... and sometimes (rare) the USGS and U.S. Census bureau are not "in sync". LeheckaG (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Lehecka's references to frustrations are to my edits that have consistently been removing his/her unsourced changes: look at Lehecka's contributions, making very many edits just recently without sources, and saying that I'm deleting them without warrant — at the same time repeatedly undoing my edits (for example here), cutting an NRHP article link and undoing the formatting on the EL source. See similarly the previous edit, going against the source provided, a Census map. As far as the local government offices, see Talk:Lawrence County, Ohio — Lehecka is repeatedly adding a directory. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Please cite facts and get them correct! Specifically your link to Burlington updates:

• official_name=Burlington, Ohio versus "Burlington (CDP), Ohio"
• As the article is written, "Burlington, Ohio" is ambiguous; USGS GNIS and other sources say there are 13 places known as "Burlington, Ohio":

1. Burlington (Uninc.), Ohio in Fayette Township, Lawrence County
2. Burlington, Ohio in Fulton County
3. Burlington, Ohio a census-designated place in Lawrence County
4. Burlington Township in Licking County
5. Burlington, Ohio in Marion County
6. Burlington, Ohio in Stark County
7. New Burlington, Ohio in Clinton County
8. New Burlington, Ohio in Hamilton County
9. Bristol, Ohio in Perry County also known as Burlington[1]
10. Burlingham, Ohio in Meigs County also known as Burlington[2]
11. Florence, Ohio in Belmont County also known as Burlington[3]
12. Homer, Ohio in Licking County also known as Burlington[4]
13. Marseilles, Ohio in Wyandot County also known as Burlington[5]

So the "official" name needs to be something like "Burlington (CDP), Ohio".

In fact, go to Census FactFinder,

type in "Burlington", and select "Ohio"

and the Census record returned is "Burlington CDP, Ohio" and NOT "Burlington, Ohio".

Please get it accurate!

• You had and kept putting in:

| latd=38 | latm=24 | lats=36 | latNS=N

| longd=82 | longm=31 | longs=41 | longEW=W

with Wiki comment: "U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Burlington, Lawrence County, Ohio lat/long/elev above"

which is inconsistent. GNIS Feature ID 1048568 is for Burlington (Populated Place),

while the lat/long stated is for GNIS Feature ID 2393357 is for Burlington (Census Designated Place).

• So I replaced the Wiki comment with:

NOTE: CDP=coords above; PP=elevation above and GR3 below; consistency?

Burlington 1048568 Populated Place Lawrence 382426N 0823209W OH Catlettsburg 170 558

Burlington Census Designated Place 2393357 Census Lawrence 382436N 0823141W OH Catlettsburg 169 554

so that you would correct the inconsistencies,

i.e. update them all to be either Burlington (CDP) or Burlington (PP) and not intermix the two unless clearly disambiguated.

• Similarly, under Geography you had:

"Burlington is located at 38°24′36″N 82°31′41″W (38.4100106, -82.5281600)"

which I updated to:

"Burlington census-designated place is located at 38°24′36″N 82°31′41″W"

I agree that the census provides valuable population information,

but they do NOT legally ESTABLISH boundaries (See United States Code Title--13 Census)

Census has NO authority granted under federal law to establish a border or boundary.

Continuing to say "Burlington" rather than disambiguating it bothers me.

I agree that "Burlington" is within the boundaries of the Census Burlington CDP,

but to state things about the CDP and attribute them to "Burlington" is inaccurate.

The article says "Burlington" (the CDP) is 1.4 sq. mi.,

Whereas other on-line non-official Ohio historical information says Burlington was/is 50 acres.

The census maps versus USGS/GNIS and other Ohio maps appear to corroborate this

with a few other "towns" located within the Census Burlington CDP area.

The real legal/official answer to "Burlington" size lies with the Lawrence County Recorder or Ohio Secretary of State archives.

I added the link to the official Lawrence County Recorder site to the Lawrence County, Ohio wiki article and someone delete it (another story...)

• The (2) different coordinates:

• Burlington 1048568 Populated Place Lawrence 382426N 0823209W OH Catlettsburg 170 558
• Burlington Census Designated Place 2393357 Census Lawrence 382436N 0823141W OH Catlettsburg 169 554

are 1/6 th. of a Nautical mile (1 nautical mile=1.150779 U.S. regular/statute miles) apart in latitude ("vertically"), and

approximately (longitude distances "shrink" from the equator toward the poles) 7/15 th. of a Nautical mile apart "horizontally".

coords are approximately 0.57 miles=1.150779*sqrt(((1/6)^2)+((7/15)^2)) apart

which is a significant variation when you are talking about a small area of 50 acres (0.078 sq mi) or 1.4 square miles (900 acres).

• Which leads to my interest in the whole thing, Burlington article's and South Point articles conflicting/similar claims that:

"The southernmost point in the state of Ohio lies southwest of the community."

Which I updated to:

"The southernmost point in the state of Ohio lies to the South and West of the community."

In either Burlington's or South Point's case, it is "clearly" to the South.

So the remaining difference is whether it is "in" or "to" in either case.

"Burlington" by historical legal/official definitions (someone please check with Lawrence County Recorder/Ohio Secretary of State archives)

was "obviously" to the East of the Southernmost point.

U.S. Census has no legal authority to move the boundaries of any place called "Burlington",

so please do not attribute possible characteristics of the Burlington CDP to "Burlington".

To resolve the "Southernmost" point issue, someone needs a legal/official description or Plat map of the Southern Ohio border,

along with the Fayette Township and Perry Township, Lawrence County, or Ohio Secretary of State records

showing where the municipal boundaries were or are.

• For now, until the (2) conflicting "Burlington" versus "South Point" Southernmost claims can be legally/officially resolved,

it is most accurate for:

• "Burlington CDP" to say that it is South and West,

espcially since you continue to say "Burlington" rather than "Burlington CDP".

• Village of South Point to say that it is South and East.

Keep in mind that the Census has no legal/official authority to establish "boundaries" and

from USGS GNIS, it appears that the town of "Brookdale" (PP) was in between the Village of South Point (Civil), and the town of "Burlington" (PP).

The Southernmost point appears to be somewhere in between the Village of South Point (Civil) and the town of Brookdale (PP),

not "Burlington" (PP) which is farther East.

LeheckaG (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Census abstractions

• If you search through United States Code, Title--13 Census

   * CHAPTER 1--ADMINISTRATION
   * CHAPTER 3--COLLECTION AND PUBLICATION OF STATISTICS
   * CHAPTER 5--CENSUSES
   * CHAPTER 7--OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
   * CHAPTER 9--COLLECTION AND PUBLICATION OF FOREIGN COMMERCE AND TRADE STATISTICS
   * CHAPTER 10--EXCHANGE OF CENSUS INFORMATION

for "area", you will find no legal authority or basis for a Census "area" or "designated place" in United States Code.

Other Title 13--Census sections refer back to:

Chapter 5--CENSUSES, SUBCHAPTER V--GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE, PRELIMINARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL STATISTICS, AND USE OF SAMPLING,

Sec. 191. Geographic scope of censuses.

for any issues regarding area, geography, scope ...

Census Areas, Census Designated Places, Metropolitan Statistical Areas are "abstract inventions" of the U.S. Census Bureau and

have NO legal basis in United States Code or many states' statutes.

• I agree that the Census is a useful source of information,

and that CA, CDP, MSA, ... are useful in terms of understanding population or other legal statistics,

but they are not a legal/official civil-subdivisions.

• Regarding placing Census "abstract inventions" (Census Areas, Metropolitan Statistical Areas, ...) in an InfoBox:

All OTHER official U.S., State, County/Borough, Township, Municipality should be placed in the InfoBox.

Provided that it is properly footnoted, A Census "abstraction" item (CA/CDP/MSA...) can be placed among them

at the appropriate level (what official civil sub-division contains the census abstraction and which do the census abstraction completely contain).

Priority should be given to the official civil sub-divisions over the census abstractions.

• Census abstractions typically only affect local (State/Borough-County/Township/Municipality) laws for either federal electoral redistricting

or for federal financial assistance.

• I agree that the Census is a valuable source of information, but Wiki contributors are giving too much of peoples' sovereignty to the Census Bureau.

LeheckaG (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One-click link to GNIS Feature ID and other Citations-References

• Many "city" articles are including the GNIS Feature ID in the Infobox as:

blank1_name = [[Geographic Names Information System|GNIS]] feature ID

blank1_info = ID

Which enables a Wiki user to go to the GNIS search page, but then one has to type in the search criteria.

• Instead, can the Feature ID number be furnished as a more useful one-click link:

blank1_name = [[Geographic Names Information System|GNIS]] feature ID

blank1_info = [{{Gnis3|ID}} ID]]

so that the Wiki user can also go directly to the GNIS feature by clicking on the info number,

or to the GNIS search by clicking on the name label.

• Similarly, can a recommendation be made in the Guidelines to set-up other such fields similarly,

so that Wiki user's have a one-click link to get to the "official source" without searching again?

I understand when there is a "choice", for example which coordinate "map",

that they should be redirected to a page which allows them to select a choice.

• A "one-click" link also makes it easier for contributors and others checking-verifying facts,

I have run into a few disambiguation cases where the Feature ID did not match the other data in the article.

• While the GNIS search is relatively easy, just possibly less convenient,

I have run into many articles citing a reference source "search engine", and

being unfamiliar with searching the reference source:

in many cases, I receive different data back from my search than those cited in the articles.

When possible and appropriate, a citation/reference should take one to the "source" page and not a "search engine" nor a "general" page.

Similar to printed citations at least referencing a specific page in a book, and not general or non-specific reference.

LeheckaG (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss this. I don't think anyone would disagree with this idea, but the place to bring this up is at Wikipedia:Bot requests, where people who know how to write bots can write one to go and do these changes. Nyttend (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to economy section

I've reverted the changes by Loodog to the 'economy' section. The changes water-down the section and emphasized usage of the 'city-data.com' website, which is not a reliable source. The site is mostly spam and advertisements, and the data that is provided is copied from elsewhere without providing any information of where that data came from. Recommend avoiding 'city-data.com' at all costs when editing articles. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

While the reference may not be used, I think I agreed with the rest of the edit. Sounded clearer IMO. Maybe the editor can find a replacement reference that would be acceptable or just leave it out. Student7 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Student7, so I have reverted, without city-data.com. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Census numbers

Per a discussion about a potential bot here, a question has arisen as to what constitutes "official" Census numbers. Some are making the point that the 2000 Census figures are "official" whereas the updated annual estimates are inaccurate. However, the use of the annual estimates for city populations seems to be rather widespread. This point needs to be clarified before I can move forward - when this guideline stipulates "US Census figures only", is this meant to say "Decennial Census figures", or will annual estimates suffice? Shereth 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the source is the US census department, figures for the 10 year census or yearly estimates are acceptable. Every article should refer to the 10-year census primarily; yearly estimates are also acceptable to have in articles, but should also be included with the official census count, not replacing it. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Thinking outside of the box" ... Would contributors be interested in placing Census "raw data" in a database on either Commons, ToolServer or WikiSource and then embedding a "canned" SQL query in articles referencing Census data to retrieve a statistic based on some index or key. Then US Census annual or 10-year census data updates would be done by downloading and updating the "raw data" on the Wiki database server instead of manually editing many many articles. Currently, the "missing piece" is the ability to embed a canned SQL query within an article's WikiText (at least I do not know how) but the other pieces are there and both Special: pages and ToolServer exhibit similar functionalities to embedding SQL queries in a page. Thoughts? LeheckaG (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a fairly neat idea, although I am unaware of any technical way to accomplish the "canned SQL query" bit. It might be possible to do so through a bit of intricate template work, but it would require some retooling of the existing infoboxes, as well as create a few issues in specific, exceptional cases where an article might display a population figure somewhat different from that in the census tables (such as Louisville, Kentucky). I can look in to it. Shereth 21:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The (2) Wiki technical jumps are:

• Creating SQL database tables (apparently one requests a ToolServer account and can create UserName_TableName_P (where the "P" apparently stands for Public) which can be read by programs/scripts across accounts. So that part is a relatively "solved" issue - there are "political" bumps in the road, but not technical ones. The political "bump" is where - which Wiki server cluster/domain: Commons, ToolServer, WikiSource ?
• "canned" SQL queries - which for instance: "Special:" / Statistics pages can do. The "trick" would be figuring out how that kind of extension could be done in WikiText (WikiText which triggers execution of the query code - probably a parser extension within a Template or CSS/XML)?

For many US government data sources, there are relatively "small" condensed versions downloadable which reasonably represent what many Wiki contributors are putting in article Infoboxes/tables/text: Census data, GNIS (Geographic Names) coordinates, National Registry of Historic Places, National Bridge Inventory data, ... so the general mechanism would benefit multiple WikiProjects and pull some fairly standard "authoritative" data sources into a more centralized and maintainable location. LeheckaG (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not certain about the technical aspects of the above, but I did do a little testing and found that accomplishing this via template tweaking is actually far simpler than I thought at first. It can be done with a couple minor changes to {{infobox settlement}}, using a bot to change the existing GNIS/FIPS entries into "proper" entries (currently they reside in "blank" fields) and then dropping the census numbers into a new template in template space. The population figures in US cities would then become completely transparent. Shereth 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From the contributor's point of view, they would transclude a WikiText template {{}} whereever they wanted data to go, they would supply an index/key and which data items they wanted returned in the template. "Behind the scenes" the template would do either a parser function call {{#function: }} or similar using an XML tag instead. The piece which requires "outside help" is the Wiki change pointing either of those particular function calls to a PHP function script which would do the SQL query and return the data to the template. See: MW:Manual:Extending wiki markup Ideally, the query template and PHP function should be done so that they could be used by more than one WikiProject (pointing at different database tables), and they should also do a "sanity check" to make sure they do not perform an unreasonable database query (returning too many results or consuming too much resources). LeheckaG (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood what I am saying. I am rather clear on what you are suggesting, and I am also rather clear on the technical usage from the contributor's point of view. I'm also not unfamiliar with the more technical end of things (I do have a toolserver account as it is) but what I am saying is that I am not confident about such a change being implemented. As you stated yourself, there is the "political" question of where the data would reside, as well as the issue of getting Wikimedia to implement the software changes necessary. I'm not familiar with the process of requesting such extensions to the software but I am fairly certain that the task is relatively onerous. As I have mentioned there is a workaround using templates that requires no software changes or anything other than modifications to existing templates, but would not have the benefit of being usable by other Wikimedia projects. The question is, whether we want to "try our luck" with a broader approach or implement a local solution, which we know is viable. Shereth 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as an addendum - the other thing I am not real keen on with this solution is that the data will all be stored in a relatively inaccessible location. Changes to the population figures are fairly infrequent but are sometimes necessary. I would prefer to see the data in a location that is public-accessible, inasmuch as it could be opened and modified from a browser just like any other page, rather than requiring someone with toolserver access and the ability to use SQL queries. Shereth 15:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, to give you an idea as to what I was referring to above in regards to using templates to accomplish this - I have set up a sandbox template {{USPlacePop}} that takes a GNIS number as a parameter and returns the population. For example, the GNIS identifier for New York City is 975772, so {{USPlacePop|975772}} returns Template:USPlacePop. Feel free to test it out, I've only added the data for the 10 most populated cities. Shereth 22:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that approach (putting data to be retrieve into a template) also works. The technical limitation of that approach is that "individual table" templates are limited by how large the text in a template can practically or reasonably be (100K or so?) and care must be taken so that most of the template text other than the desired statistics "goes away" rather than being expanded when the template is transcluded into another template or into an article. Part of the reasons for recommending (Wiki MySQL) database tables was to get around the limit on how large a template can be, but there are ways around that by splitting it up into several sub-templates (each smaller than 100K or so) and making sure that they are written to "collapse" rather than "expand" when transcluded. LeheckaG (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Overprecision

• New subtopic: OVERPRECISION in census figures. Many (indeed, most) of the articles give breakdowns of demographics for different races. Oddly, these figures go to 1/100ths of a percent. (In other portions of the demographics data, the numbers only go to 1/10th of a percent.) This is bad editing, although I figure it is done by an automated tool because it takes a lot of figuring to get the numbers. Why bad editing? Because it is False precision. In one example I found, 0.004% of the population in a small town had a particular ethnic representation. Was it precise? No. The number was there because only one person had that particular persuasion. I think the principles of Rounding and Significant figures#Rounding ought to be employed and set up as a guideline. Moreover, this would be IAW (in accordance with) both WP:MOSNUM guidelines and real life. (That is, IRL no one says "the ethnic population of Mudville breaks down in to these categories as such-and-such percentages.") Finally, these numbers with their resultant percentages are subject to change, which makes such overprecision meaningless. MY QUESTION ARE: 1. Are the number generated automatically? And if so, 2. how do we stop this? Finally, 3. can we insert guidance that says "Don't be wrapped up in giving such precise arithmetic." Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I share your consternation regarding the overprecision of the demographic data in certain articles. I don't think the problem originates with Wikipedia contributors; rather, it's due to the sources they cite. The Census factfinder website gives percentages "only" to tenths of a percent (even that is excessive sometimes), but there are other sources, such as the Piton Foundation in Denver, that take the values to hundredths of a percent. (That's not the only problem related to the Piton Foundation. Many of the articles that cite the Piton Foundation as a source of demographic data misrepresent the data -- that's a problem with a Wikipedia contributor, though, not with the data source.) --Orlady (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Your information about Piton is very useful. In any event, I've already added guidance in the US Guideline article. Perhaps I'll just come out and say "Present numbers and percentages with no more than one decimal place (0.x)" or something like that.--S. Rich (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I ask editors to note that the Census Bureau does not use x.xx% figures. See: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_submenuId=population_0&_sse=on The pros are not calculating out to x.xx%. For editors to over crunch the data violates WP:NOT#STATS. --S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that tenths of a percentage point often is excessive precision, but since the Census produces the numbers that way, it's appropriate to report them that way. However, in articles for tiny places, like the one for Silerton, Tennessee (population 60), the xx.x% values look absurd to me. --Orlady (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Beyond My Ken

What is your specific rationale for changing these figures? I'm not seeing correction of false precision, I'm seeing the deletion of precise numbers for less precise numbers. I think you should stop until this has been discussed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline--S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a conversation between you and one other editor. It does not establish a consensus to change these numbers. If the source give two figures of precision, changing the numbers is going against what the source says. Either find a different source and cite it, or establish that the original source is falsely precise. Without that, your edits are not helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The "changed" numbers themselves are not false -- but whoever (plural) took out their calculators to give us 1/100ths of a percent figures is engaging in a false precision process. In fact, the RS for the raw numbers is http://www.census.gov/ which does NOT use the x.xx% calculation when presenting the numbers! Moreover, these population figures are subject to change -- people move, die, are born, etc., so the precision of the figures becomes obsolete rapidly. Editors who think such numbers are useful are engaging in Precision bias and putting such stats into our articles is contrary to WP:NOT#STATS, e.g., the 1/100th%s & 1/1000th%s add to the sprawl. False precision & Significant figures were added to the edit notes as educational helps, certainly not as guidance. But WP:MOSNUM is guidance enough -- the demographic sections are mixing whole percentages, 0.x percentages, and 0.xx percentages. So editing back to x.x% is in accordance with the guideline. Finally, the numbers were not "changed" in the sense that x.xx was changed to y.yy. x.xx was rounded to x.x, which is what the RS provides. Thank you, Ken, for your concern and comments. --S. Rich (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In a place such as Brooklyn, with an estimated population of almost 2.5 million, changing "5.95%" to "6%", as you did, is making a change of 1250 people, which is not an insubstantial number of people, more than 20 times the entire population of Silerton, Tennesee, which makes its use as a exemplar rather ridiculous. Your dealing with places where there are a lot of people, and precision to the 100ths place is not unwarranted. Please start a discussion and get a consensus to do this before you do any more, I will revert your changes for the time being, until a consensus is reached. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

end of moved section

I had thought that calculating your own figures was essentially WP:OR. (also, there is the opportunity for error since no one else checks them, nor can they be "checked" against a non-existent ref). This suggests IMO that we should only use census figures. Student7 (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• SUMMARY of (my) concerns:

1. giving x.xx% data conflicts with WP:NOT#STATS
2. giving x.xx% figures presents ridiculous data (thank you Orlady)
3. going beyond the given Census calculations is WP:OR (thank you Student7)
4. adding x.xx% to paragraphs with x.x% figures conflicts with WP:MOSNUM
5. using x.xx% calculations is False precision and Precision bias, particularly in dynamic population settings
6. using x.xx% calculations ignores principals of Significant figures
7. presenting x.xx% calculations alone ignores error factors (see Margin of error)

--S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me (from skimming edit histories) that Beyond My Ken is particularly interested in presenting Census data on languages spoken at home, obtained from the MLA at this page. The MLA does use data obtained from the Census, and the MLA (not the census) reports percentages to hundredths, so republishing them here is not original research. However, I think the MLA is committing an error in reporting one more decimal place than the Census reports. In particular, I note that the languages-spoken-at-home data come from a sample (only a small fraction of households reported that information), so the degree of apparent precision reported by the MLA is particularly unsupportable. Moreover, there is no meaningful difference between 17.98% and 18.01% and 18.03%. Note, however, that for very small values like 0.04%, the hundredths place is just one significant digit, and therefore ought to be acceptable (even though the Census rounds down to 0.0%). --Orlady (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I posit that MLA is going outside of its lane when presenting the Census data and then using it to calculate x.xx% figures. In looking at their website, it seems it is devoted to language, language instruction, and literature -- not demographics. (And I wonder what its MLA Handbook says about data presentation.) If this is so, then the Census is a far more reliable source. Regarding significant figures, I don't propose that such analysis be undertaken routinely by editors -- I point to the concept in an effort to explain why rounding is helpful. Indeed, counting populations is like measuring an ounce of water from a running faucet, and then trying to get the faucet flow rate from the measurement. You can hold your coffee cup under the faucet until you get one-eighth filled, or use an 8 ounce measuring cup and filling to the line, or use a pipette to draw out 29.6 milliliters. But will you ever get to 29.573529563 milliliters? No. Nor will we ever know precisely how many people there are in most demographic areas (unless that particular area is Silerton, TN) on any particular day. Oh, that leads me to consider the actual populations. Are the Census or MLA language counters considering infants, the comatose, the profoundly mentally ill? Finally, these numbers are given as data for a particular year. What happens between January 1 and December 31? The population changes. (And in Brooklyn I venture it changes by more than 1,250 people.) Again, this is mentioned to emphasize the point that getting wrapped up in x.xx%s is unhelpful. Bottom line -- I hope this discussion will lead to some guidance that editors can use, and the best guidance I can offer is K.I.S.S. -- by leaving off the 1/100ths places in the percentage figures.--S. Rich (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Adoption of guidance. As a month has passed without comments, criticisms, or improvements, I am inserting the suggested language (below) into the guidance and removing the debate tag. (During this month, I have noticed that other editors have made comments on other sections.)--S. Rich (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested guidance

• Do NOT be overly precise in generating numbers or percentages. Follow WP:MOSNUM#Decimal points and WP:NOT#STATS when presenting percentages with decimal places. E.g., for United States cities, the Bureau of the Census presents data with x.x percentage breakdowns. It does not calculate out to x.xx% and editors should not perform their own calculations.

The above paragraph is my suggestion. --S. Rich (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Above modified to include #Decimal points.--S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If the source states x.xx%, and you claim that it is only good to the 10th place or two sig figs, or whatever, then it is an unreliable source. You can't just say that so many decimal places is "overly precise." The level of precision depends on how accurately something was measure, not based on how many places you feel is "enough." The guideline is completely meaningless. Period. As far as the numbers changing with time... of course they do. The numbers are good for a certain point in time, and no one every said they were otherwise. Chopping off one sig fig is not going to make these numbers indefinitely accruate. People who do not understand uncertainty in measurements and statistics should not be making up guidelines, not even poorly written ones which are completely moot to begin with. 72.76.226.140 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Why is it recommended that city articles contain a section on sister cities? This is, at best, trivia, kind of like "Notable residents". I can see how, for some cities, there may not be much else tosay about them. But for most cities, this information is interesting, but trivial. I can see suggesting that this section is optional, or a suggested topic for a daughter page, but actually including this as a recommended feature for all articles on cities is ridiculous.--71.6.12.114 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Ranever (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just made optional the section on Sister Cities. If there are objections, kindly note them on this page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with making them optional, but the new text, "Sister city relationships may be listed in alphabetical order." seems to say that the alphabetizing is optional. If sister cities are going to be optional, I suggest that ther description be merged into "Other topics", above, which is for the optional sections. --Uncia (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

While the people distributing the census did a great job, I do have one small comment. The phrase used throughout Wikipedia was "population is spread out" when refering to age distribution. This seems clunky to me. I would suggest "population is distributed by age" a better, if imperfect, substitution. Also, went I went to change this, an admin altered my wording back to the clunky phrase. Where is it written in stone that this phrase must be used? Student7 (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose that at couple of templates: {{Borg}} and {{NoBorg}} be created. Borg would accept "reference link" text which would be placed in the reference section citing content on Wikipedia explaining where particular data or text comes from (and how to go about requesting changing it). NoBorg would likewise accept a "reference link" parameter and would function similar to the {{Nobot}} or {{Nobots}} template, requesting that both bots and contributors refrain from editing a section unless they adhere to the specified criteria in the reference link.

I have seen (but not participated in) a few "edit wars" on census data with contributors changing it back and forth between the last actuals (2000) and the most recent estimates. What is really needed is a centralized Wiki MySQL database table of both the last actuals and recent estimates and then articles which cite census data in Infoboxes or inline text should then use a template which cites which census geographic/location entity (i.e. FIPS/GNIS code) and which census (actual or estimate) and particular statistic(s) are being retrieved. Then for either annual estimate updates or 10-year actual updates, the centralized tables could be updated without having to "manually" update all the articles referencing them.

Likewise for the "standard" text which Student7 cites, since it is mostly "boilerplate", it could or should be an (editprotected) Wiki Template instead of in-line text, and there should be a standard procedure for copyediting, where contributors can recommend better wording, and consensus/majority can be determined to determine which updates to apply. LeheckaG (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Such table-templates should be structured into an organized/standardized "tree" structure and the overall structure be usable across WikiProjects (within the English Wikipedia). Template parameters would determine that it was either: US Census, NRHP/NRIS, USGS/GNIS, ... data which was being retrieved, which specific "table", and which attributes (a.k.a. data) from that particular table. Individual sub-table-templates should be limited to 32KB to 100KB for performance/practical reasons. LeheckaG (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What a great idea! Solves my problem, at least in the generic.Student7 (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors please note my comments in Census, above. --S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove religion statistics from suggested topics

I do not think religion data should be a suggested topic. As you're probably aware, the U.S. Census bureau does not provide religion data. The Census Bureau does, however, recommend the Association of Religious Data Archives for religion profiles. There's only one problem: the data is broken down by state, county, and metropolitan area, but not city. The data is fine for the few cities which also form a county (such as San Francisco, California, each of the five boroughs of New York City, and Washington, D.C.), but the data is really useless for cities that only occupy a portion of their respective counties. As far as I have been able to find, there are no other WP:RELIABLE sources that provide city-only religion data. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's only a 'suggested' topic, and not set in stone that it has to be there. If no reliable data can be found, then including it would not meet citation guidelines, so it doesn't have to be included. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The primary problem is that the suggested topic falls under the "Demographics" heading, where only a few lines earlier, it states that only US Census figures are acceptable sources for the demographic data. Since religion information from the US Census Bureau does not exist, it seems inherently exclusive and probably should be dropped from the "suggested topics". Shereth 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a tangent on the above discussion--feel free to move it to a new section. Is it ever appropriate to list churches or other houses of worship that have Wikipedia articles in a U.S. city article? If someone could give me a few links to articles that successfully incorporate a "houses of worship section" or what-have-you, I'd be grateful. I usually remove these sections when they consist of a list of non-notable (i.e. no Wikipedia article) churches, per "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of info/a directory/tourism guide/phone book, etc., and I'm afraid a listing of wiki articles would invite people to add every church in town. My alternate solution would be to link Category:Houses of worship in Foo in the See also section. Other suggestions? Katr67 (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The only time I've seen churches and/or churches mentioned is if they are in some way important to the historical development of the city (such as the Old North Church), or if they are historic landmarks (Washington National Cathedral, Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, New York), but I do not think a general directory of houses of worship would be appropriate. There are lists like this List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, which I think should probably be deleted as they're practically a directory. -epicAdam (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Second the above. If the church has some kind of historical or cultural significance within the city it'd be fine, but that should be about it. Shereth 22:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Location/pushpin map Infobox fields versus "dot-on" image map files

Across WikiProjects, I use the Infobox {{Location map}} feature which {{Infobox Settlement}} calls or names the "pushpin map" fields, which uses these "sub"-templates:

which triggered this discussion: User_talk:Nyttend#Infobox_Settlement_-_pushpin_map.

In particular, the (233) Commons:Category:Locator maps of cities in Alaska and (1,409) Commons:Category:Locator maps of cities in Ohio maps typically have various inaccuracies (like borders are not accurately depicted North-South); while Commons:Image:Alaska Locator Map with US.PNG and Commons:Image:Ohio Locator Map with US.PNG are reasonably correct and the Infobox Location map/pushpin map feature plots a map marker as accurate as coordinates are specified in the corresponding Infobox (latitude and longitude) DMS fields.

I looked through WP:Cities and this "/Guideline" sub-page and there appears to be no specific guidance specifying whether "pushpin map" CAN be used, or whether "dot-on" map files MUST or SHOULD be used?

To me, WP:V and WP:UCS mean that: Wikipedia should not have dot-on maps which are inaccurate or misleading, and that it is "Common Sense" to update fewer Location map templates and corresponding image files (usually 1 template-image pair for each U.S. State) rather than updating "thousands" of individual "dot-on" image map files. Rather than updating individual Alaska or Ohio "dot-on" map image files to "fix inaccuracies", it makes more sense to instead use resources to first verify {{Location map USA {state-name} }} accuracy, I had verified that {{Location map USA Alaska}} and {{Location map USA Ohio}} are correct (i.e. border coordinates plot where they should and "North" is "up"); and then create corresponding {{Location map USA {state-name} {county-name} }} templates and files. Which would mean creating for example: (88) Ohio county templates and background map image files, rather than dealing with 1,409 individual "dot-on" image map files. Similarly, Alaska has (19) boroughs ("same" as a "county" elsewhere in the U.S. or Louisiana parish) including "The Unorganized Borough" which is administered by the State of Alaska, which the U.S. Census Bureau further sub-divides into (11) Census Areas for their census statistical purposes; As opposed to correcting (233) "dot-on" image map files.

So:

1. . CAN {{Infobox Settlement}} "pushpin map" fields be used for U.S. cities?
2. . SHOULD Location/pushpin map templates and images be extended to provide "Location map USA state-name county-name" (or other regions/subdivisions) templates and background maps in addition to the currently available ones for U.S. states (rather than correcting or adding more "dot-on" image map files)?
3. . If extended, Are "Counties" a reasonable next-level subdivision, showing either township or city boundaries within the county, and having a state overview map inset in one of the corners showing where the county is within the state?

LeheckaG (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I once generated a whole batch of the 3rd style of map, showing city boundaries within the county with the state overview map. Most people seemed to like them but there were a few vociferous exceptions that caused me to lose interest in the project. I suppose it could be resurrected, but at this point in time I am not particularly excited about the idea. As for the rest of your question/concern - it's kind of early and my brain is still processing, but I'll give it some thought. Shereth 14:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

1, Pushpin maps are vastly superior to the earlier dot-on maps. No question that the pushpin maps should replace the dot-on maps wherever possible. For 2 and 3, sometimes a more detailed local map may be helpful. What next-level would be appropriate may vary depending on the size and density of features. Seems that county-level would often be appropriate, although there are some counties that are very large and/or very densely concentrated where some smaller segmentation might be useful. For example, a map showing location of neighborhoods in a city might focus only on the city itself or even on portions of the city like east side/north side. older ≠ wiser 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Including non-Census demographic data

Under Demographics, the Guideline says "Again, US Census figures only," and some contributors are fairly aggressive in removing demographic info sourced to authorities other than the US Census.

While I strongly support the principle that the US Census should be the primary source of demographic data in these articles, I think it is a mistake to bar all other sources of demographic data. In particular, many of the U.S. states do their own data collection, sometimes but not always in cooperation with the U.S. Census, with results that may or may not agree with Census data. Counties, municipalities, and other entities may also do their own counting and estimating. IMO, when "alternative" demographic info is available from state governments and other responsible sources, it ought to be acceptable to report that alternative info alongside the official Census data, with clear identification of the different data sources. I'd like to revise the Guideline to state this explicitly. --Orlady (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. So long as the source is clearly identified and remains distinct from (and does not replace or supercede) the U.S. Census data, I don't see any basis for excluding demographic data from other reliable sources. older ≠ wiser 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. (1) Demographic information is almost always used to compare cities, thus having data from a single source using a single methodology is of paramount importance. (2) In every article I have seen where there is conflicting demographic information (presumably the primary reason why alternate data would be included), I have yet to find a case where alternate data was found to be more reliable than figures from the U.S. Census. (3) Cities and states have the ability to challenge U.S. Census data in the event their own estimates reveal different results. (4) The WikiProject Guidelines exist to make recommendations to editors and, for the aforementioned reasons, I think the general recommendation that articles use U.S. Census figures should remain. I believe that changing the guidelines would erroneously invite users to add alternate sources of demographic data, even when it is not prudent to do so. However, since the guidelines are just a recommendation, editors are of course free to use alternate data on a case-by-case basis, should it be preferable in a particular article. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 06:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. Census Bureau is not the only reliable source for demographic information about U.S. cities. Data from other sources should be clearly identified as such and shouldn't obscure or replace Census Bureau data so that apples-to-apples comparisons can be made, but there is no reason to systematically exclude other reliable sources simply because the U.S. Census Bureau also generates demographic data. older ≠ wiser 14:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I share Epicadam's concern that official data from the U.S. Census should not be removed from articles. However, this is not a proposal to replace the Census data, but rather to supplement it with additional demographic data when such data exist. Alternative data is not always related to disputes with the Census. As an example, the government of the state where I live allocates "state shared taxes" to municipalities on the basis of population. Municipalities that have grown significantly (either by natural increase or annexation) since the last decennial census can and do arrange for new population counts to be conducted and certified, so they can increase their share of "shared taxes." Myriad similar situations exist around the country. Articles could contain statements such as "The population was 2,715 at the 2000 census. In 2006 a special count by the state placed the population at 4,812.[ref citation]" --Orlady (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware that other sources provide demographic information. The guidelines here are just a recommendation; I do not advocate a blanket ban on alternate sources. The scenario outlined by Orlady above is potentially one such situation in which the recommendation here should be ignored. This doesn't change the fact that I think the guidelines should still recommend that U.S. Census bureau numbers be used. Nearly every time this issue comes up, it's often due to an editor pushing an agenda. And, just for the reasons Orlady described, cities and states often have a reason to inflate their own demographic figures. At first glance it would seem fine to recommend that both sources be included (what's the harm, right?) but I have arbitrated many cases where local data not only supplements Census data, but contradicts it. In these cases, the U.S. Census data was always found to be more reliable. Whether there was a situation such as a conflict with Los Angeles, where users were citing data that showed the population of Los Angeles to be 10 million people (thus making it the largest city in the United States), or conflicts between census estimates in university towns where the municipality attempts to count non-resident students as part of the population. For all of these reasons, I don't think we should open a whole new can of worms on these issues by changing the general recommendation on demographic info; the sources used in each article should simply be decided by consensus on a case-by-case basis. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

While you might not advocate a "blanket ban on alternate sources", the way the guidelines are currently presented do, which is the question that Orlady raised. And some editors have taken that guideline as mandatory, systematically removing non-Census information. I think everyone would agree that the base data should come from the Census Bureau. But is there a way to tweak the guideline here to indicate that supplementary data from other reliable sources shouldn't be subject to automatic removal? older ≠ wiser 15:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The furthest I would go would be to remove the word "only" and bold the information at the top of the guideline that the information is just a guide, and perhaps add a line about an article's consensus being the ultimate decider on content. I'm hesitant to make any additional changes to these general guidelines in order to fit a small number of articles. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I replaced this part of the guideline with the following:

The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data. If census estimates or other reliable sources of demographic data are included, the additional data should supplement -- not replace -- the most recent available data from the decennial census.

--Orlady (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Orlady. I reverted the change because I do not believe that it matches consensus. I, for one, don't believe that other data should be used except in an extremely small number of cases. For that reason, I don't believe that the general guideline should be changed to fit a few minor exceptions. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 13:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And I restored it, because it represents a far more reasonable and defensible position. There are other reliable sources of demographic data besides the Census Bureau. There is absolutely no basis to categorically bar other reliable sources. And further, this project does not WP:OWN articles about cities, and the project guidelines should not provide a rationale for editors to make knee-jerk reverts of any demographic data that is not sourced from the Census Bureau. older ≠ wiser 13:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is some concern that demographic data from sources other than the US Census are not completely reliable. More to the point is that local governmental agencies habitually overstate estimates when in comparison to Census figures, and this creates the appearance of favoritism/lack of objectivity. In any event, a common sort of compromise I have seen is where the infobox (which seems to be what people are immediately drawn to) use only Census figures while other sources may appear within the body of the article. Since this method of compromise is in agreement with the newly proposed wording of the guideline regarding the demographics section, I can support it. Shereth 15:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that much of the information in articles is not completely reliable, but it is included anyway -- with appropriate identification of sources. The selective exclusion of all demographic information not from the U.S. Census seems silly (for example, in describing a mushrooming suburban community, why would we not want the article to say that local sources estimate that the population grew 35% in the last five years?) and could even be considered a form of censorship. --Orlady (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am actually supporting your proposed wording to allow it as a supplement to Census data, if that point wasn't clear before. Shereth 15:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Shereth. I recognized that you had agreed. I guess I was being lazy by responding to the whole thread instead of to individual posts (essentially I was responding to Epicadam, including making reference to ideas that you had articulated). --Orlady (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• edit conflict* My main concern is that population figures, and other hard-stat data, is most often used to make comparisons. Comparisons are not possible when data is harvested from many sources. Cities and towns do have a incentive to inflate their population data, however, the Census Bureau does provide localities the ability to challenge the official annual census figures. Further, when there are two conflicting pieces of data, you go with whichever comes from the most reliable source. In every case where there's been a question, the census bureau data (which provides methodology and canvassing details down to the city block) as opposed to city data. To me, it just doesn't make any sense to provide two conflicting pieces of data. However, in the event that there is one, it's very clear that the guidelines are just that and that article consensus can override anything that's said here; however, I don't want the reverse situation to occur that older/wiser is concerned about where editors go through and complete ditch census data in favor of something else which is not as reliable. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that what you are saying here is not consistent with the guideline that you advocate. The guideline you advocate indicates that only Census data may be reported, but here you appear to be saying that Census data should not be replaced by data or estimates from other sources. That's what my revised guideline said. --Orlady (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If the Consensus is to provide both sets of information, then that's that. I don't mind using non-census data to provide information that the census doesn't provide (obviously) or that expands on census data; however, I still have a problem providing obviously contradictory information on such basic statistics like population. If there is a significant difference between two pieces of data, then I think there should be a reliable source indicating why that would be and why the second source is more reliable than the Census. Further, if there is only a slight discrepancy (like the Census says "24,423" and the town says "24,952"), then I wonder why the information would even be included in the first place. The only time people seem insistent on making slight changes like that is to change population rankings or some other inane reason. It is that information I want to avoid being included in an article. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So what is wrong with a statement to the effect of "The official population of Anytown was 37,689 according to the 2007 Census estimates, while the State Department of Economic Security estimated a population of 39,378" that clearly shows the numbers are from differing sources? So long as the "official" census number is given, there's no harm in mentioning what other entities have estimated. Shereth 18:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Potentially nothing. However, I do think the discrepancy should be explained. I mean, estimates of this type are fairly scientific and there has to be reason for drastically different information (whether or not 2,000 people is a large discrepancy is debate). However, one can also point out that the Census Bureau information has a published methodology and raw data reports. Perhaps the State Department does the same, but if not, it's unclear how it's of comparable reliability. Further, one has to look at the reasoning behind including the numbers. If an editor is saying that Anytown has 39,378 people in order to claim that it's the largest town in Noname County, then that can be an issue, especially if the Census contradicts that. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 19:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, I find something wrong with Shereth's hypothetical sentence. Census estimates are not "official population," but are just estimates that sometimes turn out to be seriously flawed. I submit that every article about a place that has actual Census counts should include the actual census count data from the last decennial census. Estimates by the US Census or anyone else should be supplementary to the actual counts. Thus, I would like to encourage statements like: "The population of Anytown was 31,689 in the 2000 Census. The State Department of Economic Security estimated that the population had grown to 39,378 as of 2007." --Orlady (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Estimates are just that, estimates. However, states and municipalities can and do challenge census estimates. In any event, if other reliable estimates grossly contradict census data, I think there should be some type of explanation. -epicAdam^(talk) 20:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the challengers to the Census-data-only guideline. To strip out all other cited sources of statistics (e.g., this edit, which even went so far as to take a "competing" source of statistics out of the external links) is the height of absurdity. If information added to articles passes the iron-clad policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research, it should not be subject to immediate and summary suppression by way of a guideline on a subpage of this Wikiproject simply because a group of editors seems to consider that all highly-trained, government-employed demographers are unreliable unless proven otherwise. --Dynaflow babble 22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(^Note that for the city article cited in the diff above, Hercules, California, the January 2008 population estimate from the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit was actually slightly lower than the USCB estimate from 2006 which replaced it. This makes the argument that local sources tend to inflate their numbers look specious at best in this case. --Dynaflow babble 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

It there any particular reason for several links/redirects to the above article in US cities? For example the Barrow, Alaska has 10 links in two adjacent sentences. In others you get redirects like American Indians (U.S. Census). On the other hand Anchorage, Alaska has the links that would be expected. One to the above and the rest to articles about those particular people. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This question is better directed at Talk:Race and ethnicity in the United States Census as this WikiProject does not cover that article. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a nonstandard set of links to the Demographics section in the Barrow, Alaska article. They should be revised to be consistent with the linking in the Anchorage article. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this issue is a bit deeper than just Barrow - as the OP said, there seems to be a rather broader issue of how these terms are linked in US city articles. Some link the various ethnic terms (White, African, Native American, etc) directly to Race and ethnicity in the United States Census such as Barrow. Some link there via redirects (White -> White (U.S. Census), African American -> African American (U.S. Census), for example, Phoenix, Arizona. Some link to their more direct terms (White -> White race, African American -> African American) such as Anchorage. WP:USCITY does not indicate which method is "standard", and perhaps this needs to be addressed. Shereth 20:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking back through the history of Barrow I noticed that here I changed the redirects to link to various groups and this edit changed it to the Race and ethnicity in the United States Census link. I've left a note with the editor asking why use that format. There needs to be a standard on this rather than three different variations. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems thoroughly pointless to link each race back to Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. I think the way it was linked in this edit makes the most sense. If anything, though, I don't even think the terms need to be linked themselves. It seems to be a bit of WP:OVERLINKing to me. If the Race and ethnicity page already describes each ethnicity, then I fail to see the need to link them separately. -epicAdam^(talk) 16:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Geographic Coordinate sprawl

The guidelines in this document suggest that it is a good thing to include up to four identical geo-coordinates for each city:

• In the infobox
• On the title line
• In the geography section
• As an external link

Viewed from the comfortable perspective of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Coordinates in US cities articles: where to display, this seems ... a wee bit excessive. The Geographical coordinates wikiProject is doing some fairly major work on coordinates across hundreds of thousands of articles at the moment (such as deprecating the 'coor *' template family, and adding {{coord missing}} to all geographic articles with no coordinates), so as to bring a modicum of standardisation and consistency across articles.

We've run up against some of your US city articles - particularly those with coordinate errors in them (see Category:Coord template needing repair), and would really like to get agreement that articles display only a single or perhaps two coordinates (in the infobox and on the title line), and that we should drop inline coordinates in the geography section, and those in the external links. Further, and perhaps of more importance, that we base any displayed coordinates on a single tag. Mendning coordinates is no fun. Mending three instances of the same coordinates is just sheer madness. We can do better.

We have run up against opposition - well so far, an opponent - who feels that because US cities have always been this way, because this guidelines mandates it, and because coords have some relevance to the infobox, geography section and external links, they should be shown in each.

We'd like a debate and to see if we can move to some consensus. I'd be grateful for contributions to the debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Coordinates in US cities articles: where to display or here. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To update you: the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Coordinates in US cities articles: where to display appears to be swinging against the continued holding & displaying of multiple coordinates in an article. If and when changes are made, please be advised that this is the conversation we'll point back to. Get involved if it's of importance to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The archived discussion is now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Archive_25#Coordinates in US cities articles: where to display ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Consistency issue

New Jersey is listing all governmental officers in its lowest level articles, including most federal. This makes some sense for the state legislature which may have peculiar boundaries as well as the US congressional delegation for the same reason. It makes no sense for county officials, since counties have clear boundaries and are listed in the lead sentence.

It is outrageously stupid to list the two US senators and the state governor at that level IMO! We need consistency here. Most states don't do that. So far, they have managed to refrain from listing the president of the US, but that could change in January! :) Student7 (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And no judges. Yet.Student7 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have examples of what you're talking about? I'm not quite sure I follow. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I missed the question. "The mills of the gods grind slowly..."

Anyway, I find listing the governor, ltgov, and US senator in every hamlet a bit over the top. And county officials who have their own article. Example: South_Bound_Brook,_New_Jersey#Federal.2C_state_and_county_representation. But most of the NJ place articles are like that. This is (alas) not an exception. The good news is, I haven't encountered another state doing this. Student7 (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Airports...and other resources

Some editors have been inserting airports that cannot possibly be inside city limits. Airports are properly placed in metro area articles or counties, or articles whose scope includes the area where the airport is located. Articles need to stick to WP:TOPIC which is the facilities within a city, not facilities outside of it. Focusing on outside facilities is a habit of tourist-oriented sites which suggest cities as "portals" to other areas. Articles should ignore this tourist WP:BIAS here. Student7 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Some cities have their own airports, which are nonetheless outside the city boundary. Consider Birmingham, whose Birmingham International Airport was created by the city authorities, is still part-owned by them, but sits outside the city - by a matter of yards. -Pigsonthewing 19:23, 28 December 2008

As I said on your talk page, I think you're taking WP:TOPIC too literally. There are some things that may be technically outside city limits but are intrinsically related with a particular city. You really have to look at things by a case-by-case basis to determine whether they should be included in an article. There's no hard-and-fast rule to determine such things, that's why an article's consensus overrides any other policies or guidelines. Best always, epicAdam^(talk) 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, which appears to be a forked thread on the same topic) In an article about a city, I would find omitting any mention in the Transport section of the major airports serving a city to be a serious flaw. older ≠ wiser 21:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Second level headers under history (Part 1)

Not sure why the proscription about second level headers here. Isn't there a style manual or something that governs this overall? Most ancient cities have fairly huge histories. Without second level headings, they would be most unreadable. Some of these cities do not exist today - all they have is history (and archaeology).Student7 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Do you have a link? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline#History. Then either read down, or search for "second level". Student7 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will just delete the paragraph and see if anybody objects. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree with banning second level headers, I think I can better explain why there is a general weariness regarding their use. The issue is that if the History section of a city article is so long that it requires subsection headers to break down information, then the article is most certainly violating WP:SUMMARY and should be split into sub-articles. As Student7 points out, there are some notable exceptions to this, such as ancient settlements that don't have much else to the articles except history. For the vast majority of city articles, however, if the history section gets to be so long that it requires subsection headers, then there's a more general problem with the prose. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 13:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

But the sub-levels could be kept short and, if they get too long, they could be linked to a separate article, couldn't they? Anyway, are you objecting to the excision of this particular sentence? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Answering questions in reverse order: No, I'm not objecting to the excision (good word, btw) of that particular sentence your removed. However, perhaps a more general guideline should be applied that expresses that article text, and the history section in particular, should be written as a complete narrative. When reading a narrative, subsection headers that split up the text are often undesirable because they make the text disconnected and disjointed; quite the opposite of the intended goal. Further, editors have to look at what's best for the reader when adding sub-section headers and where they make sense. What I particularly oppose is splitting history sections up by century or other fixed-date sections. It is almost never appropriate to discuss history in such chronologically-constricted terms and requires editors to sparse two related topics under two different section headers. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 21:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can think of a good way to word this advice, see if you can get consensus, or just add it and see what happens. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm. You mean we shouldn't split up history into chronological subsections? History tends to group itself into chronological subsections IMO. I guess I agree that grouping by centuries may be pedantic, but sometimes necessary in the short run while an editor is trying to organize a history section that has grown out of control. Student7 (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

History certainly does tend to group itself into chronological sections, for sure. But at the point when need to use subsections is the point at which the history section is too long. My main gripe with chronological subsection headers is that they invariably divide sections that do not be divided. For example, putting one sentence about an event that happened in 1648 under its own section header titled "17th century", or splitting the events of the British industrial revolution between the 19th and 20th centuries because events occurred both before and after 1900. That sort of pedagogy (and you're right, that's exactly what it is) just doesn't make sense and I think editors should take reasonable precautions to prevent it. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 00:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Chiming in. I'm strongly opposed to secondary level headlines in history for the reasons I wrote in this article. Secondary headlines:

1. Artificially and redundantly partition a continuous narrative. These partitions distract the reader and are even somewhat WP:OR. They can engender terrible ideas like this. Paragraphs partition subject matter already, without suggestive titles.
2. Encourage length. As a rule, it seems to be people will be discouraged from adding more to a section when they are reading text and cannot see a heading on the page. When people see one or two paragraphs between headings, it seems inadequate. Secondary headlines lead to the illusion that what's been headed needs expansion.

For these reasons, I wish to reinsert my non-binding discouragement of secondary level headings into the WP:USCITY guidelines with a cursory explanation as to why they are discouraged.--Loodog (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Philadelphia article as it currently exists without the subheads in the History section is much harder to read and to edit than the earlier version with the subheads. Yours respectfully, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree. But readability is subjective, so let's stick to point number 2: history sections are fully capable of snowballing into half of city's article length when they should only be one point of many.--Loodog (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we came to at least one exception above for ancient cities with lots of history.

You may be correct about WP:OR type subheaders, but that is true anyplace. Calling a subsection "Mayor Hague's rule" instead of "Depression/War years" or "Early 20th century" is something the editors have to decide as they do for all content.

I think readability is marred for a long (one display page) when the reader can't see a break anyplace. We have the ability and duty to organize this stuff at the subsection level IMO. Yes, it needs to be done in an non-OR way, as does everything else.

People feel bound by what the guidelines "suggest." Often used to revert stuff that an editor doesn't like! Not that I'd do something like that of course!  :) Student7 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If the reader can't see a break anyplace in the history for an American city, it means the history section is too long, not that it needs to be partitioned and made longer.

Certainly, I'll grant that exception, because for ancient cities the history is a much larger portion of its notability (e.g. Jerusalem, since each section easily merits its own article).

But these are guidelines for American cities, none of which are ancient. I can think of no reason to encourage secondary headlines in histories for cities just over 400 years old at the most.

Ergo, I propose: "Secondary headlines in history sections are discouraged because they encourage disproportionate length. Exceptions can be made in cities primarily known for their history (e.g. Plymouth, Massachusetts, Jamestown, Virginia)."--Loodog (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My opinion, I do not see why any special guidance is needed for one particular type of section. There are several good practices regarding section breaks and, well, some other practices that should be avoided in general, and that are not particular to a type of section or even type of article. In my opinion, we should just direct editors to MOS guidance regarding sections. Personally, I find the current history section of Philadelphia [1] to be less readable than the version [2] Loodog pointed to as terrible. older ≠ wiser 12:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Then by that argument, we should also remove "This section should be kept to 10 paragraphs or less, preferably." from the history section since it's also "special guidance".--Loodog (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment on cities that no longer exist. I think that's a bit beyond the scope of WP:CITIES, which focuses on existing cities and towns that are active and populated. There is a separate wikiproject for ghost towns.

The point of this guideline is to make sure that the history section of city articles is short and concise, and to keep articles within wikipedia size guidelines. While second level headers aren't explicitly banned, their use should be kept reasonable, and if there's a lot of them, then start a new 'history of _____' article and link to it from the beginning of the section. Also, from my experience at WP:GA and WP:FA, articles with multiple third- and fourth-level headers tend to have many issues with being promoted at those upper levels of article review. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I'm trying to say. How about a guideline along those lines: "Use of any secondary headlines in history sections should be careful since they encourage disproportionate length. Exceptions can be made in cities primarily known for their history (e.g. Plymouth, Massachusetts, Jamestown, Virginia)."--Loodog (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we already have a policy regarding the size of sections, viz.:

The size of sections may vary, depending on what kind of subject is described and other variables. "Hard" knowledge, e.g. biochemistry articles, presenting many names and mechanisms in a short interval may have shorter section size, while, on the other hand, "soft" knowledge, like articles concerning movies, may have longer ones. There is no strict rule about how long a section may be, just as with wikipedia article size. Nevertheless, a proper section size is probably somewhere between 80 and 500 words. More specifically, "hard" knowledge articles should contain between 80 and 250, while "soft" ones may contain more than 250. Individual circumstances decides — many short sections makes it easier to find the desired information about a subject, but might, when used in excess, disturb the fluency of an article.

You'll find this at Wikipedia:Sections#Section_size_policies Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. That was precisely my point -- the MOS wonks (in general) can do a much better job of articulating good practices on general style topics than an individual wikiproject. Unless there is an extremely cogent reason for the wikiproject to refine or deviate from MOS guidelines, I don't think it is advisable for a wikiproject to try to redefine such general standards. older ≠ wiser 22:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Then let's remove the entire USCITY guideline since it's all redundant.--Loodog (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a little absurdly extreme. It is quite obviously not all redundant. older ≠ wiser 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's my point. You've made no arguments against dissuading from secondary headlines that can't just as easily be applied to the 10 paragraph recommendation or to the whole damn thing. So let's just get a consensus and make it consistent. What would you propose?--Loodog (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm honestly not sure what your point is. Saying that it is all redundant is nothing but patently vacuous rhetoric. On the specific point of the 10 paragraph recommendation, I'd not miss it, but at the same time such advice is well within the general guidance, which quite explicitly indicates a range based on context and it is within the prerogative of a wikiproject to provide some such guidance. However, there is little support in the general guideline for a blanket recommendation against using second level headings. My proposal then would be to leave things as they currently stand.[3] older ≠ wiser 02:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me illustrate my point: discouraging secondary headlines is "well within the general guidance, which quite explicitly indicates a range based on context and it is within the prerogative of a wikiproject to provide some such guidance." Epicadam and Dr. Cash have voiced similar concerns to mine so I don't about "little support"; in fact, it makes the opposite true and status quo has "little support".--Loodog (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting as you do that the general MOS guidelines on sections support discouraging secondary headings is a deliberately perverse misreading of that guideline. If you think others here support you, great, although their supposed support seems lukewarm at best, and more in support of length-based restrictions. older ≠ wiser 03:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting as you do that the general MOS guidelines on sections support a 10 paragraph limit is a deliberately perverse misreading of that guideline. If you think others here support you, great, although their supposed support seems lukewarm at best.

With that point, I see no reason that discouraging secondary headlines is any less reasonable than placing a length limit. Both are general commonsense nonbinding guidelines making recommendations to editors that will have a positive effect on the articles written.--Loodog (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As your argument has devolved into little more than childish parroting, there is little more constructive to be said here. older ≠ wiser 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm demonstrating that your points can be applied in either direction, which makes them not substantive. If you have any arguments which this is not applicable to, I'd gladly continue the debate and entertain those.--Loodog (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you appear to have a very different understanding of what the general sections guideline actually says. The guideline very explicitly suggests that recommended length can be variable depending on context. That guideline uses word count while this uses paragraphs, but both are related to length. Nowhere in the general sections guideline is there anything that could reasonably be interpreted as supporting a blanket restriction on the use of second-level headers. older ≠ wiser 03:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If we accept: (1)length recommendations are allowed (e.g. see above) and (2) MoS recommends a length (in words) for a section, then surely we can:

make a length recommendation (1) specified in terms of sections rather than paragraphs (or even both), since (2) provides a fairly constant length for a section.--Loodog (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The use of a particular section heading level is unrelated to length. older ≠ wiser 03:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but you can see how the two link. Use of secondary headings within the history section is necessarily creating additional sections, each of a fairly constant length according to the above guidelines. May I propose then: "This section should be kept to 10 paragraphs or less, preferably. If more than 10 paragraphs and/or secondary headlines are used, this may indicate excessive length."--Loodog (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The length of a section can be quite variable according to the guideline. There can be a recommended maximum length, but I don't see any basis for singling out a particular section heading level for special attention. older ≠ wiser 03:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, can we equivalently say not to make multiple sections within the history section. Same thing.--Loodog (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

On what basis? I don't think one-size-fits-all statements are appropriate, and besides, I don't even agree with your basic premise that they should be avoided. older ≠ wiser 09:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Now we're backtracking. The 10 paragraph recommendation is a one-size-fits-all statement.--Loodog (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This section should be kept to 10 paragraphs or less, preferably. This statement regarding recommended length, with an explicitly fuzzy preferably, is quite different from making a blanket recommendation to not use a particular type of heading level. The project recommendation regarding max length is in accordance with the MOS on sections, in which it is suggested that in context different types of articles or sections may have differing optimal lengths. There is nothing to suggest a blanket prohibition on a type of heading level. older ≠ wiser 13:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, all equally applicable to level of heading recommendations which is equivalent to recommendations for number of sections.

I must ask which point you're contesting/not understanding: (1) Specifying heading levels within the history section is equivalent to specifying number of sections or (2) that we could write an equally loose "preferably" and "recommendation" to apply to number sections as to number of paragraphs?--Loodog (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with both of those points. older ≠ wiser 14:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Time to go further. Which of these statements do you disagree with?

(1)(a) The "History" headline is, in every city article, a primary headline. (b) A secondary headline subdivides sections created by primary headlines, (c) dividing a section breaks it into two or more pieces.

(2)Guidelines for number of paragraphs can be just as loosely worded as guidelines for number of sections, since identical language can be used.

--Loodog (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well #1 is pretty straight-forward. #2 is incorrect. A) there is no necessary equivalence between the number of paragraphs and the number of sections. B) Identical language is inapplicable because the two are not equivalent. Of course there may often be some correspondence between the number of paragraphs and the number of sections, but not necessarily. There can be a ten paragraph main section with three subheads and that could be perfectly appropriate. older ≠ wiser 17:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Time to read WP:No angry mastodons. GeorgeLouis (talk)

Then you do not take issue with #1?

On #2, we're making progress. What you're saying is that the same number of paragraphs can be partitioned any number of ways to create any number of sections. While this is true is theory, in practice, as you yourself note, more sections will have a tendency toward more paragraphs. Therefore a loose guideline or even a nonprescriptive comment concerning number of sections (equiv. to level of headline as per #1) is not unreasonable.--Loodog (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, so long as it is clear that it is not a blanket prohibition on secondary headings. older ≠ wiser 18:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Here's my proposal: "History sections can easily grow out of control. They should only take up as much space as it relates to a city's notability. Though each city is unique, if this section is in excess 10 paragraphs or is using secondary headlines, this may indicate that the history section is too long."--Loodog (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How about A history section can easily become very long, with more detail than appropriate for a general overview. While there is no strict rule on how long a section may be, as a general rule of thumb, more than 10 paragraphs or the use of subsection headings might indicate that it should be accompanied by a History of _ main article (using the main template). Only describe the minimum of what is required to understand where the community has come from and let the History of _ article give the details. older ≠ wiser 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Loodog (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I suggest we wait a few days to let others voice an opinion before committing the change. older ≠ wiser 20:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Parochial comment - I just haven't had the problems that Loodog is apparently experiencing. So I consider any changes to the guidelines "threatening." For now, I would rather see no change. The problem I have had is newbies putting stuff in main article without checking with the forked history article first to see if it was already deliberately excluded from the higher level article. But warning newbies of this here wouldn't work because they aren't even aware of this yet. Some things just can't be done neatly in a policy IMO. Student7 (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Second level headers under history (Part 2)

We have to be wary of WP:Instruction creep. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What we're proposing is a substitute for what's on there now; it's not any lengthier or difficult to follow.--Loodog (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, just exactly what is on there now that would be modified or substituted by the suggested wording? Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical populations tables and consistency

A minor debate regarding the historical population figures shown at Detroit has brought to my attention the following fact. Among the 50 largest US cities, the following can be said of the historical figures table in the Demographics section:

• 39 follow a standard format showing decennial census figures and percent change from each decade
• 3 (San Francisco, Minneapolis and Honolulu) omit the historical population table altogether
• 3 (Charlotte, Fresno, and Sacramento) omit the percent change column
• 3 (Atlanta, Miami and Detroit, which I have temporarily changed) add figures for metro (or other area) populations
• 2 (Chicago and Columbus) add a column for rank

It seems logical to me that, for the sake of consistency, the standard formula of showing only decennial population figures of the city proper, along with percent change from census to census, should be adopted as a guideline for US Cities.

Please share your thoughts. Shereth 23:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Especially when 78% of the 50 are already doing it.--Loodog (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. One reason for inconsistency is to allow experimentation. Chicago and Columbus, which add a column for rank, may be in the right and the others in the wrong (or at least terribly benighted). Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, surely we shouldn't remove information from the other articles for the sake of consistency.--Loodog (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a general format of census year, population, and percent change. That gives readers the most pertinent information. I don't think "rank" is necessarily important because it's difficult to compare cities in such absolute terms. City size is almost directly related to the area of the city. A city that covers over 1,000 square miles, such as Los Angeles, is obviously going to have a larger population than cities that cover fewer than 100 square miles. Such disparities make comparisons rather useless. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 04:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree on need for standardization. A bit tired of annual updates, particularly from non-census sources. I don't think annual updates, even from census sources (which, by necessity, are approximations - guesstimates) is that valuable. Student7 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Note on non-Census sources has already been made in this guideline. It says "US Census Bureau numbers only". Surely decennial plus one latest estimate (e.g 1970, 1980,1990,2000,2008) is sufficient in all cases.--Loodog (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Those who want standardization miss the joy and freedom to experiment that is built into Wikipedia by being bold. Stodginess does not rule in WP, that is for sure. One size should not fit all. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Favor keeping. The Tables for Detroit, Atlanta, are consistent and they add the regional population to better illustrate these particular regions patterns of population. The meet and exceed the notions of consistency. Its amazing that they would be singled out for being too good. The colors and format are identical and consistent. Time and effort was put into them. They contain U.S. census historic numbers. Strongly favor keeping them. In the case of Chicago, this also illustrates the subject in question since Chicago's shows Chicagos particular rank. Standardization should not mean censorship and that's what this seems like. Let's keep the tables. Thanks. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Its amazing that they would be singled out for being too good." Agree. Beyond the mandate that numbers be Census and decennial plus one most recent estimate, I don't think there's much to impose on every possible city.--Loodog (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Loodog, Thanks for concurring.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll preface this by saying that I won't lose any sleep over it if we decide to keep the tables as-is. However, I must take exception to the statement that I am singling these out for being too good - quantity does not equal quality, and adding more information to a table does not always mean a good thing. It is my contention that these are articles about a given city and not a region and therefore the statistics provided should focus on the city. In the case of Detroit, there exists a seperate article Metro Detroit where a table with historical MSA/CSA populations would make sense. In any event, the triple-population columns are information overload in my opinion and the tables should stick to the topic at hand : demographics for the city in question. Cheers, Shereth 22:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with "triple population" statistics. In some cases, the "city central" has the same name as the metro area and for that reason some editors assume that metro statistics belong in the article/infobox even though most people in the metro area live outside the city limits. This assumption is, IMO, dumb. A little more recognizable when editors try that in a city that has a large population but not the name of the metro area. In either case, it is like saying "I'm not very tall, but I got a tall guy standing next to me. Therefore "we" are tall! Student7 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Beg to differ. A number of cities are vastly underrepresented by their city proper imaginary lines such as Boston, Miami, or Seattle. These cities are functionally integrated with their inner "suburbs", which are defined by nothing more than historical artifact. Because of cases like this, flexibility should be preserved. We can always recommend that metro figures be left out in general, but explain in some cities it may be appropriate.--Loodog (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand the phrase "underrepresented". What does that mean. Cities next to them have a lot of people in them? What does that have to do with the WP:TOPIC of the city itself? I suggest that it's like me standing next to you. You are tall therefore "we" are both "tall"? Come on! Either the article is about you or me. Joint is irrelevant except in a joint (metro) article. We can have a joint article (metro. "functionally integrated" as you word it) in which I can legitimately claim that, yes, we are both "tall." But it is foolish, pretentious and irrelevant outside of that joint article. Student7 (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No. This is like taking a person, and defining the first 4 feet of him as "Bob" and the last 2 feet as "Sam" based on how tall Bob was when he was 12, then declaring that "both" Bob and Bill are very short people.--Loodog (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2(UTC)

It seems to me that this suggests that Bob was wholly responsible for Sam, when, indeed, Sam is a separate person. Yes, Bob is the most prominent person of the two, but there is no reason that each shouldn't be separately recognized. Just because they are often in each other's company, there is no reason we cannot discriminate between them. Then we can talk about them together in a joint article, if need be. We assume that coastal cities (and others) depend solely on the central city. While that may be a driver, they usually evolved together, but with individual identies. Anyway, this is all covered under WP:TOPIC. We don't have to rehash it here. One subject, one topic. No need to slop over since we have a separate article for both.Student7 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't catch that they're the same person. E.g. Boston is not responsible for Cambridge, they're the same city, arbitrarily separated based on historical artifact. If you don't agree with this, that's fine; I'm only making the case that rigid blanket statements like "Don't mention the metro area in a city article" are unnecessarily restrictive, given the unique situation of each city. These guidelines are meant to only contain what we can absolute recommend about every American city.--Loodog (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, I never mentioned anything about restricting the use of metro area figures in an article - I was only a bit put off by the addition of the MSA/CSA population lists to the historical populations table. Shereth 23:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So if the headings said "Metro" and "Region" instead of 'MSA' 'CSA' would that satisfy your concern?Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read this entire lengthy discussion, but any understandable English word or phrase would be preferable to MSA (Maritime Safety Administration?) or CSA (Confederate States of America?) Yours for assistance to our thousands of readers of average intelligence, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Much as I'd like to see some consistency among articles there is clearly no will to enforce such conformity and I will formally withdraw my suggestion. That said, I would strongly encourage the use of more intuitive titles (such as "Metro" and "Region") to abbreviations that are not well known. It'd be more preferable to not have all that info in the same table but, I'm ok with compromise. Thanks all for chiming in. Shereth 20:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, titles updated.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not in support or favor of switching the terms to the more ambiguous "metro" and "region". Metros and regions can be defined in any number of subject ways. Metropolitan Statisical Areas (MSA) and Combined Statistical Areas (CSA) are formal titles used by the Census, and thus they should be the title. The numbers are for MSA's and CSA's, which are official measures of metropolitan areas. They are no ambiguous terms. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea seemed to be the abbreviations MSA/CSA are unknown to some and potentially ambiguous. I'm fine with calling them MSA and CSA or Metro and Region, admin Shereth prefers Metro and Region as being more clear than an abbreviation. Unless there are objections we may return to the headings of MSA and CSA since Criticalthinker prefers the term MSA and CSA as the official Census terms for the population table heading or MSA/CSA could be added to the footnote at the bottom of the table with Metro and Region headings at the top. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, add the definitions for the abbreviations to the tables. Don't make the reader click to another page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't mind that, at all. It'd keep it consistent, but satisfy those that may want a bit more explanation. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So, we're saying to have Metro and Region heading defined as MSA and CSA in the note at the bottom of the chart. That's fine.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good solution. Shereth 15:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should simply not use terms/abbreviations like MSA/CSA just because people don't understand them. Sure, they should be defined to the reader that's not familiar, but part of the reason of reading an encyclopedia is to educate yourself, which includes educating yourself into common terminology used in a particular field. Dumbing this down is somewhat counterproductive to education. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to make this easy for editors, new as well as old, as well as readers, as well as foreigners. I don't think anything can be made too obvious. Though I did notice one editor linking terms like "man" and "woman" the other day. That seemed a bit too obvious (but I didn't change it!  :) 00:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit to lead ("US Census data only takes priority")

While giving a third party opinion here I noted a conflict between the lead and the body of this article.
It is clear from this discussion above that editors on this page wish to give priority to US census data and that the guideline "US Census data only" needed to be loosened to allow inclusion of other reliable data.
I have altered the lead to reflect this ("US Census data only" becomes "US Census data takes priority") and hope this meets with the approval of regular editors of this article.
Regards -- Muzhogg (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And I have reverted you. There's no reason to believe we have consensus on this, esp. given the San Jose discussion.

Reasons for only US Census:

1. Local figures come from one of two places: (1) [local] Chamber of Commerce, (2) [local] Department of Finance. Both of these sources have a self-interested reason to overestimate even if they have no notions of local pride.
2. Consistency in methodology. Only one source that I'm aware of has estimates of the 259 largest US cities and it's not e.g. the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce.

--Loodog (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Muzhogg is not only a very polite person, but he or she is correct in making the change. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What does the phrase "take priority" mean? If we want to write something less restrictive, it should also not be less specific. As a guideline, this is already nonbinding, why dilute it down to no meaning? How about something like, "US Census should be mentioned. Others are optional."?--Loodog (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For a guideline that is non-binding, some editors are pretty militant about reverting any mention of statistics that do not originate from the U.S. Census (and even removing Census estimates in favor of the decennial counts). However, I think the suggestion to use "US Census should be mentioned. Others are optional." is clearly than "US Census data takes priority". older ≠ wiser 13:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How about ""U.S. census figures should be mentioned. Reliable population estimates may be included"? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, non US census data is just not reliable -- it's almost always overestimated, in some cases by way too much. Plus, when reporting the population, we should only have one figure. It's confusing to have two or three figures for the population with several footnotes. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is just that — an opinion. As long as we report the source of the population figure, we have done our job. Let the reader decide afterward. Otherwise, WP is stifling the free flow of information. P.S. Census figures are not too reliable either. Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to slippery slope that one, we don't go citing anything we please because it allows information to flow, lest we cite the "information" on someone's blog. There are standards to what we cite, and so long as there are standards, sources of information can be prioritized. And even if we only cite sources that meet those standards there still ways to misrepresent information, which is why we have policies like WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, etc... In short: all information getting to an article is filtered through the judgment of wikipedia editors to give the best, most accurate, and most neutral picture.--Loodog (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Loodog: I would prefer not to become embroiled in discussion on this page, but your three reverts within 24 hours would seem to leave me little option. I have reverted to my original change on the basis that it is a better reflection of current consensus than "US Census figures only". Whilst I realize that you have objections to this please note the following;

1. The consensus on this issue currently stands as rejection of "US Census figures only" - please refer to this discussion which I have already cited.
2. The purpose of a lead is to reflect the body of the article - wherein it clearly states that figures other than US Census figures are permitted. If you don't like "US Census figures take priority" then please change it to something better not something demonstrably contrary to the body of the article and the consensus of the page editors (your suggestion of "US Census should be mentioned. Others are optional." would seem far preferable to "US Census figures only").
3. Please note the edit history on this page. See particularly this version of the page: [4] and note that the wording of the body was changed specifically to address the deletion of non-Census material on the basis of the "US Census figures only" guideline. It would seem clear that the lead should have been ammended at the same time as this edit but was overlooked.

In short: the rewording I proposed may not be ideal, and other variations may certainly reflect the consensus position better than "US Census figures take priority" but please don't regard me as a fool - "US Census figures only" is most certainly not the consensus position at this point in time and your reverts on the basis that I need to discuss "consensus" are tendentious at best.
I have no wish to cause you difficulties by reporting you for a WP:3RR violation, but your failure to aquaint yourself with the discussions on this page, your failure to acknowledge the current editor consensus, and your insistence on reverting what is a reasonable, if far from perfect, change, will lead to stronger action on my part. Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Muzhogg, there's no need to get caught in the me and you of this, just stop changing the page before consensus is established as per WP:STATUSQUO. I reiterate what I've said before: "US Census figures take priority" is so vague as to be meaningless. Since no one seemed to have any objection to my proposed wording earlier, or even George Louis's version of it, why don't we put that in instead of reinstating what has been established three times as not agreed upon?--Loodog (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, stop pretending consensus has been reached, especially in your favor.--Loodog (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, Loodog, WP:STATUSQUO is the very policy you shouldn't be appealing to here. The fact is that the Wikipedia policy on edits is "be bold" - not "achieve consensus first". What does requires consensus is reverts - as explained in WP:STATUSQUO. That policy boils down to "don't revert good faith efforts without consensus" so I respectfully suggest you actually read and familiarise yourself with a policy before deigning to cite it to others. That said, consensus doesn't even enter into it. You haven't offered any challenge to the claim that the consensus of the page is "US Census figures first, reliable other figures in support" - indeed you've pretty much conceeded it in your proposed wording and your approval of George Louis' proposed wording. And yet you're arguing that editing the lead to reflect this is against consensus. That really makes very little sense - to put it mildly. If the article lead reflects the content of the article, then it isn't necessary to debate consensus on the wording of the lead. as you seem happy with George Louis' proposed wording, I suggest you just insert that in the lead. You don't even need to vote on it - you can just follow the suggestion "reword rather than revert" from WP:STATUSQUO - the very policy from which my earlier advice, to which you were responding, was drawn. But if you were familiar with the content of WP:STATUSQUO (all 7 lines of it!) rather than wikilawyering you'd have known that. As I pointed out from the beginning my own wording was just a suggestion and I have no vested interest in whether you adopt it or not. My only remaining point would be this - you should go and read WP:3RR and familiarize yourself with the definition of "revert" (="any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.") which means, including the strike out of my edit, you have now made four reverts against two other editors (myself and George Louis). I'd urge you, then, to keep in mind that reverts, not edits, require consensus. The only reason I haven't lodged a WP:3RR at this point, let me say, is because I don't wish to interfere with the regular editors of this article. I do think, however, that you should inform yourself of the relevant policies and make yourself aware of what is appropriate behaviour in this context. It matters not to me whether I "win" or "loose" this argument, but rest assured that many other editors would not tolerate your behaviour with such good grace. I apologize for wording this as strongly as I have, but hope that you can accept that my intent is to help you approach such matters in a more constructive manner. Good luck with your article, I am afraid that I lack the time to make further contribution to this discussion. -- Muzhogg (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Muzhogg, there is no urgency to making that particular chance immediately. While I agree with the general point of your change, I also agree that Loodog has valid objections to the phrasing. The point is clearly contentious enough that some civil discussion is merited to reach an agreement on exactly what form the change should take. older ≠ wiser 13:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Muzhogg, I don't see how you can be reading WP:STATUSQUO and getting that. It explicitly says, "If there is a dispute, the STATUS QUO reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page." TO MAKE A CHANGE, CONSENSUS IS NEEDED. You wish to change what the page says, therefore YOU NEED CONSENSUS to do so.

Therefore, from the moment you made this edit, which, you knew you did NOT have consensus to make, you ignored this.--Loodog (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

--Loodog (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, DO NOT DELETE TALK PAGE COMMENTS.--Loodog (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to all editors on this page for the deletion of talk-page contents, it was inadvertent. Regards. -- Muzhogg (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Back in September 2008 I proposed the following: "The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data. If census estimates or other reliable sources of demographic data are included, the additional data should supplement -- not replace -- the most recent available data from the decennial census."

I think that wording should effectively explain a reasonable policy. Specifically:

• Every U.S. city article should present data from the last decennial census.
• If official U.S. Census estimates, data from special censuses, or estimates from other reputable sources exist, it is permissible to report them, but only in addition to the decennial Census data.

One reason why I emphasize the need for decennial census data is that census estimates are not available for smaller cities. It's misleading to report the population of BigGrowingCity based on its 2007 Census estimate, but use the 2000 data for its neighbor, BoomingSuburbanCity. --Orlady (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as a little note - the annual Census estimates are for every incorporated place - not just the larger cities. You may be referring to unincorporated suburbabn communities. The difficulty there is in boundary definition; local sources may estimate the population using a completely different set of geographical boundaries for unincorporated areas and thus comparing a 2000 Census figure from XYZ CDP to a 2008 Chamber of Commerce figure for XYZ Unincorporated Town may be misleading, as well. Shereth 14:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Indeed they are. A few years ago I remember being unable to get current estimates for incorporated municipalities smaller than a certain size (I forget what that size was; probably 20,000 or 25,000 population). --Orlady (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Vote: choice

Please vote.--Loodog (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In lead

1. US Census Numbers Only

2. US Census Numbers Take Priority

3. US Census Numbers Are Required. Others are optional.

4. Other choice (state below).

---

The above seems a bit premature or even uncalled for at this point. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a deciding vote (there's no such thing on WP); this is an initial assessment of where people stand since I don't think it's clear.--Loodog (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please provide some examples of any US cities where it would be best or appropriate to use non-Census data? Because we seem to be beating around the bush here with non-census versus census data. Are there editors out there that are trying to put some population data in an article that's causing this issue? I think if there is data from a reliable source, whether it's about population or anything else, we can include it. But it must meet those WP:RS guidelines, and www.city-data.com doesn't do that. Furthermore, I am currently unaware of a better source for population data. The US Census Bureau collects population data on every locality in the nation, and they apply the same uniform standards across the board. Unlike some population estimates sponsored by local chambers of commerce and things of that nature, which seems to be biased towards overestimation. So, I think, for a guideline for US cities, obtaining population data from the official US census would be the best source. If anyone knows of a better source, or if any other article is using something else, or wants to use something else, let's hear it. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto.--Loodog (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Examples, as requested, of places where there would be a good reason to report non-Census data (in addition to the US Census data):

• Seymour, Tennessee - It's not a city. It's an unincorporated place that the Census reports as a CDP. The Census number for the CDP is in the article. The local chamber of commerce and many local people say that the CDP boundaries don't encompass all of Seymour, and the true population is much larger. See Talk:Seymour, Tennessee#Population for discussion of this. Based on application of the "census data only" principle, the information about the conflicting local opinion on "what is Seymour?" and the chamber of commerce population estimate has been removed repeatedly from the article (most recently here) along with the statement that Seymour is an unincorporated community.
• Spring Hill, Tennessee - This city's population roughly tripled from 2000 to 2007, when the most recent special census count was made. The special census count was apparently not done by the US Census, but it was an actual head count. Not mentioning the increased population in the article would be withholding significant information about the city. --Orlady (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

These are interesting points. Seymour seems particularly pathological and not necessarily applicable from here, this being a guidelines for cities. I can't claim to know very much about Spring Hill or the history of its population debate.--Loodog (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Where US Census data is available (incorporated places and CDPs), Census data should always take precedence. It should be used as the de-facto official population figure for infoboxes (and preferably be the only figure there). If a population figure is given in the lead paragraph, it should be the most recent figure from the Census. Other data sources - so long as they are reliable - may be provided as supplementary information, in which case it should be presented in a way that it is clear that the alternative figures are supplementary to the Census figures. That is my take. Shereth 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Shereth. The wording I would use would be something like: "U.S. Census Bureau population figures must be included and must be given top priority (i.e. the figures used in the infobox). Other figures may provided given there is good reason to do so and the sources for such figures are deemed reliable." So my vote is number 3, but "optional" should be more spelled out. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Shereth and LonelyMarble. This is because: (1) local agencies overestimate, (2) they overestimate by inconsistent amounts with differing methodologies, and (3) the numbers given by local agencies aren't typically meant to be used this way; for a Chamber of Commerce, these are advertising figures - for a Department of Finance, they're being used to estimate revenues and balance a budget, as opposed to the US Census Bureau, which is charged with this task to help a government and its people understand demographic shifts and plan accordingly. I vote 3, with the proviso that the difference between Census and other estimates clearly explained in the article.--Loodog (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• US Census data makes sense usually, but not always: for cities that have changed boundaries (e.g., by annexation) or changed populations significantly since 2000, using census data - while accurate at the time - would be misleading for the current state of affairs. In any event, flexibility and WP:RSes are the key - and for some states (California, e.g.) the state government provides population estimates for its larger cities every year or so and there is no reason an intro couldn't read: The 2000 US Census reported the population of Foo as XX,XXX.<insert cite> [Since 2000, Foo has annexed adjacent formerly unincorporated areas of Faa, Fee, and Fii.<insert cite>] The <state> Department of <keeping track of such things> estimates that Foo's population as of 2009 is YY,YYY.<insert cite> Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Per the US Census methodology, "Census 2000 base counts of housing units are geographically updated each year to reflect legal changes reported in the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS), other geographic program revisions, and census corrections." [5] Annexations are accounted for in the annual estimates and this should not be a problem. Shereth 16:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • For its going-forward estimates, you are correct, what was published in 2000 is still what was published in 2000. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Of course, but as I understand it this discussion is largely concerned with US Census estimates vs. local estimates. I don't think anyone has proposed that year 2000 Census data should supercede more current data. Shereth 16:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Read User:Orlady's proposal above, someone is proposing just that: "The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data. If census estimates or other reliable sources of demographic data are included, the additional data should supplement -- not replace -- the most recent available data from the decennial census" which here would be 2000. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah, you are correct. I believe that particular wording proposal was made under the mistaken assumption that annual Census estimates were available only for a select number of incorporated places, whereas they are, in fact, available for every incorporated place. Speaking on a purely "Decennial Census vs. Recent Local Estimate" argument, I would tend to agree with you that the Census numbers are not "better". My particular viewpoint is that, in the "Annual Census Estimate vs. Recent Local Estimate" debate, priority should be given to the Census Estimates for numerous reasons stated by others above (I am willing to repeat them if necessary however). Shereth 16:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Any consensus yet? GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidently. Discussion seems to have stopped and User:Loodog made the change 5 days ago; there has been no objection to the change. Shereth 21:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Everyone seems pretty happy with this.--Loodog (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Natives and residents

Should this guide cover what are natives and residents? Native may be defined according to Merriam-Webster [6] as born (1) or raised (6) in. What is the standard for residence? Local law? "Notable" residency? Hyacinth (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is really within the remit of this project to define such terms. I'd be more inclined to simply let it fall to reliable sources. If a source can be found that says John Doe is a native of Anytown, then so be it; same if a source says Jane Doe is a resident. Shereth 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Resident has to do with living there, so it is best to use native as born in the city. Spshu (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

While we're on this topic, I suggest changing the phrase

"it is common to link to a separate List of famous people from _ article" to

"it is common to link to a separate List of notable natives and residents of _ article."

This will make the title correspond more closely to the suggested header. Thoughts? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me like these 'notable natives' sections have been in city articles for a long time. Most undeveloped articles simply treat them as a bulleted list, which, if it gets really long, is moved to a 'list of famous people' article. These lists are poorly sourced, and mostly differentiated only by career categories (entertainment, sports, government, etc), and not based on whether the person is a native (born in the city) or just a resident (born elsewhere and moved there later). There's also a lot of people in these lists that are actually residents of nearby suburbs, and not the city itself. The lists also seem to be frequently vandalized, with random teenagers adding themselves to the list, or "garage bands" adding their members to the list as "notable musicians" (despite the guidelines in WP:MUSICBIO). Some of the more developed articles do have a more developed 'notable natives' section, which is written out as prose and covers some of the celebrities and famous individuals that contributed to establishing the culture of the city in question. When it's done right like this, it can contribute to the article. But most of the time, articles simply have a poorly conceived, commonly vandalized, and poorly referenced list.

I almost think it would actually be better to do away entirely with the 'list of' articles and put all the lists of famous people from a given town into a 'category of famous people from x'. We'd still have a list of famous people, but the maintenance would be much easier, as individual article editors would add the category to the bio page. Furthermore, people from nearby suburbs would be added to the category for famous people from that suburb, and that category could then become a sub-category of the main category for famous people from the city. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I could have sworn this had come up somewhere, before, and I could have sworn that I voiced my support of the idea. Moving to a category setup, rather than a list-of setup, allows the people who maintain an article about John Doe to "decide" where he is "from", rather than showing up on some random list somewhere. Shereth 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There will likely always be list builders and advocates. I can see three ways to go here with respect to the main article about a city:

1. Suggest a list name (the current guideline)
2. Suggest categorization
3. Drop any suggestion of how to group notable people

Three is appealing to me because it does not advocate one method or the other. But then we lose guidance about what to do when lists get unmanageably long. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now we have categories, imbedded notable lists, and forked lists. Not an academic exercise for me. I can only glance over a large update looking for glaring oversights - redlinks usually. dabs often escape me unless updates were few. I don't think people much look at a very long list or a forked list anyway. They are just there so someone can say he put x on it. The same reason Wikipedia rejected lists in the first place maybe. Never read because they are unreadable.

You aren't down to this fine a level, but I kind of liked splitting lists into Athletes, Musicians, Politicians, and Everybody Else. Forces people to think which they hate, and the list is smaller as a result!  :) And people might actually read it for a medium-sized city. Can't think of anything that can be read in a really large city of which I have one.

For small places, in-line works fine. Aren't that many. Easy to maintain. Can accumulate petty facts to justify why they are there - nothing lengthy (born there. Retired there, that sort of thing). Adds class to tiny places actually!  :( Student7 (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Music

Does music go in its own section or under Arts and Culture? Mahanga^Talk 17:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be the most logical place for it. I wouldn't think it's a big enough topic to have its own main section. You've got to be careful with a section like this, if it exists, as it's likely to become a lightning rod for various garage bands wishing to promote themselves, which is not what wikipedia is for. Most cities could probably do without this section, as any bands could be incorporated into the main arts and culture section, or under a section on annual events. A city like New Orleans might have a decent music section, though, since the jazz scene really did contribute to its culture. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

External links clarification

I would like some clarification on an EL. I've already removed it once, but the author restored it - so I wanted to get additional input before removing it again.

This is the link in question atManchester, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Manchester on Arborwiki

Note: it was originally linked via the {{arborwiki}} template, then restored by the author with a direct link.

I see several problems with this link. First, it goes against WP:ELNO #12 "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." The link also seems to go against the recommendations of WP:USCITY#External links. Add onto this that the link doesn't add anything not already found in the article, and it appears to be nothing but a promotional link to attempt to drive traffic to arborwiki.

Can those more familiar with this guideline please provide their opinions on the appropriateness of this link? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note, I've also removed the link from a fandful of other city/community articles, but this is the only one (thus far) to which the link has been restored. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not lead directly to a lot of information. More precise, I am lead to a redirect which redirects to a category. The articles in that category may be suitable on their own subjects, but this is not in line with even the intro of WP:EL (should lead to info which can not be incorporated due to .. etc.). I would need some more examples, but this specific example fails certainly, even before hitting ELNO#12. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some additional links which I removed to that same site, none of these have been restored as yet, only the one above.

From Manchester Township, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Manchester Township on Arborwiki

From Barton Hills, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Barton Hills on Arborwiki
• Barton Hills Country Club on Arborwiki

From Saline, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Saline on Arborwiki

From Lodi Township, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Lodi Township on Arborwiki

From Scio Township, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Scio Township on Arborwiki

(note: It appears that the {{arborwiki}} template has now been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Arborwiki)

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Similar problems have cropped up on the otherside of the pond with links added to articles on Chester and Manchester to their respective wikis [7]. The consensus was to remove them, pretty much for the reasons you gave above, although there was flexibility in case an editor was becoming disruptive about adding them (ie: let them have a link on one page where it is most relevant but not everywhere). Importantly, if the website isn't adding anything significant that isn't in the article, what's the point of including it? Nev1 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Barek and Nev1. While each case needs to be considered on its merits, in general links like this are clearly promotional and often fail WP:ELNO#1 ("Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article"). I think the "Manchester on Arborwiki" link given above is not helpful for Wikipedia, and links to the wiki problematic in general. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Local wikis will almost never meet the dozens/hundreds/thousands of editors and stability criteria needed to meet WP:EL. If one does occasionally, fine, but this particular example is ridiculous. The link goes to a worthless page. 2005 (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

AS Barek stated in his original post, the WikiProject Cities/Guideline on External links suggests a strong preference for official websites related to the city and discourages most other links. Perhaps that should be stated more strongly and unambiguously in this guideline. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Population estimates

Hello everyone.. I am Mattscards. I have gotten into a few conflicts with a few editors and I feel I should explain my intentions here. From here on out, I plan to edit and keep the population of most all large cities in the United States. This includes the all cities. I intend to post the latest releases fron the United States Census Bureau. This is not something I came up with today. This is something I have thought of for a while now. This is a passion of mine. Population of cities. The press releases are as follows: Metropolitan estimates are released in March every year. The city population releases are out in late June or early July.. It varies every year. This information is always published in the World Almanac every November(usually the second week). I have never met anyone more knowledgeable than me in these subjects and if you are out there I would love to hear from you.(Believe me.. you get no ticker tape parades with this knowledge) This is why when someone deleted my posts I caught a little attitude today. I realized I can discuss them here and work out any problems that may have surfaced in the past. some of you say that they are estimates and argue my use of the term "accurate". The meaning of accurate is possibly wrong, however the information I use and will continue to use is the latest "official estimate" from the United States Census Bureau. To me, there is no other number that should be used. I have seen rounded off numbers and inaccurate released numbers and believe me, when people see these, they do not trust the information given. Yes, if it is July 2009 I would like to see July 2009 numbers. But you can see that some cities love to boost numbers if you use their reference.. and I will always use the US Census Bureau. If anyone would like to contact me i would love to discuss this with you. Mattscards (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, my primary issue with your edits have been that you are breaking the ref tag formatting, resulting in errors being created within the "references" section.

Please view the references section in these two versions: original wording, and your revision.

In the original version, the references generate with no errors (the original reference is listed as item #3). But in your version, reference #3 displays in bold red text the message "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named population; see Help:Cite error.", and your new link appears as reference item #4. The issue appears to be caused by your version eliminating the named reference, which is used elsewhere for the same citation within the article. Also, the original version is cleanly formatted by using the {{cite web}} template, while your version is a bare, un-labelled link in the reference.

As for format of the source, I believe that the XLS format is more approachable by the average user - mainly because the CSV version loads as a string of text with no structure - unless you load it into a program that can add structure to the CSV data. Either way, Excel or another program that can display tabular data is needed to cleanly view the data.

I also feel that the flow of the original wording is better; but that's a secondary issue, and not the primary reason for my reverting your edits to the San Jose, California article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the unsurpassed knowledge of any one user, I believe that the lead section for major U.S. cities flows best with a rounded number taken from the latest U.S. Census estimates. The exact (and current) estimates by the Census Bureau can then be placed in the Demographics section and infobox. --BaronLarf 08:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I happen to think this is important to have accurate information from the beginning. That lets everyone trust the information they are reading as accurate. If you start estimatimating official numbers then the reader will feel other information is general information as well. I believe the official numbers should be posted in the first paragraph. Thank you Mattscards (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The unrounded numbers are ESTIMATES & actually LESS accurate (tho more precise) than the rounded number. If a reader were to try to recall the population of NYC after reading the lede, having seen "exceeds 8.3 million" will be more useful than "8,363,710" (or whatever the 18-month-old estimate may become). The unrounded estimate still appears in the infobox, next to the lede. The WP:lede is meant to present an overview, not a surfeit of forgettable & meaninglessly precise details--JimWae (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Besides the above, nowhere does the census bureau claim that their estimates are exact to the nearest person, nor to the nearest 10 people, nor even to 100 people. All they claim is that is the number they derived based on their best methodology (other than another, still inexact, census). The estimates are produced by the census bureau for the purpose of allocation of state & federal funds - a purpose that differs from that of an encyclopedia. The estimates are even significantly changed after publication (see the Challenge Results section on http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/challenges.html ) - some of them just recently. Challenges to the 2007 estimates were even accepted into 2009 -- NYC being one city that had its challenge upheld. --JimWae (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

JimWae, I still think you are missing the point here. Even if they are estimates, even if they are not real, even if you do not feel the people at the United States Census Bureau are competent, they are the foremost authority in population estimates. There is no organization that outranks them. We are not allowed to change their numbers. People respect releases from the experts, whether those numbers are right or wrong. If you have any court ruling that overturns the numbers I am posting on the NYC article, I will cite that as a reference instead of the United States Census Bureau. Mattscards (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My concern is with guesstimates. I don't care how accurate they have proved in hindsight, I prefer actual headcounts. They are official. Guesstimates are just that, guesses. I would prefer to update population once a decade and revert any changes for the next ten years. This is preferable to try to figure out if the latest change from an unregistered user is really correct or really vandalism. I would rather a figure lag by a few percent than to try to figure out the correctness of information from whomever (since you can't update all ten thousand places). Student7 (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we are obligated to include both—the last official head count as well as the latest Bureau's estimate. —EncMstr (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Obligated"? Why "obligated"?

And why guesses? I would think we would avoid guesses. Everyone can "guess." Only scholars get it right (supposedly). Student7 (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The official population by the US Census Bureau given every decade does not reflect the numbers close to the city's population, especially fast growing cities. If you give out 9 year old population data, then the reader will wonder if all the data here in the article is old data. The population estimates given by the United States Census Bureau are official estimates. These should be published and respected. One could even argue that the 10 year census count is not accurate either, there being numerous reports that undocumented people try to stay hidden and never fill these forms out. I think the annual estimates are as accurate as information that is available. I feel the US Census Bureau is the experts in this and the numbers they release should be posted in the lede paragraph in every City. I feel these numbers should be updated annually to give a better representation of that city's population. Mattscards (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The exact numerical estimate figure is listed in the infobox to the right of the lead section. When writing in prose, numbers over a million are written as X million or X.X million. This is a proper copyediting style of writing a prose when a numerical figure is in the millions. Mattscards, you should refer to a college-level writing handbook. There has been a consensus on writing the prose this way for all United States cities with populations over a million. I would suggest you stop changing this style of nine U.S. cities with populations over a million. Your wording changes are not inline with the copyediting style guide. If you look carefully at any city articles, there is an infobox to right of the lead section which lists an exact numerical estimated figure. Consensus has been established for this article and other articles to have it written as X.X million. You are the only one changing it for this article and other articles, and your changes have been reverted by many people. As stated by JimWae at Talk:New York City, please read WP:BRD and WP:lede. —RJN (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This will illustrate my problem with arbitrary census changes on a frequent basis, news at 11 breathless timetable. I have no idea whether this edit is correct or not. Not registered. No edit summary. TWO changes to count instead of one. All the hallmarks of vandalism. I can't be keeping up with minute-by-minute changes. I guessed it was ordinary vandalism (but I didn't "warn" him since I wasn't really sure). This is the type of real-world stuff that regular editors have to contend with on a daily basis. Student7 (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion touches on some old debates regarding annual estimates versus decennial census counts. For some perspective, the annual estimates, while exactly that (estimates), are nonetheless considered both reliable and important; were they merely curious little guesstimates, there would be no sense in a formal process of contesting them. These figures are used by the federal government to determine how to distribute federal funds amongst the various cities of the country. As far as the United States Government is concerned, annual estimates are official populations. Now, bearing that in mind, our own guidelines do not prohibit the inclusion of other data in addition to the census figures; if someone wants to include figures from the California Department of Finance, that is specifically allowed so long as it does not replace the Census figures and the source is clearly indicated in the article. Our guidelines also do not prohibit rounding to a less precise figure, and again, if the folks who maintain New York City want to use "exceeds 8.3 million" in lieu of citing the exact figure that is fine, so long as the exact figure is available somewhere else easy to find (such as in the infobox, where it is currently located). There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Shereth 15:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If it "only" came down to once a year changes, those of us who actually maintain/watch these articles would not have much of a problem. It's these peculiar, and usually very pov estimates that are issued that are a serious problem,besides trying to defend against odd updates to numbers by unregistered users which may be, but probably are not, accurate. These pov estimates are used as a club to try to force "better" figures and therefore money from the federal government. They are usually not WP:RELY. I would hope in the US, that we would not accept anything but US census department guesses. Trying to analyze other guesstimates for reliability is just too much when we know in advance why these guesstimates are being made. At least stick with an unbiased source.

All this is tremendously easy for Mattscards, and his peers, they just slam in some number and move on, never looking back. A bit harder when you have the overall health of the article in mind. Student7 (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The chamber of commerce is not an official city link

This guideline currently says, "A link to some of the official websites should be provided here, such as...the chamber of commerce."

A chamber of commerce is a private organization whose sole purpose is to promote the businesses owned by the members (at the expense of non-member businesses and non-business owners). At the national level, they are essentially a political lobbying group; the US CofC is the world's largest lobbying group. There is no possible rational reason why a chamber of commerce should be linked, but other clubs should not. For example: why the chamber of commerce, but not the community foundation, which is essentially the same idea for non-profits? Why the local chapter of the Chamber of Commerce but not the local chapter of the Jaycees (whose name is literally the "Junior Chamber of Commerce") or the local Rotary Club chapter, which also serves the business networking function for many members?

More importantly (IMO), this sentence implies that a CofC is an official city entity, which is absolutely untrue in most of the world. The chamber of commerce definitely does not qualify as an official link for the city, and should never be represented as such. It is a purely private organization -- one that even occasionally works against the government and public, when that opposition happens to suit its members' financial interests -- and should not be singled out as special entity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.Student7 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to me to exclude the CoC links. How about tightening up that first sentence like this:

Only links to official city websites should be provided here, such as the official city government and the convention & visitors bureau.

I do refer to this guideline frequently when cleaning up city article and rarely if ever have anyone put back non-official links. One exception that I do make is leaving links to history pages from unquestionably reliable sources. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not reasonable to prohibit non-official links. For example, there might be a perfectly good history-of-the-city website that is owned by a local history buff. Even if this person doesn't count as a reliable source, the link might be justifiable. I don't even mind linking to the website of the local chamber of commerce, if that particular website is likely to be useful or interesting to our readers (something that must be determined on a case-by-case basis) and doesn't amount to unfair or spammy promotion of the members' businesses (something that, again, must be determined by looking at the individual website).

My primary goal here (done, since nobody has objected) is to avoid having non-official links improperly included in the WP:ELOFFICIAL exemption: the chamber does not own or run the city, no matter how much any member would like to pretend otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, as your rationale seems reasonable. The only reason I originally reverted your change is because I didn't think your original single-sentence rationale in the edit comment was sufficient, and I felt that it should be brought up here first. Now that you've explained it in more detail, it's ok. I wouldn't expressly prohibit Chambers of Commerce links there, though -- they may be applicable and appropriate to some communities, though I do agree with you that it shouldn't be required explicitly. WTF? (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Internal linking advice

An edit summary for a reversion of my addition of a small "Internal links" section, just above the "External links" section, claimed that links are about layout rather than style. Yet internal links are closely entangled with the essence of prose style, in some respects. There are references to footnotes and verifiability on the page. I don't quite see the logic here.

The key consideration is that articles on geographical topics are typically way overlinked, leading to the significant dilution of our wikilinking system; it works best, of course, when links are skilfully rationed and piped. I'd have thought people would be glad to provide a few lines of advice WRT such a poorly handled aspect of style as wikilinking in city articles. Tony (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways: either the external links should go, or the internal links should be retained. They can both be treated in the same section if that is what is required. I am going to add internal links to that section, changing the title to "Linking", unless there is a very good reason not to. Tony (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good reason? How about "common terms" being a matter of personal opinion, as opposed to the long-established guidelines regarding external links? In addition, the "common terms" issue is a personal concern (no insult intended, but not everyone supports the mass removal of geographical and other that you are spearheading) whereas external link spam is a serious, ongoing issue in entertainment, geography, and countless other subject areas. Seriously, what need is there to graft sections of the linking guideline into this and several other guidelines? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of personal preference: it's in the style guidelines. The fact that you have been conducting your own personal vendetta should not be allowed to infect this page. Tony (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

US-centric focus is a problem

I do not believe it is appropriate that this page be predominantly oriented towards articles on cities of just one country. This is explicitly the case. If this bias is retained, I believe the page should be renamed "WikiProject Cities/US cities guideline". Tony (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that renaming the WikiProject is a proportional response to a guideline that is currently directed towards US cities. There is no rule that says WikiProjects' names must be sensible, intelligible to outsiders, or accurately describe their scope. There may be many virtues in moving the page (including making more clear its nature as advice from members of a small group, rather than a community-approved guideline), but the part of the name that might want changing comes after the slash, not before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"There is no rule that says WikiProjects' names must be sensible, intelligible to outsiders, or accurately describe their scope." So ... there's no rule that articles should be "sensible, intelligible to outsiders, and accurately describe their scope"? Actually, what I meant was that this guideline, not the wikiproject, needs to be accurately named as dealing with US cities, or that the bias should be fixed. I've changed the example in my previous post.

I think we need to remove the style-guide status until these issues are fixed. Tony (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The correct category is probably Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects, not the cat for community-wide/approved pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That may be the case, but the page title is misleading and can easily be fixed. Or the bias removed. Wouldn't it be more useful to have a section on US cities, and make the scope wider on the page overall? Tony (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

External links section

This is in response to the recent removal of the entire External Links section of the guideline. I believe that a section on external links is useful; it allows editors an easy way to refer to the consensus on which links should and should not go on articles about cities. Official city links? Yes. Random businesses? No. Without addition clarification, I don't see how a proposed "Inline links" section would do this. Cheers --BaronLarf 08:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

External link spam is a serious concern in geographical articles, whereas decisions about what constitutes a useful internal link are far more subject to personal opinion that to any arbitrary standard. The EL section is relevant as it allows the guidelines to be explained and tailored to the specific topic. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree; in the same way, the overlinking of common terms is "a serious concern in geographical articles.

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A place for crime

Currently the guide suggests demographics as a place for crime statistics. I would have thought government, sometimes coupling it with police. I had been constructing separate subtopics "Public health and safety" but will stop doing that I guess since infrastructure has health. Student7 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A place for environment?

(The trouble is that no one supports "Projects" much. Hard to get answers). Most cities are being pressed to stop dumping treated sewage into the local tributary that contains phosphorus or whatever the bane du jour is. I had put it under "government" since it was an ongoing problem. Some government official didn't like it since it wasn't government structure per se even though the government was truly responsbile for it. So I have moved it to "history" which seems a bit weak. This is pretty major right now, so supressing it doesn't seem like a very good option IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Information like that pretty easily fits under the Geography section. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable people sections

I've been cleaning up notable people sections in the cities and towns of a few states now and plan to keep going to the others. The following is what I have learned.

• First, I note the dated conversation above regarding deletion of these sections. I for one think deletion is wrong, the sections are a great easy stepping stone for new users and I think that should be encouraged. Just because that same ease invites vandalism, is no reason to deleted relevant information.

• Second, I think the fixed name for these sections on city pages should be Notable people. This is the name used in top GA & FA city articles. Notable natives and residents is not inclusive enough for the use of this section. Many people become associated in notable ways with towns where they were not born or resided. Michael Jordan and Chicago for example. Jordan has never lived in Chicago nor was he born there, yet the two are closely linked due to his championships with the Chicago Bulls. I have taken the liberty of changing the name of this section on the project page/guideline page.

• Third, regarding list vs prose. I find that straight prose about notable people becomes a serious of unconnected sentences strung together in paragraph form. It is cumbersome to read and in my opinion, grammatically annoying. List of names are not better. I for one support the hybrid bullet list with one sentence prose. I find this has generally become standard practice, but I think it should be noted here as a Wikipedia standard.

• Fourth, inclusion I think it should be fairly straight forward that if a person does not meet notability warranting their own Wikipedia page or mention on a Wikipedia page, then they should not be included in these lists. The "mention on" qualifier means people listed on something like the Miss Virginia page. These pageant winners should be mentioned on their home town page, but are not notable enough for a biography page.

I invite discussion about these four points. Dkriegls (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion is far from straightforward. The issue is not simply "is this person notable", but "is their link with this place notable" which is much more difficult to establish in marginal cases. Articles on settlements do not require notable people sections to become Good or Featured Articles. Their value is dubious at best and they should not be forced up articles unnecessarily. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevi, during my clean ups, I use a 'citation needed' tag for any listing with a Wikipedia page that doesn't make clear the connection to the town. However, I do not know what you mean by a 'notable link' to the town. Is being born there notable?Dkriegls (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, although it depends. My experience with settlement articles begins and ends at the UK, but today people are born in hospitals in which people may spend no more than a day. By your suggestion, a town with a hospital could have lots of "notable people" even though they may have spent very little time there. The link should be made explicit in the settlement article in case the article on the person is changed. Nev1 (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about hospitals, however, most people born in that hospital are not notable. I think a notable person being born there is a notable event if credible source mentions it. The 'claim to fame' materiel should not be an inclusion cretonne for Wikipedia, but it is a good way to get new editors interested in contributing to these smaller towns and cities. I encountered this problem while editing cities in Maine where lots of famous New Yorkers 'summer' in small town. If the reference to their 'summering' there was solid, I allowed it to stay. If it was just local gossip or a local paper making note of it, I cut the name...or used a 'citation needed' tag.Dkriegls (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

At WikiProject Oregon we've adopted essentially the same standards. In city articles, we've codified a standard disclaimer which is added as a wikicomment to the top of each Notable residents section. It looks like this:

<!-- Note:
· Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability.
· The biographical article must mention how they are associated with <city name>, whether born, raised, or residing.
· The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited.
· Alphabetical by last name please
· All others will be deleted without further explanation
-->

Since we've added this comment, the number of vanity additions has greatly decreased.

Also note that we completely circumvent notability inclusion problems, like with people visiting the city briefly, by using the section name Notable residents. The sense of this is that anyone who has ever lived there and is notable is eligible to be added. In the case of Michael Jordan and Chicago, it is easily argued that he works in the city, and so is a notable resident. —EncMstr (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks EncMstr. I might end up using that tag. However, I think calling Jordan a 'resident' of the City of Chicago because he played for the Bulls is a stretch. More importantly, the consensus for cities with GA & FA status is to use the title "Lists of people from XXX". 'Notable people' seems a better fit for in-page lists. Unfortunately, the only FA with an in-page list was [Peterborough]], which violated Wiki-norms by using the subjective term 'Famous' and the page referential term 'Peterborians'. Both of which violate a couple of consensus rules. I think there should be some established and voted on naming convention though. Dkriegls (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much agree. Think there may be local "notables" who do not (yet) have their own page. I have allowed a person who happened to have been a transitory professional football player, but never did anything, as a local "notable" person. First black official and first black official to have been elected to a significant job in a professional government association, by his peers. All carefully footnoted, of course. But these unlinked people are maybe, 3% of the notables I review. In this case, he merits an article anyway, but there will be some who don't. Needless to say, these exceptions are allowed in Podunk. They are not allowed in New York City!  :)

And I put the Oregon disclaimer on a lot of my articles. A bit hypocritical when I'm allowing blacklinks!  :) Student7 (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

bullet vs. prose in notable people lists

I have reverted the content added recently by Dkriegls favoring bulleted lists over prose. While I do not have a problem with changing the name of the section to 'notable people', consensus was NOT reached to favor bulleted lists, and in fact, the FA examples he cited do not use bulleted lists in these sections. By writing a guideline favoring bulleted lists over prose is only going to serve to promote vandalism in articles, by encouraging users to add names of marginally related people to the "laundry list" at the end of the article. While this is acceptable in the early stages of the article, the lists generally need to be converted to a prose-based discussion of how these individuals have affected the city in question, and/or how they are related to the city. This is not easily accomplished with bulleted lists. WTF? (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Foxtrot, I support your changes, and agree with your reasoning. Thank you. However, there is one item you removed that I think should be discussed. That is the suggested cap on the number of people mentioned before converting it to a List of people from.. article. I don't see a lot of these sections actually getting converted into full prose before they become their own list page, unless they are going up for GA/FA. I think there should be some guidance on a suggested size for doing that. Unfortunately, the unsightly appearance of these sections due to number of mentioned people varies if it is a list or in prose, with prose holding many more names before it gets cumbersome. Dkriegls (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine. I've added that. WTF? (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers :) Dkriegls (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable people vs Notable natives and residents

User:Nyttend recently undid my name change of this section stating that "discussion did not result in support for new name". There was no discussion for either name, so I am not clear on the user's stance for their pick. The original title used in the guide was place there during page creation, with no discussion either.

I changed the name to Notable people because that is the title used by a majority of Wikipedia:Featured articles #Geography and places. 12 featured articles use Notable people, 5 use Notable residence, and only 1 use each of the following (Notable Peterborians; Notable persons born here; Notable natives and residents). The rest of the Featured article cities have a "List of people from..." page. I will change the name back unless another user has a reason we shouldn't follow the consensus of Featured Articles. Dkriegls (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the Featured articles referenced. Notable people-Neilston, Oldham, Radcliffe, Greater Manchester, Shaw and Crompton, Wormshill, Stretford, Herne Bay, Kent, Chadderton, Cheadle Hulme, Caversham, New Zealand, Brownhills, and Altrincham. Notable residents-Stephens City, Virginia, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, Hillsboro, Oregon, Mackinac Island, and Westgate-on-Sea. Famous Peterborians-Peterborough. Notable persons born here-Isle of Portland. Notable residents and natives-Kent, Ohio.

NOTE:I've changed the section titles on the above US cities to "Notable people" per consensus reached here. The two British cites were not changes. Dkriegls (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My apology; I saw that you changed it and that your edit summary was "see discussion" for an edit related to this section at the time its name was changed. I mistakenly thought that the change was made in the "see discussion" edit. Combine that with your creation of the section above, and I thought that you had changed the section name in response to the section above. I can't argue with your statistical findings, but I disagree with your reasoning. "Notable people" could mean notable people associated with the community, but standard practice has always been just the people who live or lived there — "Notable natives and residents" more precisely defines the content of the section. Nyttend (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning for choosing this title, from the section above: "This is the name used in top GA & FA city articles." Sorry that directing you to the 'discussion' page, in order to find that, wasn't clear. I don't know what measure you use to find "standard practice" but I have cleaned up the Notable people sections for the cities and towns of four and a half states now and residence only is not what I have found, even in FA cities. One thing I have found is that "Notable natives and residents" is one of the least used titles for these sections. Notable reasons people get associated with towns other than residency: sports, committed a notable crime there, attended school, and notable employment there (often where famous politicians practiced law). Trying to monitor these sections for spam is already hard enough without adding legitimate notable connections to the no-no list. Dkriegls (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to add it. In my several years of concentrating primarily on US geography articles (for almost every community in eleven different states), all of the established editors that I've worked with have removed entries for those who didn't and don't live there. The entries you've found are generally added by drivebys with little awareness of our standards; if you want to say that the appearance of non-residents in these sections is accepted practice simply because they've often appeared there, you must also accept the eighth grade football stars and the other random people that don't and aren't going to have articles, because they're on there even more frequently (even long-term) than the notable people that just aren't residents. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable residents means pretty much the same as Notable people. A "resident" is anyone who is regularly present (though I see Wiktionary is missing that meaning). That doesn't mean they have a home there—it could be they regularly vacation, or work there. The context of Notable people or Notable persons within a city article is obviously that they are (or were) somehow a member of the community. There isn't any purpose to distinguish this more finely. Natives doesn't add any insight at all. —EncMstr (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've frequently encountered situations in which an IP removed a name because "doesn't live there anymore" or something like that. If we include "natives", we make it clear that we're not including just current residents. What's your source for this meaning of resident? I've never heard a usage of the term that included someone who lived elsewhere: you reside in the place you live. Oxford agrees with me — aside from resident physicians, specialised usages such as statuses of certain officials of the East India Company, and non-human usages such as birds that are resident in certain areas, all of its definitions of "resident" include the idea of living there, not just going there often. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I much prefer "Notable people" to "Notable natives and residents," in part because of those IPs who remove people who don't live there any more (for example, because they died after living in the community for 45 years). Any wording is subject to misinterpretation, and the more specific the wording, the more likely it is to be misunderstood. Ideally, these lists should have an introductory sentence or paragraph that explains the scope as including notable natives, notable residents (past and present, living and dead), and any other categories appropriate to the unique local situation (these might include, for example, famous seasonal residents or the guy who owned the place as a company town, but lived just outside the city limits). --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nytend, see Merriam-Webster meaning 1b, serving in a regular or full-time capacity. Granted, it is an older meaning, but still in widespread use. —EncMstr (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This confusion over meaning (is a dead person a resident or native?) is why Notable people makes the most sense. If they meet WP:Notability, and have a connection to the place mentioned in reliable/independent sources, they should be included. There is no Wikipedia guidelines that could justify limiting the list beyond the above criterion. Dkriegls (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've most often seen the appendage "...natives and residents" in foreign countries where lots of tourists come to live. I appreciate that a place will claim someone who never got their start there just because he retired there later. Doesn't happen that often. Simplest is best IMO. I would rather see this section improved with footnotes which tie the person to the place if it isn't mentioned in his bio. And I'd rather not have to search through his bio to find it anyway. Student7 (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer "notable people". The proposed change leaves out those people who are neither natives nor living residents, but who lived a sizable portion of their life there or otherwise have a significant connection to the community. The proposed title "natives and residents" suggests that the minute a notable resident dies, he has to be deleted from the page. I don't think that's what most people would want. Incidentally, the comparable categories and lists do not define the term at all - see the category "People from San Diego, California" or the List of people from Seattle - and that seems to work fine. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we have a decent consensus to keep it simple with Notable People.Dkriegls (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Are notable people more than residence?

Currently the guideline for Notable people reads: "any famous or notable individuals that were born in, or have lived for a significant amount of time". The conversation above about the title of this section suggest that many editors feel residencies is too narrow a qualification. I feel that any notable connection meeting WP:Notability should be the qualification.

I submit Michael Jordan's connection to Chicago as the test case for this discussion. Jordan and Chicago are paired in anyone's mind who knows the subject. Yet, he never lived there, nor was he born there. For the extent of his career with the Chicago Bulls, he lived in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park, Illinois. However, a Google search of the two produce WP:Notable media describing his long time work with the Chicago Area Boys and Girls Club; his downtown namesake restaurant; how he is sill a top tourist draw for the city of Chicago; his continued relationship with the city like campaigning for the Chicago Olympics bid; and that his son attended the Chicago based Whitney Young Magnet High School.

I think the discussion directly above showed that many editors feel residency is too narrow, but i wanted to open a separate discussion on the topic, just to clarify. Dkriegls (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've picked a good city. The problem with any major city is that they already have far too many people who were either born there, or lived there, to really keep up. No one editor from a large city can really keep up with legitimate entries with solid credentials. I would think you would not want them to be any more liberal than they are. But I wouldn't even do this with villages who have almost nobody. You have to either have lived there or be born there. The criteria should be narrow, not broad.

Having said that, if you really must, you can create yet another list of people from metropolitan Chicago and point to that list from the Metro article. Huge list though. Mostly full of 20 year old musicians who once cut a record, "professional atheletes" who played for a few minutes in a game someplace, etc. Truly trivia to a place. Something we would be better off without, but like fleas on a dog, we are stuck with them. Student7 (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I see your point but I wonder if the opposite is true. That having to continually remove names like Michael Jordan is more time consuming than including every WP:Notable name. I think you're right that a metro area list would be too big for any practical use. However, I think your thoughts might work better for smaller, embedded lists. For example, with towns in Maine that take a lot of stock in their "Summer" visitors, we might consider not listing them under the Notable people section, but instead listing them under a unique Summer residence section. Similar to the way we treat notable alumni of Universities. We don't include them in the town's Notable people list, but instead refer the Notable alumni list from the town's page. Dkriegls (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In the context of an article like Chicago, I agree with other editors that the information you would like to include is too specific for such a broad topic. If Chicago had a notable people list (even though I think they're awful and not useful to casual readers), then I would agree that he shouldn't be excluded. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 20:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Epicadam, cities with Notable people lists bigger than 25 are broken off to form their own articles. See: List of people from Chicago. Dkriegls (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

References for Notable people

I joined the Wiki editing just over a month ago and joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities around 3 weeks ago. Since then I have been cleaning up the cities in my state of Iowa per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. An editor has recently dropped an {{unsourced section}} in Waterloo, Iowa a smaller city(pop 68,000). In a discussion with him I contend having their own article (blue linked) is notable enough, references should be in that article, he contends There needs to be a link for every entry in the list to prove that they are or were residents of Waterloo. Wikipedia doesn't require readers to skip around from page to page to find sources. I looked at the Featured Articles listed above in this page at section Notable people vs Notable natives and residents - and seen that most had references but not all. In the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline section Notable people the subject is not addressed. I think a consensus to this subject needs to be reached and an addition made in the guidelines to cover this subject.

Points to consider

• The immense number of edits required if every entry in Notable people needs a reference.
• Size of towns, I came across one town population 11 people Beaconsfield, Iowa that had one Notable people.
• Article Classification, IMO all FA articles yes, GA maybe, and below debatable especially stub and start articles.
  

RifeIdeas Talk 18:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policies are WP:V and WP:RS which directly derive from the Five Pillars. However, common practice is to list and link them with the idea that no one would challenge a well known fact. Unless, of course, it isn't well known. The number of edits to correct this is not a consideration (except for the people who do the work). We had a discussion similar to this at WikiProject Oregon about two years ago here, including later discussion about placement of the citation. —EncMstr (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

EncMstr has said it all. Citations tying a person to a place has to be there else anyone can put Michael Jordan or whoever they want into "notables" which (sorry) is almost meaningless as it is. Close to trivia. If the list gets totally out of hand (all sorts of names, nothing to say person belongs there), we probably need to think about deleting the section entirely from the encyclopedia for every place. Your call. Cite those you can't find and delete them after a few months. If they really belong there, someone will come up with a ref. It doesn't have to be you personally. Unless you are going for FA/GA. Then just delete all that are unreferenced. Student7 (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

RifeIdeas, when I started cleaning up notable people sections last year, my thinking followed yours. However, after some good conversations with Student7 I started to realize the value of citing an individual's connection to the town or city. As you point out, meeting WP:Notability in order to have an article is sufficient to show they are notable, however, it is not sufficient to show they have a notable connection to the town/city. I'm in favor of more inclusive lists, but many blue linked names are added to these lists that really don't belong there. True, this is more of an ideal than a standard practice, but ideals are what we aim for here. I throw the following tag on every listee where their connection to the town/city is not immediately found on their biography page: {{Citation needed|date=July 2024}}. It can be argued that this tag should go on every name without a citation, but I ain't gonna do it :) Dkriegls (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Student7, I did not say "cite it or delete it." If NYC's article listed Elton John or Sting, a citation would be useful, but not necessary. It is widely known that they maintain residences there, so this is covered by text from the no original research policy:

... Verifiability says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist.

Per the Biographies of Living People policy, only contentious material must immediately be removed. In most—if not all—cases, the fact that some person lives in some town is far from contentious. And the non-rigorous standard of relying on the biographical article to support the association is in agreement with the spirit of Original Research. —EncMstr (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I read the information you cited above that had been discussed at Project Oregon (kudos for your active program) and although I have a better understanding, I also have some confusion. I seen a reference to a Notable Residents rule/guideline/policy but could not find it listed. Is it a reference to your imbedded Note in the wiki code cited way above this page in the Notable people section? I seen talk about a Oregon MOS but did not find it either. I seen vastly different examples Bend, Oregon with 34 notable's with 2 cites, Medford, Oregon with 37 notable's with 0 cites and Lake Oswego, Oregon with 23 notables listed with 22 cites. (By the way Notable people is the official by consensus title for this section and all three Oregon examples have some other wording for the header.)

I learned a lot from all of your previous discussions. I agree that to strive for perfection all entries should have a reference in both their article and in the Notable people section and all entries I do from now on will have a cite. I started this discussion to see about getting a consensus and then placing some rule into the Guidelines with maybe a stipulation about the level of the article quality vs the degree of cite needed before an entire section has a {{unsourced section}} added or completely deleted by a zealot. As a reminder I am still a newbie. RifeIdeas Talk 03:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The embedded comment is what is being discussed. It was the result of an earlier, brief discussion of notable persons inclusion. I repeat the embedded notice here for completeness:

<!-- Note:
· Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here.  This establishes notability.
· The biographical article must mention how they are associated with <city name>, whether born, raised, or residing.
· The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited.
· Alphabetical by last name please
· All others will be deleted without further explanation
-->

The talk about an Oregon MOS was a suggestion never acted upon. As I recall, consensus was that it wasn't needed since there are plenty of MOS already.

The label Notable people was very recently agreed upon (like two weeks ago), so it hasn't had much chance to propagate. I'll be fixing them as I encounter them, and copying the citations from the biographical articles. —EncMstr (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my questions. I made reference to the Oregon cities only as an alert to you. Now back to my original question about the need for a more complete explanation in the Guidelines. RifeIdeas Talk 05:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Guideline Sentence: All listings should have citations explaining the subject's relationship with the place, however, 'citation needed' tags are preferable to removal of non-contentious listings. Dkriegls (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as Stung and Elkton John goes, this is great if you are American and between the ages of x and y. For non-Americans, and readers under x, or over y, you do not know where they live. Therefore they still need to be tied to that area. Inserting a notable should not be a trigger for watching editors to perform a lot of "research" on their own. The research should already be done and present, just like for any other text. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. That makes sense as far as workload goes, however I think it might violate Wikipedia:Good faith.Dkriegls (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

What is the consensus for placing this ^{relationship to THIS CITY}
behind all entries that do not have a valid reference connection to the city, instead of just inserting a . . .

Which I think is unattractive and ambiguous and can result in a reference to why they were notable
and/or other references unconnected to the connection to the city.--RifeIdeas Talk 19:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This outcome not a real benefit.[8]   Will Beback   talk  04:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the use of the section wide tag over individual tags. The "unattractive" aspect should motivate editors who are interested in the subject to do something about it. For all others, it is a great 'heads up'. Dkriegls (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify the example that is linked above by Will Beback is an old revision dated December 5, 2010. To see the progress check it out and then checkout the current Bettendorf, Iowa#Notable people. To add another obvious fact about the above {{unsourced section}} is that when one resource is added the tag is no longer valid and needs to be changed to {{Refimprove section}} whereas the ^{relationship to THIS CITY} is deleted with each individual reference established. --RifeIdeas Talk 14:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How I feel. Put a section wide tag if the section has a large number of problems and an obvious big mess. Put an individual tag on a small number of problems. The big problem with the section wide tag is that some people are NOT sure if every aspect of the big tag has been fixed thus are scared to remove them. For an individual tag it is obvious that after you fix that problem then you remove that one tag, simple cleanup. I've read many articles where section wide tags should have been removed long time ago. While reading city articles that I've noticed any missing references, I put an individual tag at each point where I guess that needs a reference, so it is obvious to other people what needs to be fixed. Sbmeirow (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Good point. Section wide works best when there is absolutely nothing redeemable about the section. Best to tag paragraphs or sentences, if possible. But the section tag is sometimes needed just to get attention. There are some articles where editors have gotten in the bad habit of leaving "remarks" which seem really fairly accurate, but unreferenced. Something has to happen to jolt them out of that rut. Section tags. Individual tags. Then reversion of unreferenced additions. Otherwise we have a big mess. I think our gripe is the "visiting" editor who leaves a section tag and never returns! I just rm old tags that seem sorta answered and ask for particulars in the edit summary if tag is reinserted. So far nobody's objected. Student7 (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. cities

Please consider participating in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. cities discussion. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What about notable duos/trios/small bands, shouldn't these be under the notable residents section if they apply?

Here's the situation: many small bands are composed of 3 or 4 people from the same town. If the band reaches the level of notability, we typically do not start an article for each person, unless either (a) the band goes far beyond notability and is very well recognized, or (b) band members have separate projects for which they are noted.

In the case that (a) and (b) do not apply, but the band is still notable, it sounds like it would still make sense to put the individuals under the "notable persons" section for a small town, with a listing like this:

• Band members Isaac Hanson, Taylor Hanson, and Zac Hanson, of the pop band Hanson, all reside in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

...even if there are not separate articles for each person.

Note that this does not apply to really large bands or ones with shifting members, i.e.

• Band members John A., Lisa B., Jimmy C., Taylor D., Terry E., Carlos F., Amy G.,... of the Penn State Marching Band, all reside in State College, Pennsylvania.

(Yes, I know that separate rules for colleges are in place as well, just an example.)

So anyway, is this something that needs to be up for a vote? I have an editor trying to delete my notable person entry for the members of a band that easily meets notability criteria, merely because the article is for the band, not the individuals. It seems to me that one of the biggest parts of the narrative for a small town is local kids make it big. In this case, it's certainly true, but I'd like to get all your thoughts on it here. This person is a stickler for the rules, but this is certainly a gray area. If we agree that it make sense to put small bands in the notable persons section, I'm certain that this editor would bow to the wishes of the group and stop deleting my altogether appropriate entry. 71.74.87.123 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Or should it be three separate entries for Zac, Isaac and Taylor? The individuals (not the Hansons IRL, but a smaller band) are notable but only as members of the band. Sometimes a person's article is just a redirect to the band. Three separate entries, one band entry, or none at all? I bow to the wishes of the majority, once a decision is made. 71.74.87.123 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

First, be careful how you state things. You make it sound like the "other editor" is just misguided or some kind of zealot. That "other editor" has mountains of experience editing similar articles and is very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding notability and such notable people lists. Consensus is a big part of Wikipedia, but local consensus does not override previously established consensus (or policy) over a broader topic (i.e. the inclusion of non-notable band members from a notable band). This topic would probably be better suited for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Also, the point of city articles is to help readers have a general, yet thorough, understanding of a particular city/town/village. "Local kids making it big" is a very small part of a city's narrative, even for a small town. That town's history, government, geography, etc. are a much bigger part of that narrative. Finally, "making it big" is a matter of point of view. New Hollow has had some great accomplishments and is certainly poised for success; however, their notability is relatively low, recent, and thus has potential to be temporary.

I used this on my talk page as an example and I'll use it here: the band Six Parts Seven is listed at List of people from Kent, Ohio as the band, not as the individual. The band is what has notability (very little in this case), so mentioning that the band formed in and/or is based in a particular town seems appropriate for a notable people list. The individual names, however, usually don't have much notability, if any. Listing their names, especially if they all redirect to the band article, doesn't help the reader learn anything about that person. Notability must also be established individually, which of course could potentially happen later on. Notable people lists are more to connect relevant Wikipedia articles, not to serve as points of boosterism. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Points taken. Agree with you that the band (but not the members) falls in the notable persons list, but may end up later on being nonnotable, at which point they would fall off.

True the other editor has experience, but the mountains of experience does not outweigh requests to bring concerns to Discussion pages, which I have not been successful doing, over multiple issues. I am more than happy to discuss edits and more than willing to follow guidelines, but there has to be reasonable dialogue in the process. Only late in the game am I receiving civility, despite requests to move to the Discussion page. Constructive edits are always welcome, but blanket destruction without discussion certainly warrants a response. I always respond to civil and reasonable concerns with civility and reasonableness, that's all that I ask for in these discussions, not just deletions of constructive additions.155.188.247.16 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

True, experience doesn't always mean right, but more times than not it does. One thing to remember is that every edit does not require a discussion. Many editors will try to explain their edits, particularly a large removal, (I always try to where I can) but are not require nor should they be expected to do so outside of the edit summary. If you have something removed, rather that revert it back, start a discussion. Most times an experienced editor isn't going to remove something just for the sake of removing it; they will have a guideline or policy in mind. Nothing wrong with asking, but make sure it's a legitimate question (like "please explain so I can understand better") instead of just being upset. If nothing happens at the article talk page, try taking it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities to see if you can get a response there. Chances are good it will get a response. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that bands get recognized as "people" under "notables". Individuals are either notable or they are not individually notable IMO. And what about different towns? Would Peter, Paul and Mary be notable as a group under individual notables (assuming they didn't have different bios)? This doesn't make sense. The band article is not written as a bio anyway and may leave out significant background that would be expected in a bio.

Alas, these bands are usually grouped under "cultural" or somesuch. So they have their place in article, unfortunately. I think all this stuff should be moved to WikiEntertainment so the rest of us can edit an encyclopedia. The others can have their entertainment thing and we both can live happily ever after without trying to marry the two! Student7 (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've dealt with many city-specific articles and lists that included bands on the "notable people" lists. The fact that a notable band was formed locally is often a source of local pride -- same as if a movie star or famous solo musician hails from the city, so it's reasonable to expect that these bands will be identified in the city article -- same as that movie star or solo musician. In some cases they will be discussed in a "culture" or 'arts" section of the article, but that's only if there is/was a strong ongoing association between the band and the community. In many cases, though, the relationship of the band to the city is not that strong. For example, Paramore was formed by several kids from the small city of Franklin, Tennessee, but it's no longer closely associated with Franklin; the association deserves to be mentioned in the Franklin article, but not in a section on local arts and culture. In another example, Memphis has been the home of many famous bands and individual musicians, so only a few of the most prominent are going to "fit" in the arts section of the main city article. and not all are going to belong to a specific local music genre like Memphis soul. Less prominent bands like Nights Like These and The Gentrys still seem worthing mentioning in spin-off articles like List of people from Memphis, Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Orlady summed up what I think as well. Even though a band in itself is not a "person" it is made up of people who may or may not be notable on their own. If members of the band achieve notability on their own, they should be listed individually; there is no need for a mention of the band itself other than that the person is/was a member of the band. This is only is cases where a band has notability but individual members do not. I also don't usually like them listed in the Arts & Culture section unless there is a strong connection with the cultural elements or the band is a regular part of that scene. As city articles develop and the Notable people sections become prose instead of lists, a lot of this gets taken care of. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So we should rename the subsection to read "Notable people or groups or what have you?" Don't have to have people anymore? Can be the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (not all from the same place unfortunately); Boy's Vienna Choir (same problem, but what the heck?); Inmates of Attica? individually not notable but collectively? Wow! The Third Army? A powerhouse in WWII. What is the cutoff here? Or is there one? Just music? Why would it be limited to music BTW? And does that reflect a music bias on the part of Wikipedia? And how about Jeopardy, never mind that they are not Ken Jennings? And why the bias against linking Jeopardy contestants if mentioned in that article? And how about "Beach Volleyball, Season 3, Episode Two?" And why not?

And before you accuse me of "trying to be funny" remember that is how your suggestion struck me! :) Student7 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And oh, if one person from the Third Army was not recruited from NYC, do we then throw it out a a notable group from NYC? How many exceptions do we allow?

And how do you propose to word all this? It is a change. Student7 (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this:

People who are best known by a collective name, such as the name of a musical group, may be listed under the group name. If the entire group is associated with the place, list the entire group. Examples:

• Eddie Foy and The Seven Little Foys, a family of vaudeville performers, lived in New Rochelle.
• The rock band Paramore, formed in 2004 in Franklin, includes local residents Josh Farro, Zac Farro, Taylor York, Jeremy Davis, and Hayley Williams.
• Isaac Hanson, Taylor Hanson, and Zac Hanson of the pop band Hanson all reside in Tulsa.
• The Gentrys, a band that achieved commercial success in the 1960s and 1970s, was formed in Memphis in 1963 and consisted of seven graduates of Treadwell High School.

Probably too long, but... --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I like Orlady's example, though I would list all the notable people separately and then put "professional musician with the band Hanson", much like I would put "professional football player in the National Football League" for a pro football player. We also need to use common sense here. The times this comes into play are usually with small bands in small towns where all the members are from the town or founded the band in a town, not large, well-known groups like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. In those instances, the group can legitimately be seen as part of the culture of a city, not simply as a notable native. The point of notable people lists/sections is to connect the city article with relevant articles of notable people, so since the people are listed on the band article, having a link to the band article would be appropriate in these cases where there is no individual notability yet. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Re to JonRidinger: Although the individuals have separate articles, I don't see any benefit to users from listing Josh Farro, Zac Farro, Taylor York, Jeremy Davis, and Hayley Williams separately in a bulletized list in Franklin, Tennessee, since they are all notable mostly as members of Paramore. Ditto for the members of Hanson and the article on Tulsa, Oklahoma. --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So pretty much limited to bands. And maybe five or so people since modern bands don't get that large anymore? I assume the same small cutoff applies to the bands of yesteryear which did get fairly large? Student7 (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I see that limitation. Two of my examples involved groups larger than 5, and the Seven Little Foys weren't even a band. You appear to be thinking of an example of a larger group -- could you tell us what group you are thinking of? --Orlady (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching this discussion about group notability and thinking of other examples besides musical bands.
For example one from Ames, Iowa as follows:

• The Girls from Ames, a group of women from Ames who are the subject of Jeffrey Zaslow's 2009 nonfiction bestseller.
  

So what about a subsection to the Notable people section called Notable groups?
--RifeIdeas Talk 02:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent example of a group that's not a band, and one that clearly belongs in a city article! Thanks for bringing the example here. IMO, there's not much need to separate "people" and "groups." For one thing, few cities that list their notable people in a "Notable people" section will have more than one or two groups to list. Groups do tend to have names that don't resemble normal human names, but I've noticed that many city articles list individual people who also have unusual names, such as Viper and Brimstone. Thus, there isn't really a big need to separate the groups from the individuals. --Orlady (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the nice side effects of the section name Notable people is that "people" can be either singular or plural, so a group fits alongside individuals in the list. There is no need to subdivide the section for that particular reason. —EncMstr (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Precision

I've removed the following text from the Demographics section:

E.g., for United States cities, the Bureau of the Census presents data with x.x percentage breakdowns. It does not calculate out to x.xx% and editors should not perform their own calculations.

This is based on an erroneous reading of the statistics and of Wikipedia policy. Let's look at the New York City data from 2000 for an example:

• Total population — 8,008,278
• White — 3,576,385 — 44.7%
• Black or African American — 2,129,762 — 26.6%
• American Indian and Alaska Native — 41,289 — 0.5%
• Asian — 787,047 — 9.8%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander — 5,430 — 0.1%
• Some other race — 1,074,406 — 13.4%
• Two or more races — 393,959 — 4.9%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race) — 2,160,554 — 27.0%

Yes, the Census Bureau only reports to tenths of a percent, not hundredths, but it's quite appropriate to give hundredths here. The relevant section of our policy on original research says that routine calculations don't need a source, as long as the calculations are properly done and based on numbers derived from reliable sources. For this reason, it's entirely appropriate to say that Asians composed 9.83% of the population, because 787,047 divided by 8,008,278 is approximately 0.0983. The only strict limitation on such calculations is the significant figures, and obviously the three significant figures of 9.83% aren't a problem when we're dividing by numbers with six and seven significant figures. Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That part of the Demographics section was added after discussion above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US_Guideline#Overprecision. There was concern about over-precision in some articles (I am particularly aware of this in regard to neighborhoods of Denver), due to third-party sources who republish Census data and carry percentages out too far. For many of the cities that are smaller than the New York City example (and most U.S. cities are smaller than NYC ;-)), hundredths of a percent values are overly precise -- and, anyway, does any reader need to know that the value is 9.83%? (Isn't 9.8% good enough, particularly if the raw number is also reported?
A particular concern I have is that many US Census statistics are based on sample data (i.e., the old Census long form and the newer American Community Survey), so carrying the percentages out particularly far may truly be false precision. That is not a concern for ethnicity data, which are based on a 100% count, but it is an issue for topics such as income that are based on sample data.
An element of the removed section that was erroneous was the emphasis on the number of digits after the decimal point, as the key issue should be significant figures. In a city of 10,000 people, of whom 9012 are white, 819 are black or African American, 100 are Asian, 18 are American Indian, 4 are Native Hawaiian, and 47 are "Two or more races", I think it is unnecessarily precise to list the white and black values as 90.12% and 8.19% (or even to report the American Indian and "two or more" values as 0.18% and 0.47%), but I think it is inappropriate to round the Native Hawaiian value to 0.0%, as the Census Bureau would do. Small non-zero values should be reported to at least the first significant (i.e., non-zero) digit. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

[Forgot to conclude my comment.] I agree with the removal of the assertion that statistics should not be carried out past the 10ths of a percent. However, in view of the many instances of reporting spurious precision in Wikipedia articles, I think it was worthwhile to point out that the Census limits its data outputs to the first 10th of a percent. Perhaps the guideline could caution against going beyond the Census' precision without careful consideration of the issues in the cited guidelines, the Wikipedia article Significant figures, and the potential issues inherent in the Census' use of sample data for many of its statistics. --Orlady (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The flip side of this, is continued changing of statistics. I get real suspicious when an unregistered user, or maybe even one I don't recognize, changes some census statistic, invariably without an edit summary. I would really prefer inserting figures that agree with the census, and locking them, if that were possible!  :) Otherwise, we get "tinkerers" and people just seeing whether they can change something or children committing petty vandalism. Hard to tell the difference when someone "adds precision" to a figure. Student7 (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear! It would be nice if data could be locked, as you suggest. --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal income

This is collected by the census bureau and for a long time, dumped by a bot indiscriminately into "Demographics" with which there is scant correlation. I moved it in many articles into "Economy" and met with great approval by other editors, since, of course, personal income is a main driver of the economy. Of course, there was no subsection "Economy" back when.

For the first time, this was challenged in the review of a city article. I'm pretty sure it was in the recommended outline originally, but what there is today, is just vague suggestions. I'd like to see it restored. Student7 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking

The example infobox on the project page links the heading 'Country' to 'List of countries'. What's the point of this? 'Country' is a common, widely understood word (per WP:OVERLINK) - it doesn't need a link. Any objections if I remove the link? Colonies Chris (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No opposition, so now done. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Name listings of local officials? - Guideline proposal

The WP:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Government section gives guidelines about descriptions of the local governments for cities. It has no provision calling for listing of individual names. But many articles go overboard with tables, etc., listing the names of city clerks, librarians, airport directors, etc. The problems with this practice are fairly clear: 1. These listings are subject to continual change across the spectrum of cities everywhere and give little helpful information to the reader. (If a reader wants or needs the name of particular city officials, s/he can go to the official city website.) And, 2. they violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Indeed, the WikiProject Cities: Notable people guideline says "Simple lists of names add little of value and may be subject to abuse." (I venture to say these lists only serve to feed the vanities of those people named.) I propose that this section guideline be amended to say Listing the names of non-notable individual government officials in this section is not permitted. As an alternative, notable individual government officials may be described or listed in Notable people section. --S. Rich (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Places outside city limits

Does WP Cities have a policy about whether and when to include places that are not in city limits in a city article? Not-in-city places are common in city articles (Boeing and Microsoft for Seattle, Port of Long Beach for Los Angeles, Palace of Versailles for Paris), so I'm wondering if there is an official policy on this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the consensus of the editors. If there is a subject so closely associated with a particular place (even if outside city limits) then it's worth a mention. Typically there shouldn't be any problem, but sjust be sure to not give a subject undue weight. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 06:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We have an ongoing dispute at Las Vegas, Nevada where a cabal is insisting that the Las Vegas Strip should not be discussed in the article since it is not in city limits. I'm sure that the Strip is the classic example of such a place that deserves a mention. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In some cases, an entity will be the largest employer for a town but not actually be located within the town line. Fort Drum 13603 holds this status for Watertown, New York 13601, despite its own huge allocation of land being well outside city and town limits. I presume it's valid to state that Fort Drum is n miles from downtown H₂Otown and has x in economic impact on the city - even if the base itself isn't within the town line, many of its deployed soldiers do have Watertown homes within the town line awaiting their return from Baghdad or Kabul and that does affect the town's economy. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

flagcons in settlement infoboxes

At present there is a discussion ongoing about putting flagcons in settlement info boxes. See: Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#flagcons_in_settlement_infoboxes --S. Rich (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Only YOU can stop Rambot spam

This is a US-specific problem: there are many articles in which the "Demographics" section was generated by a 'bot, user:rambot sometime around 2004 as a placeholder stub before a valid article existed on an individual place. This text is problematic both because many of the numbers listed are pointless trivia (do we really care that some not particularly Hawaiian village on the Québec border has "0.2% of Pacific Islander extraction between 18 and 45 years of age" or similar tripe?) and because the information is simply outdated (it's from the 2000 census, not 2010). Perhaps this guideline should encourage the removal of any of this statistrivia beyond what little of the information actually adds anything useful to the articles. It's spacefiller and was annoying enough in 2004; by 2012 many of the affected pages are valid articles (and not stubs) but the outdated statistical trivia is merely dead weight. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer-review for "List of people from.."

I'm trying to create some consensus on what a "List of people from..." page should look like. The List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois has had the most editor input and is the only such list of a US city which is fully cited. It was previously nominated for featured list, but the conclusion was to bring it to Wikipedia:Peer review instead.

The current peer review can be found here, and all are encouraged to say their piece, as a successful featured list is likely to be used as a standard reference for such lists. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Residential segregation"

Hi folks. Haven't worked much at this level before, but we had an issue in Pittsburgh that warrants some attention. This section on residential segregation describes an important feature of the city; however it's a complicated feature, not easy to measure, and not exclusive to Pittsburgh. The point was raised: if we're going to talk about this in Pittsburgh, shouldn't it also be described on the pages for New York City and Detroit? I think yes, but I'd like to solicit opinions from people who are involved in the project from up here. Thanks! groupuscule (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The subsection was removed for WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:CRUFT, and a host of other issues making it insuitable for inclusion in a city article. WTF? (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Racial segregation in Pittsburgh (and the US generally) is not my "POV" or a fabrication from my "OR". It is emphatically not fictional or relevant only to certain fans--it is a core part of everyday reality for many many people. I find your terse response (and accompanying immediate deletion) to be extremely rude. I am interested to hear the thoughts of other members of the WikiProject. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged this as NPOV. The text should really be removed immediately, but you're just going to edit war this, so that's just wasting time. This is not a problem and you know it. Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. WTF? (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the situation is undoubtedly real, the topic is important, and the content was sourced, but it does not belong in the article until it is presented with more sourced context than was provided in the deleted text. Rather than saying the city is segregated, provide a discussion, based on reliable independent secondary sources, of residential patterns in the city, how they developed over time, and what the data show right now regarding distribution of racial groups within the city. The heading "residential segregation" is probably something to avoid, regardless of how the subject is presented. --Orlady (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The section appears to be WP:Soapbox and not really a neutral point of view and not very well written. Heading would give undue WP:Undue weight to selective interpretations and use of terms.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Flags on sister cities sections

See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#International_relations_and_twin_cities_-_use_of_flag_icons.

USPLACE RFC notice

Which U.S. cities require disambiguation by state? Example: Atlantic City or Atlantic City, New Jersey?

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#RfC: US city_names. older ≠ wiser 01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)