Talk:City

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.90.155.121 (talk) at 23:11, 10 August 2009 (→‎City/town in German: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:VA

WikiProject iconCities B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:WP1.0

Reasons:

  1. "Introduction" should be merged with the actual introduction
  2. Three images shouldn't be stacked in such a way - causing the layout to be unpleasant
  3. Captions of pictures should be of matching quality as of the first picture
  4. "The city is a barbie doll human habitat that allows people to form relations with others at various levels of intimacy while remaining entirely anonymous." (This definition was the subject of an exhibition at the Israeli pavilion at the 2000 Venice Biennale of architecture) The "definition" should be either inline citationed or reworded, but that's dire
  5. "The difference between towns and cities" should appear later in the article, not the first paragraph for readers because it is not the most important subject of the article
  6. Incorporate "Inner city" section with all American information, as well as mentioning "Edge Cities"
  7. Delete large section of "See also", most is covered/made inferior by the category box at the bottom of the article
  8. Completely expand and revamp "References"
  9. Synthesize "External Links", some links are useless, Eg - A forum where one can participate with other forumers using stats, images and general debate to rate and compare cities in a civilised fashion. while others need names cleaned up to be of any use to the reader Eg - For each country, part of its population that lives in its most populous city

This article is a good start, but has a long way to go.. Highway 22:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firm?

What does this mean? "A city can also be defined as an absence of physical space between people and firms."

AThousandYoung 23:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A firm is a company. 75.172.38.26 21:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a picture of an European city

I have added a picture of the very well known city of Sabadell (next to Barcelona, in Catalonia, Spain). I think it's good to show both faces of what we understand as city: by one side, the cold and inhuman face of city shown in the great cities of the United States, Canada, and some of the big cities of Europe, and Asia, etc. By the other side, I think it's good to show an image of a normal city, a warm and cool city. The face of the technology and the modernity and the face of the tradition and the cultural and social factor that a city plays to put together their citizens.

Onofre Bouvila 22:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Alston says this type of thing shouldn't be here, it should be in Wiktionary? Is this correct? It's very good though ;)

I've decided to redirect "City" to "Central Business District", because the latter word is the proper definition of the area.

(from JustAnyone) I thought it would be good to have a set of information about a city that includes how things work.

I'm surprised that in a list such as list of cities in Oklahoma it seems that any place in the US with a population of more than 1,000 is a city; anything less is a town. In the UK somewhere with only 1,000 people would be called a village. Is this nomenclature correct? Shantavira 18:26, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]


What's up with the link to the toki pona 'pedia at the bottom of the page? It doesn't seem to be working too well...who is running that 'pedia anyways?Braaropolis | Talk 05:11, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the details, but according to recent mailing list discussion toki pona is now being treated as a lesser pedia than others. Klingon is also in this "lesser" category. "Proper" wikipedias are not to link to these "lesser" ones. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Perhaps a merger or disambiguation or alternative use is in order, see the City and The_City_(book_by_Maximilian_Weber). --Piotrus 10:11, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've made The City a disambiguation page, and added appropiate see alsos to this page. I think everyone should be able to find what they are looking for with this set-up. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:05, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed the text below from the opening of the article. I honestly don't understand what it means or what it refers to. olderwiser 13:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Definition of City: A fixed place of human habitation that allows people to form relations with others at various level of intimacy, while remaining entirely anonymous. (Presented at the Israeli pavillion at the 7th Venice Biennale. Exhibition curated by Architect Hillel Schocken)

Size of a city

The fact that you don't understand something does not mean it is not worthwhile for you to search. Look up http://www.intbau.org/essay5.htm and you might find some sense in that definition.

Hillel Schocken

"I removed the text below from the opening of the article. I honestly don't understand what it means or what it refers to. older≠wiser 13:01, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Definition of City: A fixed place of human habitation that allows people to form relations with others at various level of intimacy, while remaining entirely anonymous. (Presented at the Israeli pavillion at the 7th Venice Biennale. Exhibition curated by Architect Hillel Schocken)"


"City" as used by Americans.

I always felt that there was some similarity between how Americans use "city" and how the King James Version of the Bible uses it - may there be a connection?--PeterR 23:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Conceptions

The "Modern Conceptions" section is not entirely credible. Who is taking this approach? Is this how most people conceive of cities, or is it a theory developed and held by a few academics? The entire section is written in the passive voice, and that's the lazy way to try to be authoritative without actually citing any authorities. More fundamentally, does this particular theory of urban function/development belong in the "Cities" article, or does it deserve its own article (i.e., "The x Theory of Urban Function")? LaurenceJA 01:54, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have been bold and removed the entire section. It was:

  • unencyclopedic
  • POV
  • unreferenced
  • vague

However, I don't want to discourage the author, and I would like to thank them for contributing their time and energy to the article. Wikipedia tolerates unreferenced claims but generally the more academic, abstract or controversial the topic becomes, the more important it is for the contribution to be verifiable against sources.

Ben Arnold 23:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global cities

I removed the Indian cities from the list of "global cities". They're very big cities but, frankly, they don't fit the description given. They're all recognisably Indian. I also removed KL. It just doesn't fit the bill either. I'm not that convinced by the cities listed as it is but I don't want to tread on toes by removing those whose claim is rather spurious. Is Seoul really a "global city" though? J'burg? Toronto!? Is Toronto more closely part of the global network of big cities than it is part of Canada? Not sure about that. Philip Arthur 03:43, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

Isn't the (maybe old) definition of city a town with a cathedral?

Yes, that was one definition, now obsolete. A city, by its etymology, is any "group of citizens" and hence any place where such a group settles. The nuanced distinction between "city" and "town" are relatively recent in origin. Of note, the most likely decent of this word comes from words implying a settlement with a fortification or defensive works, so a distinction between a "city" and either a "hamlet" or a "village" would be more valid. Just my opinion, though.
Also my opinion, English is a living language and attempts (like those running rampant on this talk page) to cement a single, eternal, adamantine meaning to a word are follies. People in Hoboken talk of a trip into the city, as do my family in southern Kansas. The first are referring to New York City, the second are speaking of Cedar Vale. Both groups understand the word in context. An encyclopaedic article can be written which encompasses both. Kevin/Last1in 20:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. In the UK there are still towns that are defined as cities by virtue of their having a cathedral (i.e. being the seat of a bishop). The City of Lichfield is one such. As the article makes clear some languages do not differentiate, but others do. In the US apparently the need for this distinction has disappeared, whereas in the UK it persists. May I also point out the etymologically speaking a metropolis is the seat of a metropolitan - still the title of a bishop in the Eastern Church ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Augusta2 (talkcontribs) 01:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal photo??

Don't understand why this article should open with a photo of Montreal. Could somebody place it better or remove it? Thanks. Cribananda 22:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase it is a good example of a modern, large and post industrial city relevant to the conext of todays history as an example, and as a visual representation of the article Bmgoau 06:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's atleast better placed now. That's fine. Cribananda 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

What is the nonsensical rubbish about what Americans think "city" means supposed to be all about? "Greater Los Angeles" certainly includes other cities and villages than LA, but the city of LA has over 3 million people, Greater LA, which has no legal status, has like 12 million. If Greater Birmingham has 2M, fine, but to say that if Birmingham, England were in the US, it would have over 2M ppl is -- nonsense. Who writes this crap? Tomertalk 15:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and removed that part about LA's population. Population of the actual city(that is, within city limits) is actually 3 million, not 1M.--Chicbicyclist 08:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While they does not have proper legal or geographical status, "greater cities" do have some individual status, like the Metropolitan Police of London for example, it serves the Greater London area. And what about private organisations, like the YMCA, which has at least it's Seattle chapter as "YMCA of Greater Seattle", which includes Seattle and it's neighboring towns and villages. And the 'Kreisstadten' of Germany, which are like geographical Big Brothers to each other if one of them is larger. Oh, that was tiring.-Uagehry456|TalkJordanhillVote 06:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Village, Town, City, Metropolis

MY DEFINITIONS

Settlement- less than 100 people

Village- at least 100

Town- at least 1,000

City- at least 20,000

Metropolis- at least 100,000

Needs verification

I took out the following sentance because i am quite sure that this is not true, because several cities, for example in China had populations of about 1 million.

But if i am wrong correct me...


"It is estimated that ancient Rome had a population of around 1 million people by the end of the last century BCE, which is widely considered the only city to reach that number until the Industrial Revolution. "

NEEDS VERIFICATION

This statement is definitely wrong, in ancient China, lots of cities had population over 500,000.And several cities like Chang'an in Tang Dynasty, had population over 1M when at its peak of development. Do not always stay in your own world while thinking about the history of the whole world!!!

rent levels

This article needs info on rent levels, which are simultaneously crucial in determining how a city develops and determined by the development. --Espoo 13:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to count the size of a city?

As you see on these two stats, Stockholm count way more more area size than Copenhagen. And Copenhagen only need to add like 300 m2, to be bigger populated.


Stockholm:

  • Population City: 765 044, 4091 inhabitants/km2, Area Size: 187 km2
  • Population Urban Area: 1 212 196, 3230 inhabitants/km2, Area Size: 375 km2
  • Population Metro Area: 1 872 900, 289 inhabitants/km2 Area Size: 6 490 km2

Copenhagen:

  • Population City: 502 362, 5709 inhabitants/km2, Area Size: 88 km2
  • Population Urban Area: 1 085 813. ?? inhabitants/km2, ?? Area Size:
  • Population Metro Area: 1 827 239, 638 inhabitants/km2, Area Size: 2 862 km2

So witch city is biggest?

--194.255.124.250 23:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you usually figure out which city is larger in population by comparing the city population, in this case, Sweden is the winner! -Uagehry456|TalkJordanhillVote 07:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, th-that's Stockholm, by the way. -Uagehry456|TalkJordanhillVote 07:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral

What about something I heard (perhaps apocryphal?) that a European city can only be defined as such if it contains a cathedral? Thus, Vinci is a city as despite its tiny population and size, it contains a cathedral, and so forth. I'd be grateful for clarification.

I think (keyword: "think") that small towns with cathedrals can't be cities because the cathedrals were probably only there because of their importance in history, rather than a town of significant size. Just take the small (former) town of Cascades, Washington (state) for example. It was not important because of it's size, but because of the amount of trade between the Eastern and Western parts of the state that took place there. I used that example just because I live here, by the way. -Uagehry456|TalkJordanhillVote 07:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same definition from my high school english teacher. A city had a cathedral otherwise it was a a town. And if it's very large, it's just a very large town. The prerequicite is a cathedral. However, some rather small "towns" have cathedrals, such as Ribe and Haderslev, defining them (in my book) as cities.--Nwinther (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City Lists

Are there any lists of cities by prominent geographical feature (coast, lake shore, island, peninsula, river(s), etc)? fiberglassdolphin 20:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but the closest I can get, though, is this:

Farther off but still helpful:

Good luck! -Uagehry456|TalkJordanhillVote 07:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photos

I notice both photos illustrating that article show cities from the USA. Is that normal? I think there should also be a slight diversification in the nature of the pictures: why should only towns with skyscrapers figure? I know plenty of "cities" (very important ones too) that don't have skyscrapers: London, Paris... No, definitely, the two photos show a slight bias in favour of the US. Daniel Montin 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Urban Weather in External Effects section

I have never seen any scientific evidence suggesting that tornados evade urban areas because of the presence of a heat island. In fact, tornados have done considerably damage to urban areas. Also, I do not believe a heat island leads to cloudier or windier weather (with the exception of urban areas with very tall buildings in which a funneling effect occurs). However, it may be that higher pollution levels in urban areas lead to haze which give a city sky a grayer appearance than rural areas.

These comments need to be substantiated by scientific references or they should be removed.

On the other hand, urban heat islands lead to extended growing seasons since they keep night time temperatures warmer than surrounding areas. Also, they have been known to trigger the formation of thunder storms during summer in some areas of the world. I'll add that in if I find some sources.

--Dba5 21:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nomination

Why did this article fail GA nomination? How long ago was it? It looks to be in pretty good shape to me. Would it be worth renominating? --Selket Talk 23:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good NYC picture. New Yorkers like me appreciate that. :) SKREAM 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya?

In the Ancient times section it says 2500 ya, which is obviously some kind of measurement. Clicking on "ya" leads to a disambiguation page which has absolutely no reference to this use of ya. Unless they measured the city in arrow lengths (which would be very subjective), this is not a very obvious term. Years ago, Yards across, what does it mean?--WPaulB 14:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya! That's surprising. Well, it's gone now, but I'll still respond. I like answering already answered questions. -Uagehry456|TalkJordanhillVote 07:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where was it already answered on the City or it's talk page?--WPaulB 15:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just removed, not really answered, sorry. -Uagehry456|TalkJordanhillVote 00:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means years ago I believe most of the time, especially in this context. AThousandYoung 23:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are cities Incorporated?

I think someone should not the reason cities are incorporated to begin with since that comes up so often. I, however, don't have the answer to that question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.133.99 (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

map incorrect(!)

The map "Cities with at least a million inhabitants in 2006" is completely incorrect. In Germany for instance, ther're just 3 cities with more than 1 mio. inhabitants, whats about dubai & abu dhabi in VAE? The cities in Iran are at the wrong place... we have to delete this map from this page. --Englishazadipedia (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this map is completely rediculous; there are only 9 cities in the United States with more than 1 million inhabitants and yet, this map suggests that there are 40. I am going to go ahead and remove it, if not for its inaccuracy, then for its misleading caption. I could understand if this map displayed all of the cities over say, 500k so inhabitants, but it is not mentioned on the image's page or its discussion page. If someone knows what it actually represents, feel free to put it up with the correct caption. Snagglepuss (talk) 04:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it uses the population of cities' metropolitan areas, and not the official city populations. While this is a more objective criteria - the definition of what constitutes a "city" varies widely throughout the world (some places it's the dense core of a city area, sometimes it's the entire thing) - it may constitute original research. --Aqwis (talkcontributions) 10:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Birth of Cities" section is really poor

This section is quite bad. Contrary to the opening text, archaeologists actually have considerable evidence about the birth and growth of the earliest cities. The "cities or agriculture first" section is a lot of hot air without any evidence. Again, archaeologists have LOTS of evidence, from around the world, about this (agriculture comes first, so why waste time on Jane Jacob's data-empty speculations?). If I find time I may try to fix this up. The section on the size of cities is very western-centric.Michael E. Smith (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actual understanding of "city"

The article on “ city ” gives technical definitions for the US and Canada, but for Australia gives the common understanding of the term. Is this because the US and Canada only use the word “ city ” in a technical/political sense, much as “ state ” is only used in a technical/political sense ? In other words, would someone not talk about an urban settlement in Pennsylvania as a city simply because it needs to receive the charter, and would peope not refer to Hempstead (with 750 000 people) as a city simply because of its political status ? Or is the article simply inconsistent in the way it talks about these matters ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassowary (talkcontribs) 24 June 2008

problems with definition

This definition doesn't tell us anything.

"A city is generally an urban settlement with a large population..."

The problem I have with this definition is that 1) "urban" is a adjectival form of a synonym for "city", and "large" is a relative term. Is 1,000 people "large"? Or is 1,000,000 people "large"? If "large" cannot get us with three orders of magnitude, it's worthless.

I am adding the phrase "requiring the importation of resources". I can provide citations for Jared Diamond, Derrick Jensen, Paul Erlich all include this as part of their definition. I believe the truth of this is non-controversial, and also is an important component to the definition. --Bill Huston (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better to define it as 'a settlement that is usually larger than a town or village' or similar. --Aqwis (talkcontributions) 09:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nice addition. I've just changed it. --Bill Huston (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need for solid rewrite

The whole article needs a thorough rewrite. At present it wanders, it is repetitive, overblown with padding and wording that makes it read like a paperback pot-boiler. As an example: What about "craftsman that develop in New Obsidian make"? Should it be "men"/ developed/made? or have a "the" and "age" or "culture"? But really what is it to do with City? Strikes me that overlong WP articles with masses of definition argument on their talk pages rarely get as far as the first "e" of "encyclopedic". I assume good faith but I do not subscribe to their religion.--SilasW (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a city

A city is bigger than a town, a town is bigger than a village, a village is bigger than a hamlet, a hamlet is bigger than a house and a house is bigger than a brick toilet.13 August 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.66.47 (talk) 10:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

city

cities attract business people. How do cities provides the right business environment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.249.37 (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Birth of Cities

This section is incredibly bad. I don't have time to fix it now, but maybe I can get to it later. The statement that there is insufficient evidence to understand the birth of cities is nonsense - there are LOTS of archaeological data. Jane Jacob's ideas that cities preceded agriculture are completely erroneous - there are hundreds of well-published excavations from all over the world that show this is not at all the case. The section on "why do cities form" is a speculative fringe view, unsupported by data (and there are LOTS of data). Michael E. Smith (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third-world cities

To show how different cities can be, the article needs a picture of a city in the Third World. I'm thinking of a city in sub-Saharan Africa with 1-5 million inhabitants. Anyone know of a good picture? --Aqwis (talkcontributions) 10:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"obsolete by the internet" ?

As a casual passerby, I find it a bit weird that the article states that there is debate about wheter or not cities have become "obsolete" by the arrival of the internet. I know that it's a referenced statement so I won't argue that it's a POV that shouldn't be mentioned, but I would argue that it's such a minority opinion that it doesn't belong in the intro.

Incorrect obsolete information in this article

Some added the section on Jane Jacobs' faulty notion that cities may have preceeded agriculture. This is an erroneous position, and the fact that authors of this entry want to promote false information does not make me inclined to edit or add to this entry. I have blogged about this (see the ref). [1]

If you want scholarly citations, open up any textbook on world prehistory.

Michael E. Smith (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they didn't want to promote false information. Perhaps they just made a mistake. At least they tried to include something. Errors on Wikipedia should inspire their correction. Please don't give up. Fix it! Improve it! Attitude is everything.  ;) The Transhumanist    22:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


No, I think that some people WANT to promote false information. I had made some minor edits to bring the article in line with current scientific knowledge. But someone discarded my edits and returned to the version with the erroneous interpretations of Jane Jacobs.

Jane Jacobs has something of a cult following, and many planners think that anything she wrote must be good and true. I have blogged about this (see the link above), and some comments on my blog entry were really outraged that I would claim that agriculture preceded cities. Well, excuse me for promoting a model that is universally accepted by archaeologists, and supported by thousands of radiocarbon dates from hundreds of excavations. If the contrary-to-fact opinions of Jane Jacobs are to be favored over well-supported scientific knowledge, then why should I spend my time making corrections? Michael E. Smith (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias in the lead

I am skeptical of the decision to have the obsolescence of the city as a debate in the lead. Certainly it is a major debate about cities, but I am skeptical that it is so much more important than any other debate about cities as to be worth mentioning in the lead - indeed, the debate seems to me several years old, given the recent change such that over 50% of the world population lives in cities, an equally major debate to my mind has been on the new centrality of cities.

Certainly the "are cities obsolete" theories are important, but I do not think they're lead-worthy. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of City in Chile

I've added the requested cite or source and so removed the tags. But feel free to discuss this further although the reference is very clear and from the Chilean federal Government site.

I think that the header can now be removed too? Chuckarg33 (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City/town in German

I just came across this article and saw that it says that the German language does not differentiate between city and town (or village). That is incorrect. "Stadt" always refers to a city (large, urban settlement), while "Dorf" refers to a village (small, more agricultural settlement). The confusion might come from the way the word "town" is used in the US. In the US it can refer to a village (nobody uses that term to describe a small US settlement, everybody uses the word "town"). At the same time it is also used to describe a city: The sentence "We went into town" gives absolutely no clue of the size of the settlement, it could refer to a city or a small village. So the problem is not that German does not differentiate between city and town, but rather that in US English, town can both describe a city or a village. 66.90.155.121 (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]