Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Name of project[edit]

Why is the project named Cities, rather than Settlements, which more accurately describes its scope? Jim Michael (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Settlements would clash with the (defunct) Wikipedia:WikiProject Villages, FWIW. Batternut (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Why not resurrect Villages and call it Settlements - and call cities anything over 100k population locations JarrahTree 11:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There can't be a clash with a defunct project. This project already covers all villages. I don't agree with splitting by type of settlement or population, because that would be arbitrary and many settlements would have to be moved from one project to the other when they're reclassified and/or when their population goes above or below a certain number. Also, there wouldn't be enough members to concentrate on small settlements. Jim Michael (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Many states only have cities or "cities and towns", thus the 100K thing is meaningless. • SbmeirowTalk • 12:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
See page 3 - • 12:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
population size was simply an example of a possible scope, thanks to those who have pointed out the pointlessness of such a scope. The notion that the cities project carries all towns/settlements is fine - just testing the idea of different variants, and have heard the response, seems like it is moot point of where it starts and ends. JarrahTree 13:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
one small problem about citing a USA based idea of census and how things care captured, in the US - the problem is having a project and scope that can be utilised for a very wide range of country statistical collection systems that are potentially at variance to the US norm. JarrahTree 13:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The US has many small cities, the size of which would be towns, villages or hamlets in many other countries. Splitting into different projects for cities, towns and villages therefore makes little sense. This project continuing to cover all settlements makes sense. My question is why is the project misleadingly named Cities, rather than Settlements? Jim Michael (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think it could be a good idea. The criteria for a place being a city is too variable, often arbitrary. And there will always be overlap with any project for smaller place. We would just have to be accommodating where large-place stuff is not suitable for small-place stuff. Batternut (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think settlements would be a better name, more encompassing of the scope of the project. Many people have arbitrary notions of what constitutes a city, and those notions are usually population based. In the US, city/town/village/hamlet are nothing more than the legal description of the incorporation, and vary wildly state to state. I don't pay much attention to non US topics, but from my US centric viewpoint, renaming this project is step in the right direction. John from Idegon (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
When Villages project ceased, Cities project's scope was broadened to encompass all settlements. Therefore it should be renamed Settlements. There are a huge number of talk pages of towns, villages and hamlets which don't have the Cities banner on them. I suspect that one of the main reasons is that many people wrongly, but understandably, assume that the project's scope is limited to cities. Jim Michael (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Should be Settlements, covering everything from recognized neighborhoods (not subdivisions or tracts) to incorporated cities. Counties? I am not sure about that. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I would avoid counties and other regional entities. Some countries have projects for sub-national regions, eg WP:WikiProject Indian districts, WP:WikiProject UK subdivisions/English districts, WP:WikiProject German districts, WP:WikiProject U.S. counties. Counties and such are more political entities rather than demographic. Batternut (talk) 06:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree that the scope shouldn't be extended to counties, regions etc. The scope is fine as it is - the problem is the name of the project. Jim Michael (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this as well.  mrwoogi010  (Talk) 14:38, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Climate data for Gallipolis, Ohio[edit]

Hello all, I'm trying to add climate data for Gallipolis, Ohio, but I've never done this before. Is there a template I can use? I'm planning on using data from NOWdata and ThreadEx. N. Jain (talk to me) 20:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@Njain1091: Yes, the template is called {{Weather box}}, see Cleveland#Climate for an example of use. —hike395 (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.


On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Franklin, Tennessee[edit]

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

Hello. You may or may not want to look at Franklin, Tennessee--look at the editing history of the lede and assess whether the "recognition" section is due or not. There may or may not be POV-pushing content. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. I've cut and rearranged some, more is needed. Magnolia caught a copyvio. Chamber of Commerce type pages seem fairly common in central Tennessee. John from Idegon (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Shouldn't the lede mention the Battle of Franklin and the three lynchings in Franklin (Lynching of Samuel Bierfield, Lynching of Amos Miller and Lynching of Jim Taylor)?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure it should. Suggest you make a BOLD change and see how it goes. John from Idegon (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
It used to be in the lede but it was removed by an IP address--if you look at the editing history, it looks like that's what triggered the POV-pushing edits. I am not sure we need to mention the KKK in the lede, but something like "It was the site of the Battle of Franklin during the American Civil War, followed by three lynchings in the postbellum era." might work?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Parkwells: I think you are the one who worked on the lede prior to the FranklinCityWatcher edits. User:Atsme is another editor who knows a lot about ledes. Thoughts everyone?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Only one. This discussion should be in the article's talk page, not here. Your request for help was appropriate; a content discussion is not. John from Idegon (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I am asking in general, and giving a specific example. Should we mention lynchings in the ledes of city articles? Another example would be Luverne, Alabama, which calls itself "The Friendliest City in the South" despite the 1940 lynching. I can't think of a better place to ask than this WikiProject talkpage.
By the way, I have not interacted with you until the IHOP talkpage--I assume you came to this talkpage on a fluke, but in the unlikely event that you are watching my contributions, please stop, please stop, please stop. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Both your above assertions are incorrect. Shouldn't the lede mention... is clearly a statement about a specific article. Your suggestion that I'm stalking you is equally incorrect, and as it suggests I'm violating a serious behavior policy with no evidence makes it a personal attack. If you feel that I'm stalking you, which can easily be disproved, take it to a noticeboard. Otherwise strike your statement. And if you wish to improve the article, follow BRD. Your actions on the associated project page on the article you referenced above were clearly canvassing. The article at hand here has much potential, and clearly needs help. Your a great researcher. Go for it! Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you. I have a pretty good reputation on sociopolitical geography articles, enough so that I was invited to be a coordinator on one of the projects that deals with them. Our mutual friend Magnolia677 can vouch for me. Sometimes people end up on the opposite side of an issue...don't take it personally. John from Idegon (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification. That's what I was trying to do. I apologize if you think I was not doing that, and it has nothing to do with this talkpage discussion. I also said above that you were probably on this talkpage on a fluke, and that it was probably coincidental that we had never interacted until yesterday. So we're good. I do not have time for Wikidrama. There is no need for us to interact again either. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Discussion at Talk:Madrid#Picasso's Guernica[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Madrid#Picasso's Guernica. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Choice of infobox on articles about constituencies[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see this discussion and follow-up RfC concerning the relative merits of {{infobox constituency}} and {{infobox settlement}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment of Israeli neighborhoods[edit]

I have opened an RFC for several of the Israeli cities that I think are un-encyclopedic. Therefore, I appreciate input from editors from this WikiProject at that RFC. Thank you. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Transit and highways in the infobox[edit]

A few users have recently been adding transit and highway listings to infoboxes for U.S. cities, which is stretching them out and adding unnecessary icon spam (e.g. Los Angeles). I see this as being problematic because (a) the inclusion criteria can be easily diluted and hard to set (should frequent buses be included? And every major street?) and (b) it duplicates content that would be better covered in prose and with navboxes. I think it's high time for a projectwide guideline regarding these listings. SounderBruce 18:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious what should and should be included: interstate highways, passenger airports, commuter rail, and rapid transit. I do agree that the Icon spam can be a problem, and that text should instead be used(except in the case of interests which are more easily recognisable by shield). I've noticed many articles that list seemingly every numbered-route through there city, which is a problem that I've been working to fix(see recent edits to Portland, OR. Dmartin969 (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Ugh those icons do look awful in the LA article. I think infoboxes have gotten too long in many places and this is not necessary. The point is to be a concise go-to for key data about a topic, particularly that which may not be in a consistent location (if any) in the prose of the article. The transportation information is nearly always in a Transportation section, and even for a smaller city that wouldn't have so many of these items this isn't something a reader should need at the top of the page. Reywas92Talk 02:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussing a mass edit to fix errors in 2010 census data[edit]

Feel free to join in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject 2010 US Census#RfC about mass changes to California census figures. —hike395 (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for participation in a discussion[edit]

There is a content dispute at Talk:Great Falls, Montana regarding the infobox photo and one other image. Your participation would be appreciated. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Do we have guidelines or not?[edit]

Currently our guideline says both "This ... page is not a ... guideline" and "This is a guideline". So is it or isn't it? Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Rename page. Or perhaps the discussion should be moved here, as it seems like a pretty central question to me. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC[edit]

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Geobox nominated for deletion[edit]

It has been proposed that we delete {{Geobox}}. That may effect this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the Geobox deletion discussion. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:55, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"Affluent" in lead section[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Riverdale, Bronx#"Affluent" regarding the inclusion of "affluent" in the lead section. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants[edit]

Is there anyone in this WikiProject willing to assist in verifying the entries in this set of lists? I’ve noticed a lot of unverified additions on them lately. I know the lists by city name have all been cleaned by another IP geolocated to my state, and a user just tagged all 26 of those lists for having one source.

In summary, I am requesting verification on entries in lists at least sorted by country. Thanks in advance. (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Glad I found this! I was just going to post my request for review of an improved table I was developing for that set of pages here. Please note this is merely taking from the latest demographic yearbook, whereas the articles are currently using an earlier version of the yearbook. Unfortunately, I'm at a struggle with filling in missing info and redlinks at the moment. Yes, I do plan on merging this table into the existing pages once it's ready. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gerasa (Judaea) that may need your opinion. Please come and help. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  put'r there  02:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Noise pollution in cities[edit]

Does anyone know where I can find good sources for noise pollution levels of cities around the world? If so, please be a dear and drop me a line at my talk page. Many thanks! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Nuuk, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team