Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 23

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Bristol at FAC

I have nominated the article Bristol for featured article. Would you be willing to take a look and leave any comments about whether it meets the featured article criteria on the review page at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bristol/archive1?— Rod talk 17:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV concerns

Hello!

On many city articles (including but not limited to London and Minneapolis), various things about the climate, such as winter or summer temperatures, are described using subjective language. From the Minneapolis article:

"Winters are cold and snowy, while summers are warm with moderate to high humidity." Emphasis mine.

This concerns me because some people may disagree with these descriptions. Someone from Singapore, for example, would find the summers to be cooler and drier than what he was used to, so he might refer to them as 'cool' summers, which is a description that I, personally, would agree with. On the flip side, someone from Barrow, Alaska would consider the winters to be mild, if not warm, because he is used to winters averaging -22°C during the daytime. I do not consider temperatures below 32°C to be warm, personally, nor do I consider temperatures under 10°C to be anything but cold, but other people might consider 15°C warm, and you cannot pass a subjective evaluation of the climate off as fact. Here is my proposed rewrite:

"Winters are colder and snowier than in many places, while summers are warmer and more humid than in many places."

Or whatever it happens to be; sorry if my proposed rewrite is not accurate. From my understanding of NPOV, however, you cannot pass subjective evaluations or judgments off as fact.

Thank you,

Bad Weather 2014 My work • What's wrong? 11:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Right!
The problem is with the media who tries to "spin" everything, including the weather. This is often copied by unthinking editors. We report data and leave it to the reader to "spin" it any way s/he chooses. As an encyclopedia I agree that we should try to avoid unessential adjectives. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

So would it be acceptable, then, if I were to change all of the articles with said terms into more objective language, such as the example I provided in my initial post?

I am glad that somebody else has the same concerns as I do concerning this matter; thank you, Student7, for your response.

-- Bad Weather 2014 My work • What's wrong? 11:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! rm of "only" three people (already said how many. Are we saying that is too few? "very" hot. We already discussed this. How hot is hot with the numbers right there? "Worst" depression in a decade. That one can be harder if there are quotes and data. More people out of work? Decreasing Domestic Product? But most adverbs and many adjectives seem unencyclopedic. Thanks for noticing! Rest assured there are more than two of us!  :) Student7 (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Student7, thank you again for your response. -- Bad Weather 2014 My work • What's wrong? 16:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I deal with a lot of cities, and mainly stay away from weather/climate disagreements. I essentially agree with the reasoning behind your initial premise, however, your proposed changes are also subjective. Warmer than which other locations? Not being that conversant in climate sources, I think we should stick to the verbiage used in the Kloppen definitions. If Kloppen says it is a "warm" climate (rather than "hot"), we should use that. I do agree we should never use local weather forecasts to describe weather, for they are definitely subjective. Last year when working on the Phoenix, Arizona article, I searched for an online source of Kloppen designations for Phoenix, and that led me to search for an overall listing of Kloppen designations. Couldn't find one. There is a map somewhere which shows them. but that is difficult to read, and can be problematic if a city exists at the edge of a classification. Does anyone know of a Kloppen source? If so, I would suggest that that be the go-to reference. Onel5969 TT me 14:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, what I meant by "many places" was the worldwide average. If you don't like my proposed rewrite, then please help me come up with a more objective idea. In addition, I am not referring to scrapping the reference to the Köppen classification; I'm referring to additional language that is used to describe the climate after the Köppen reference. The following is taken straight from the London article:
London has a temperate oceanic climate (Köppen: Cfb ), similar to all of southern Britain. Despite its reputation as being a rainy city, London receives less precipitation (601 mm (24 in) in a year), than Rome, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Naples and even Sydney in Australia.[117][118][119][120][121][122] Temperature extremes for all sites in the London area range from 38.1 °C (100.6 °F) at Kew during August 2003 [123] down to −16.1 °C (3.0 °F) at Northolt during January 1962.[124]
Summers are generally warm and sometimes hot, London's average July high is 24 °C (75.2 °F). On average London will see 31 days above 25 °C (77.0 °F) each year, and 4.2 days above 30.0 °C (86.0 °F) every year. During the 2003 European heat wave there were 14 consecutive days above 30 °C (86.0 °F) and 2 consecutive days where temperatures reached 38 °C (100.4 °F), leading to hundreds of heat related deaths.[125] Winters are generally cool and damp with little temperature variation. Snowfall does occur from time to time, and can cause travel disruption when this happens. Spring and autumn are mixed seasons and can be pleasant. As a large city, London has a considerable urban heat island effect,[126] making the centre of London at times 5 °C (9 °F) warmer than the suburbs and outskirts. The effect of this can be seen below when comparing London Heathrow which is located 15 miles west of London with the London Weather Centre which is located in the centre of London.[127]
Emphasis is mine and shows the part that concerns me. The article could be made more objective if the descriptions in bold were rephrased or removed.
Thank you,
Bad Weather 2014 My work • What's wrong? 16:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Padanaram, Massachusetts

The opening sentence of this article identifies the community of Padanaran, Massachusetts as "affluent". I feel that it sets the wrong tone for an objective article, to place the entire description of the place in the context of wealth, even if the average wealth of households in the area might be abnormally high. (I'm not from Padanaram, though I drove through it yesterday. I have no ax to grind about the economic level of the place.)

The talk page of the article has a suggestion that the discussion should be moved here (and also that the importance is low). I second the motion. Arch5280 (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been battling the use of that term (and also poor, although that occurs much less frequently) for a couple years now. I remove it as unreferenced when I see it. Expect some resistance. John from Idegon (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow. That has to be one of the worst settlement articles I've seen here. I don't usually work in New England articles, so if someone else wants to take a crack at it? It has nothing it should have and almost everything it shouldn't. John from Idegon (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Probably the best person to copyedit it is someone "not from here and no axe to grind!" Student7 (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it a neighborhood or a settlement? That cannot even be discerned from the article, Altho it hints at a neighborhood. Next chance I get, I'll research that, then stub it to what can be referenced (the NRHP reference isn't even in the article at this time) and isn't promo. John from Idegon (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Image for Melbourne, Australia

There is a Request for Comments (which is really a Request for Consensus) on which of two montages of images to use at Melbourne, Australia. The discussion is at Talk: Melbourne. Please provide your opinions in the Survey and Threaded Discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Some missing cities

Hi all! Have a list of those cities, which don't have article in English Wikipedia, but have articles in most Wikipedias, sorted by number of iws. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 17:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

GAR for Tel Aviv

Tel Aviv, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

City walls

Does anyone want to help create/expand articles on city walls? There are articles on some city walls, such as the Walls of Constantinople, the Fortifications of Valletta, the Fortifications of Heraklion, the Walls of Nicosia, the Fortifications of London etc. However, many other cities which are/were surrounded by fortifications still don't have articles about their walls. Hopefully some members will be able to help out, since this is a task which would need a lot of work. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Rename Louisville, Kentucky to Louisville?

Please participate in this new straw poll: Talk:Louisville, Kentucky#Straw Poll: Rename this article to simply "Louisville". Please leave !votes and comments in that discussion only. Thanks! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The correct name of Portobuffolè

Please join the discussion. Peter238 (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Bristol nominations

Hi, I would be grateful if you could comment on two nominations relevant to this wikiproject:

Any comments would be appreciated.— Rod talk 09:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest to this project

There is an ongoing discussion here on the use of Template:Infobox school district in settlement articles. Your input would be appreciated. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

New Towns

Would I be contributing to WikiProject Cities by making an page about rather Smithville Ontario, my home town? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolshirt4 (talk • contribs) 13:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Coolshirt4 - Is this different than Smithville, Ontario? Onel5969 TT me 19:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Crime in Sofia

I have started an RfC that has mostly gone unanswered so far except for involved editors, about whether a section about crime-related information should be removed from the article. I thought it may be of interest to this project. LjL (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Crime sections are fairly common in big cities. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
There was one user in particular who strongly wanted to have the section deleted - and did repeatedly delete it, to the point of getting blocked - twice. He then proposed to have a secondary article Crime in Sofia like there is Crime in London, and I guess I would be okay with that, but only provided a summary remains in the main Sofia article with a {{main}} link to it. Just hiding the data under the rug, i.e. in an orphaned article, wouldn't cut it IMHO. And right now, a summary-sized section is all we have anyway, so the issue seems moot. LjL (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

While you people are looking at this article, do you have any input on the tables of distances issue? There's been a bit of back-and-forth. LjL (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Alternate names of cities

There is an RFC discussion at Talk:Plovdiv#Including historical names of the city which may be relevant to other city articles, too, as it puts into question the interpretation and scope of MOS:LEAD#Separate section usage. It is about whether city articles that already have a "Names" section detailing alternate names for the city should still list any names except the common English name and one official local name in the lead section. LjL (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Participants here often create a lot of content, have to evaluate sources for population figures, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Italian Mogadishu into Mogadishu

Please discuss a request to merge Italian Mogadishu into Mogadishu at Talk:Italian Mogadishu if you care. —  AjaxSmack  01:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:City attorneys

Category:City attorneys, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Municipal attorneys. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

NAC: There is rough consensus against the inclusion of terms such as "affluent" or "poor" in ledes to articles on cities and towns in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

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.

In Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles, should there be additional information given in the fourth paragraph of the subsection headed 2000 as follows?

Proposed text (with accompanying footnotes)

Sherman Oaks has been referred to as an affluent area.[1][2][3][4] Mapping L.A. stated that in 2008 the percentage of Sherman Oaks households that earned $125,000 and up was high for Los Angeles County. It also stated that Sherman Oaks was a medium-income area with a median household income of $69,651, which was high for the city of Los Angeles but about average for the county as a whole. In median income, Sherman Oaks households were 97th in Mapping L.A.'s list of 265 ranked Los Angeles County neighborhoods, midway between Rancho Park and Hollywood Hills, [5] (Median household income reports the amount of money earned by the household that falls exactly in the middle of any given group of households.) BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Current text

The neighborhood had a median household income of $69,651 in 2008, which was high for the city of Los Angeles but about average for the county as a whole. (Median household income reports the amount of money earned by the household that falls exactly in the middle of the pack.) The percentage of households that earned $125,000 and up was high for Los Angeles County.[9]

References

  1. ^ Richard Simon, "Sherman Oaks Is Yaroslavsky Gain and Wachs Loss in Redistricting," Los Angeles Times, July 24, 1986, page 6. "Under the plan, Councilman Joel Wachs would lose a large part of affluent Sherman Oaks . . . ."
  2. ^ Eric Slater, "Sherman Oaks: Parole Office Will Return to Old Site," Los Angeles Times, October 27, 1994, page 3 "Now, some North Hollywood residents call the office's return to their community an example of politicians pandering to more affluent areas such as Sherman Oaks."
  3. ^ Leslie Berge, "New Parole Office to Be Moved," Los Angeles Times, May 19, 1994, page 3 "Insurance settlements and disaster funding to repair earthquake damage in the hard-hit Sherman Oaks/Studio City area will fall up to $120 million short despite a massive infusion of government aid, according to a new study. So why have 2,100 residents of the affluent area signed a petition and threatened to sue to block Los Angeles' latest quake recovery effort?"
  4. ^ Australian Associated Press, "Critics Rave About Joel Edgerton's Gift," Daily Mail, August 9, 2015 Sherman Oaks is a "leafy, affluent Los Angeles suburb."
  5. ^ Median Income Ranking, Mapping L.A.

Statements

Los Angeles, California, is a city of neighborhoods, some of them quite wealthy and others mired in poverty. Some have a reputation as "affluent" or "working class" or "tony" or "gritty," or whatever. WP:Reliable sources report these ideas, and we should add this pertinent and valuable information. The proposed text does not make any claims in the voice of Wikipedia but reports only what the sources say.

To the objection that Sherman Oaks' economic character has changed over the years and that it is not longer affluent, the most recent reference to the community as "affluent" was in 2015. The census statistics compiled by the Los Angeles Times staff state that in 2008 people earned more money in S.O. than they did in most other parts of L.A. The proposed text says so. The proposed text makes a direct comparison of S.O. with two other Los Angeles neighborhoods. (This info was added at the suggestion of an Administrator who looked at the article.)

To the objection that describing a neighborhood as affluent is simply a real-estate dodge to increase property values, there is no evidence.

Because access to the cited links requires the use of a Los Angeles Public Library card, the pertinent parts of the references are quoted in the footnotes.

Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. See long discussion at Talk:Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles#Affluence. A short quote from that discussion: "The sources tell us that Bel Air had a median income in 2008 of $208K, Beverly Crest $169K, Pacific Palisades $168K, Encino $78K, Toluca Lake $73K and Sherman Oaks $69K. Which tells us that Bel-Air, Beverly Crest and Pacific Palisades are "affluent", but the others aren't.". BeenAroundAWhile has been carrying out a slo-mo edit-war on Sherman Oaks for weeks now, trying to get "affluent" into both the lede and the body of the article, edits that aren't supported by other editors there (he has sofar been reverted by five different editors...). He has also tried to get "affluent" into both Encino and Toluca Lake, in spite of neither of those three neighbourhoods being affluent by normal standards, and obviously has no intention to stop his campaign. Thomas.W talk 20:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support if and only if in reliable sources - I don't see the problem in including the proposed text. If reliable sources claim Sherman Oaks to be an affluent city and neighborhood, then it should be included in the article. I don't think that including the word affluent is necessarily WP:NPOV, but I see how it could be viewed that way. Maybe we can replace the word affluent with another word to make all editors happy? Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, in this and all cases - I see no need to use inexact, undefinable terms such as "affluent", "poor", "wealthy", "lower-class", "upper-class", etc in this or any article's lede. I would actually extend that to "at all". Encyclopedias are supposed to convey factual information. Ill-defined terms do not do that. PEACOCK most definitely applies here. Even if reliable sources describe a community as affluent, or poor, or whatever, we do not need to use those terms that only represent the writer's opinion. We use historical sources that describe certain racial groups in terms that we now find offensive without using those terms all the time. There is no line where affluence starts. There is no defined metric for measuring it. It is an opinion, nothing more. Since it has no defined definition, how could it be anything else? Put in the numbers, let the reader make their own conclusion. John from Idegon (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Adjective "affluent" supported by multiple independent reliable sources. Sources trusted their readers to understand what "affluent" means, and we can, too. Hugh (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose in all cases, because "affluent" is a fluff (peacock) word that is NOT easily defined. At what dollar amount is the line, and how do you define it for every little part of the USA, because affluent in one area is NOT affluent in another area. Other financial descriptions like, "poor", "working class", "wealthy", "lower-class", "middle-class", "upper-class" should be avoided too. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: While on the one hand, it doesn't seem too unreasonable to include something in the lede that conveys what everyone in the surrounding region understands to be a defining characteristic of that place - in this case its relative affluence in relation to adjacent areas - I can easily see how this would open a can of worms with regard to COI edits by realtors, etc... I don't know if there's a single, objectively defined source for this metric as it applies to neighborhoods of Los Angeles, but that's the only thing I can imagine that would keep this from being a source of perpetual conflict. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
One of the reasons it has been opposed on Sherman Oaks is that "affluent" is frequently added by real estate-spammers on articles about cities/neighbourhoods all over the US, in an attempt to boost sales in those areas. Thomas.W talk 23:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose in this and almost all cases. The term is imprecise--it could mean , "more affluent than the average", or "among the richest". . This is especially tricky in the lede, where things much be stated briefly,. There is a much better way: give the numbers. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The word "affluent" is inexact, vacuous, subjective, and has little use in an encyclopedia, per words to watch. It's like describing a city's restaurants as "snazzy", and its schools as "top notch". Articles should present economic and demographic data in an encyclopedic way without editorializing. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment
Once again, the supreme criterion in Wikipedia is how the situation is judged, if at all, by third-party, reliable sources, and in cases such as this, those sources have to be strictly neutral. Do such sources unanimously describe the area as "affluent"? Whatever the epithet used, if any, that's what's going into the article. Otherwise, we are engaging in a promotion of our personal views or of our own original work. -The Gnome (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think The Gnome's comment just above crystalizes it: yes there are sources, but unless it's pretty much unanimous, you can pick and choose which references you use, and therefore you enter into a POV discussion. Since it's virtually impossible to show that it's a universal description, leave it out. Onel5969 TT me 14:17, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Just a few notes: (1) The proposed wording does not state that the neighborhood is "affluent," but only that it has been described as affluent. The reader can decide if the people using the description are important enough to care about or if what they say is worth paying attention to. My own opinion is that the reputation of a community is important to the "balance" of a Wikipedia article: if we leave it out, we are not doing a complete job. If this community has been described in any other way, we can use that, too. (I have looked.) (2) The term is imprecise, but most terms in politics are imprecise; that's why in this iteration the term is pinned to the sources who have used it and the paragraph goes on to elucidate what the actual statistics are as well. BeenAroundAWhile (talk)
  • Oppose. No reliable sources have been presented which state the neighborhood is "affluent", and there is no neighborhood which has not been described as "affluent", whether are not it is absurd. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support some, but not the "affluent" claim. Affluence, in the context of an encyclopedia article, is a measure in comparison to the rest of the culture, not to one's poorest immediate neighbors. (When an L.A.-based source says the area is affluent, they mean within the local-neighborhoods context, and that is not WP's context.) The sources indicate that the area is about average for the US, so it's clearly not affluent. Also, the parenthetical should be dropped. We don't need a school-child explanation of what median household income is. Just link to it. The rest of the proposed text is an improvement over the original.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
    • At the risk of being repetitive, the proposed paragraph does not state that the community is "affluent," only that it has been described as affluent. The reputation of a community is important to understanding that community, it seems to me. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
If your source states that it has only "been described as" affluent, why would you add it to the article? This is an encyclopedia; do some searching for a more precise source that one that describes the topic using such inexact words. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
You misunderstand the situation. The sources actually state that the community is affluent. Using the phrase "described" in our article was my attempt at a compromise, since some of the other editors didn't want Wikipedia itself to label S.O. as affluent. Personally, I would be just as happy to say flat out that S.O. as affluent, because there are some really good sources that don't shy from that term. But some of the editors above just want to get rid of the term entirely, even though S.O., for a long time (even up to now) has been known as an affluent area. I hope this helps. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose As many point out, there is no clearly defined meaning of the world "affluent," such that it becomes meaningful. The argument can me made that if extremely reliable and neutral sources (not feature/opinion or real estate articles in newspapers, in my opinion) call the neighborhood "affluent," one could argue in favor of saying that "so and so described the neighborhood as "affluent" in 2013"). But again, it's a meaningless term and a very POV term. Unless there is a government poverty study that describes a neighborhood as such, and clearly defines terms such as "affluent neighborhood," "poor neighborhood," "really rich neighborhood," etc., then there is no NPOV way to use the term in an encyclopedia article. First Light (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarify

We need to clarify the use of "affluent" and similar words in other American community articles too, not just Sherman Oaks, so people can't say "that only applies to Sherman Oaks" as a reason for undoing the removal "affluent" in other articles. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would we want to remove any given adjective concerning a neighborhood or a city if the sources use that word? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
See above. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree, Sbmeirow, and I think that the above discussion can be a template for the larger overall discussion for all US city articles. The arguments for and against are not limited to the single city which prompted the discussion. Onel5969 TT me 12:31, 6 February 2016 (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.

"Muscat"

The primary topic of "Muscat" is under discussion, see Talk:Muscat, Oman -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

German cities - population data

Hello participants,

the german-town page "Griesheim (Hesse)" is way behind in terms of population data. Way behind the municipal accessable informations and way behind even the slow german wikipedia. Could you please use your bot or an admin to include the new data from this page? (Population 26.690 , Griesheim, June 2015) http://www.statistik-hessen.de/themenauswahl/bevoelkerung-gebiet/regionaldaten/bevoelkerung-der-hessischen-gemeinden/index.html

Yours sincerely,

--SKCE1230 (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done, SKCE1230 - although I couldn't figure out how to change the citation and the date of the population - if another editor can do that, it would be appreciated. I already attempted, so the formatted version is in the history, but you'll be able to see the issue it caused. Onel5969 TT me 12:42, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject China/Shenzhen workgroup

Hi there Wikipedia Cities editors, I have set up a workgroup under WikiProject China particularly focusing on the city of Shenzhen. It has been started for a while now. But due to the lack of local Shenzhen editors I am currently in touch with, this project is still very much stagnant. This is why I am here posting this: this workgroup needs help.

Shenzhen is a city of more than 14 million inhabitants, situated directly north of Hong Kong across the border and arguably one of the fastest growing cities in the world. But perhaps due to it being a newly established city, a lot of people know little or even nothing about its existence. I believe it needed much more attention. Nonetheless, its contents are very poorly managed and nothing close to being encyclopedic, and that's the reason why this WikiProject workgroup was started.

So see if you can join this WikiProject, then slowly but surely we will improve the coverage of Shenzhen-related articles.

Wishds (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Boosterism?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure
 – (more appropriate here). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

To what extent are rankings acceptable in a city article? These days, every tom, dick, and harry promulgates rankings, so do the rankings have to meet some criteria to be considered noteworthy? Appreciate your thoughts. 32.218.47.21 (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Good post. Any particular articles you have in mind? Obviously we would have to cite WP:Reliable sources. Would that answer your question? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This and this are what prompted my question. I know that rankings are included in college articles, but there are a standardized set of rankings that are considered acceptable. With cities, it seems that every magazine, blog, and special interest group has some sort of listicle/clickbait ranking of cities. What rankings of cities, if any, are considered reputable? I find nothing in the guidelines of WP:City structure or WP:USCITIES that addresses this. Approval of any ranking with a reliable source would seem to promote cherry-picking and boosterism. 32.218.47.21 (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I would accept Inc., but maybe not the others, which may not fulfill the WP:Reliable source stricture. Some of them don't seem to have editorial oversight, being very closely linked with business or maybe advertising. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. That answers the small question about this particular example. It still leaves a gap as to the larger question of what guidelines, principles, or standards are to be applied to city articles in general. 32.218.47.21 (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I consider most of those things cr*p, because you don't know if cities paid for advertising or some other monetary method to get their name on the list, also these lists are subjective and not easy to measure. If I see these things in intro section, then I move them to the History section, which is easier than arguing with someone about it. If someone comes along and delete this stuff, then I never complain about it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that most rankings don't belong in our articles. Most rankings are purely subjective and may come from unreliable sources. There is no specific guideline about rankings (maybe one should be developed?) but it may be helpful to discuss such issue on the article talk page. For example, a previous discussion about ranking Davao City as the 4th Safest City in the World resulted in the removal of the spurious claim. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on auto-assessment of articles

See this discussion, which suggests a bot task that would auto-assess some articles for WikiProjects based on other WikiProject templates on the page. Please feel free to comment on the discussion. It would be helpful to know if your WikiProject would be interested in auto-assessment. ~ RobTalk 17:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Bar, Vinnytsia Oblast

Would like some extra eyes on this article. I marked this months ago for clean up. It looks like it is turning into a photographic essay. LibStar (talk) 10:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Auto-assessment of article classes

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ RobTalk 01:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for input: nicknames

Please consider sharing your input at: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Cleveland issues with nicknames in the introduction. Thank you. Levdr1lp / talk 08:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Historical affiliations box in [insert city] article

Was there any discussion in the past regarding this? It's just unnecessary WP:LISTCRUFT and doesn't really add anything important to the article as all that can be covered in prose. There are many articles that got this removed and no-one complained until now when someone decided to stalk my edits. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Hero Cities of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has been nominated for discussion

Category:Hero Cities of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion for New York

A discussion is underway about moving New York to New York (state) and placing either the city, the dab page or a broad-concept article at the "New York" base name. Please contribute at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request. Note that the move was first approved on June 18 then overturned on July 7 and relisted as a structured debate to gather wider input. Interested editors might want to read those prior discussions to get a feel for the arguments. (Be sure to have your cup of tea handy!) — JFG talk 23:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Saylorsburg, Pennsylvania

There is a discussion taking place at the above page that may be of interest to this project. Your input is welcome. John from Idegon (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Article alerts -- help please

I have added a new section Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities#Article_alerts to this project. I would appreciate someone placing this section somewhere more logical. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me

List of largest cities by area

Hi! I recently happened across this list, which I think falls under the sphere of this WikiProject. It needs a lot of attention, but I am not acquainted with the relevant policy. It appears to be based on a single source, and it does not say which definition of "city" applies: population, city proper vs. metropolitan area (though evidently metropolitan area from the size of the areas: 8,683 sq km for New York City, compared with the 789 sq km in the infobox of New York City). It also has footnotes of trivia about each city, which should probably be cut out. Could someone from this WikiProject take a look at it? I really don't know what should be done with it, and it doesn't lie within my areas of interest. — Eru·tuon 08:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_6#Major US cities

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_6#Major US cities. Regards, James (talk/contribs) 20:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Sister cities of Paris and Rome

A user by the name of ZH8000 has set about trying to enforce a point that the cities of Paris and Rome are "exclusive twin cities" and therefore cannot be listed as a sister city on any other article. I first noticed their edits of the Tokyo and Kyoto articles, and have since observed they have also edited articles related to Seoul, Jakarta, Beijing, London and Berlin. I stopped looking when I found that many, but they've probably edited the article of every city listed at Paris#International relations and Rome#International relations. Their argument appears to be that if these two cities have an "exclusive twin" relationship, then referring to a relationship with any other city as a "sister city relationship" is not permitted. My view is that a twin relationship with one entity does not prohibit a sibling relationship with other entities. By way of analogy, people who are twins can have other siblings too. The governments of Paris and Rome seem adamant about their "exclusive twin" relationship; that's fine. But I do not see the need to whitewash every other article of cities that describe their relationship with Rome or Paris as being one of "sisters". I'm seeking further comments on this issue. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yup, noticed that as well. Paris & Rome seem to be claiming this unique relationship, but then you got Tokyo or Chicago which if memory serves simply list Paris as a sister city, no qualifications, ifs or buts. I suppose mentioning this on the Paris and Rome pages is the lesser of two evils – but still the problem of others claiming twinning w/ P. or R. remains – but singling out Paris and hammering in some sort of a special snowflake relationship on other cities' pages feels like giving undue weight to a bit of a trivia that doesn't warrant it (and, that goes against some of the references, e.g. Tokyo, Chicago).
I feel as if simply rebranding the 'sister city' sections into 'partnerships' or something like that would be the most elegant solution. 'This city has these twins or partner cities or whatever: A, B, C...' Like Prague or Tokyo. Also the whole 'sister city' thing seems very nebulous and intangible at best to begin with, some cities have a 'sister city' section but their website only talks about partnerships. Or it seems like their language/customs/culture don't have a 'sister city' equivalent or consider it synonymous with a partnership (CZE/Prague seems that way) or whatever. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Utqiaġvik, Alaska#Move to change name of article to "Utqiagvik, Alaska" following newly approved ordinance

This article was moved from Barrow, Alaska while a move discussion was ongoing with no consensus achieved, apparently solely based on this or similar stories, without regard for WP:COMMONNAME or the fact that we're still a ways off from it being official. More discussion is welcome. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Cities/Archive 19 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:57, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject parentage

According to wp:WikiProject Ottawa its parent is this WikiProject. However when I look at wp:WikiProject_Cities#Article_alerts I do not see wp:WikiProject_Ottawa#Article_alerts included which is a big problem for the small semi-active Ottawa wikiproject, because most articles nominated end up being deleted with very little participation. Anyone know how this can be fixed? Thank in advance, Ottawahitech (talk)please ping me

Ottawahitech without looking at the technical side of things (I'm sure it is possible), from a practical point of view it sounds very problematic. If the article alerts included the alerts for Ottawa, then they would have to include the alerts for every city in the world. That would make it a very long list which very few people would bother trawling through. Also, I think it would be outside the scope of this project, which is supposed to be about articles on cities themselves, not every article that is somehow related to a city. Finally, this project does not seem to be very active either (less than 100 edits to this page in a year), so I think the Canada project would be a better place for you to be seeking wider involvement. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Off topic

Considering that over 28% of the 325 articles you have created have been deleted (you keep a running total on your talk page) perhaps I could suggest you submit your draft articles for review before they go live, and you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability policies. This might free up the time of your fellow editors to more fully participate in other AFD discussions. Just a suggestion. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @Magnolia677: long time no see. Thanks for compiling the percentage above, I had no idea 28% of the articles I created have been deleted. I think you make a good point about not wasting other editors' time. Could you please share with us where you got this information? I don’t believe % is on my userpage. Thanks for taking the time, and please don't forget to ping me. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me
@Ottawahitech: - It's here. No offense, really. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
@Magnolia677: Of course no offence taken, I do not normally get asked questions such as yours and I do appreciate the opportunity to provide my side of the story.
Now having said that, I would like to stress that it is not easy to defend one’s actions when one is attacked from all sides by several editors with few coming to help. It makes it almost impossible to contribute content here when one has to not only to write an article, but also to constantly defend content whether it was written by one or by others, make sure others get to see it, etc. etc.
I was fortunate enough to get fantastic help on Trump Towers Pune an article I started last week which went up for deletion on wp:AfD within a couple of hours of creation. It is now on its last legs so you may want to rush over to see what kind of material is being removed from public view before it disappears for good. Also if you have the time you may want to check the View stats on the AFD to verify that hardly anyone is paying attention to what is going on.
Sorry out of time, I’ll have to address your % findings next time I get a chance. Ottawahitech (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Deletion discussion of category: mayors of X

FYI please see: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_11#Category:Mayors_of_Langley.2C_British_Columbia_.2. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Adding name to participant list

Just impossible to do. Can't figure it out, even though I've BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Need some input, please?

A new article, Sanavardo - apparently created by an editor who may have a COI. There are no citations. Before I nominate it for deletion, I'd appreciate some input. Thanks in advance...Atsme📞📧 17:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Växjö, 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 00:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Proposed deletion of Mumbai statistics

The article Mumbai statistics has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:NOTSTATS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 70.51.200.162 (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Seals, shields, and coats of arms

I don't do a lot of work with cities, so I'm looking for input from editors with experience. The specific question can be found here: Talk:Sault_Ste._Marie,_Ontario#Images_in_infobox

The question arises because someone wrote to OTRS, providing an image of their coat of arms, Requesting that it be used to replace the image currently in the seal field which they state is not current. However, while the seal may not be current, and my mind a coat of arms is not the same as a seal. Is it considered acceptable practice to place a coat of arms in that field?

As noted in the linked question, the INFOBOX has a field for flag and seal but not one for coat of arms, shield or logo.

How do those knowledgeable about how this is handled in other cities think this should be handled?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Members of this project...

...may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Good Article status for small towns

My current goal right now is to bring Kingsley, Iowa to Good Article status, but I'm not sure what would be needed for a city of this small size. I did look at other GA class city articles, but they were bigger with a larger population. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. 1) reorder the sections to match the order in USCITY guideline (move Demographics upward), 2) expand history section because most recent history is before 1900, 3) add Infrastructure section, such as railroad and highway information, 4) add media, such as local newspapers, 5) add more photos. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm publicizing this RfC, which would prohibit local names (in any Indian script) from all Indian cities in the infobox. ( Currently, they are already prohibited from the lead.) ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 23:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Mayors of the largest cities in the world by GDP

What is the selection criteria for {{Mayors of the largest cities in the world by GDP}}? Hack (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

FAR notice

Briarcliff Manor, New York has been nominated for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Archive 19/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Cities.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Cities, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Maps again

Be sure to check out the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Adding dual-maps displaying both the Contiguous United States and the city's State. I know the issue was discussed here two years ago, so I'm guessing it will get a similar response, but it's nonetheless being discussed again. At issue is the inclusion of state and national level maps in the infobox, especially now that the display parameter can show multiple pushpin maps in the same spot. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Archive_19&oldid=1137389934"