Talk:City centre

Per the WP:BROADCONCEPT guideline and WP:Ambiguous subjects, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about concepts, not words, and it is not appropriate to have two separate articles for the same or a very similar concept just because one is used in the U.S. and the other in Europe. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree. While you're at it, why not merge it with Central business district as well. Zacharycmango (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per the CBD article, Geographically, it often coincides with the "city center" or "downtown", but the concepts are not mutually exclusive: many cities have a central business district located away from its commercial and or cultural center and or downtown/city center, or even several CBDs at once. I therefore would advise against merging with that one. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose your comment is true. But, it could be argued that in Australia, CBD and city centre are used interchangeably, so now it becomes a regional problem. A downtown could be said as only applying to North America, just like a subway only applies to New York City, even though there are homologous transport systems in other cities as well. I agree that CBD and downtown/city centre can be different, but more often than not, they are the same, so something needs to be done to address that. I am not saying that the CBD page should also be merged. Rather, I am saying that some issues do arise, thus I do not disagree, but I cannot completely agree either. Zacharycmango (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support this change, I also think we should merge the Town centre page as well Bluealbion (talk) 04:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – the definitions of CBD don't apply to Downtown. SHB2000 (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CBD is not the proposed merger target for Downtown, it is City Centre. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely missed my point. What I'm saying is in some places, CBD, city centre and downtown can mean very different places. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some places does not mean every place. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – there is a significant distinction between the two terms' meanings and associated connotations in N. America vs Britain/Europe. CitizenKang414 (talk) 08:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as it stands now, the content of Downtown is about American downtowns/city centres, while City centre is about city centres in general. Downtown is a quite long article compared to City centre, and the merged article would show a US bias. I think a summary of the Downtown article can be included in the City centre article, by changing "Usage" section into a "By country" section and adding a United States section. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanif Al Husaini, articles on Wikipedia should have a global scope by default. The fact that Downtown currently has a bias toward the U.S. is an argument in favor of merging it with City centre to avoid a geographic fork. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb:, if suppose we move Downtown to City centers in the United States and move any non-US content to City centre, would that be acceptable? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanif Al Husaini: I'd support that! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants @Beyond My Ken@Bluealbion@CitizenKang414@Emir of Wikipedia@M R G WIKI999@SHB2000@Zacharycmango, what do you think of this alternative? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we would have to be careful how we do it. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not even close to being the same thing. There is a very distinct difference between the two, especially outside the US. M R G WIKI999 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CitizenKang414 and @M R G WIKI999, the closer is unlikely to give your !votes weight unless you actually assert what you understand the difference between them to be. If the only difference is that one term is used in Europe and the other in the U.S., this is a textbook case of a geographic fork and !votes against doing so do not comport with broader PAG. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, are you attempting to invalidate or rubbish the votes you don't like, by questioning the intentions or reasoning behind them? - The question was asked, the answers have thus far been given. Reasoning, intentions behind the votes, or explanations etc, are not required. One could simply vote with one word support or oppose if one wished. Stop challenging voters in this way, it's entirely improper (IMO)... And just in case you were in any doubt, then oppose! M R G WIKI999 (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I editing the end of the above comment to removing the bolding from "oppose". Sdkb is correct that it could easily be taken to be another !vote, although I do not believe that was M R G WIKI999's intent. Please leave it as I edited it and let's move on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M R G WIKI999, per Wikipedia's consensus process, this discussion is not a vote. Please also avoid duplicate bolded "oppose" or "support" statements, as these can come across as one attempting to weigh in twice. You are welcome to refactor your comment to unbold, in which case I'll strike this portion of my reply. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb No thanks, mate, I'll just leave it as it is, if it's all the same to you. I don't think anyone could (or would) reasonably mistake it for another not-vote; context is everything, and all that fluff.

I am, however, willing to move the exclamation mark to the beginning of the word, if that silliness would make you feel better? Speaking of context, though, would you like me to go back and insert a "not-" every time I used the word "vote," or is the context enough for you in those instances?

Of course, far more important than pedantically pointing out the small print of Wikipedia's consensus building guidelines, why don't we just concentrate on the consensus building itself... I don't really know for certain why you're so opposed to the opposed POV, but I have an idea... TBH, though, I'm not in the least bit interested in exploring petty parochialism, or whatever else it may be... Just let it go! That would have been my advice; if youd've asked for it, which you didn't, so I'm sorry.

OK, should we try to make a move forward? How about we try and do so, by not challenging every vote (oops! My bad, of course, I meant "!vote" and not, vote - By which I meant, "not the ACT of voting" and not "not-vote" when I said not vote - if you see what I mean.)... Ahh sod it! Look, let's just pack it all in shall we... if for no other reason, than this is boring as buggery! M R G WIKI999 (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - While the two terms obviously overlap to some extent, I think it's useful to leave the two separate articles in place, as they are are precise synonyms for each other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - they're two terms for the same thing. I see oppose voters asserting there's a difference, but not supporting that assertion with any evidence, explanation, or examples. We should have one article about city centers. Levivich (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]