Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

WikiProject Cities (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Discussion on headers for US city infoboxes

A discussion on possible redundancy in US city infobox headers is taking place here. Please feel free to join in! — hike395 (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information.svg

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Moscopole#Requested_move_9_October_2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Alexikoua (talk) 00:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2020 census updates

I have initiated a discussion on how (or even whether) county demographic revisions should be made on Administrators'_noticeboard#Mass_changes_being_made_to_thousands_of_U.S._county_pages Wouldn't updates of this nature be an appropriate initiative for our project here? In the case I reference, one user is doing thousands of individual calculations to include demographic percentages that the census does not even report, raising two questions: 1. Does this data warrant inclusion at all? 2.) If so, is reliance on one user's math suitable for over 3,000 county updates? Keystone18 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm surprised that this issue didn't get any traction here, since it seems very much in scope for WP:Cities. Maybe I'm misunderstanding this WikiProject, or how WikiProjects work in general?
I've been wondering why WikiData isn't used to manage facts about cities. I recently fixed several issues with facts and references in the Hopkins, Minnesota article. I think some people are trying to write bots that edit the prose in the articles and this is difficult becaue the articles are all laid out differently, have variant changes since the last update, and so on.
WikiData has a very regular format, and there's already referenced information about population and area and demographics ( see Hopkins, Minnesota at Wikidata). If the data isn't there or needs to be updated, the regular format of WikiData can easily be populated by a script and referenced.
Then, back in Wikipedia, we can use templates to pull the data that's avialable into articles and give it regular formatting.
Has something like this been previously considered? -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Information.svg

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kamianske, Kamianske Raion, Dnipropetrovsk Oblast#Requested move 28 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information.svg

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Djibouti (city)#Requested move 28 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of athletes from Chicago

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of athletes from Chicago may be of interest to some editors here. 2603:7000:2143:8500:8812:BE3:223A:316D (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAR for Shaw and Crompton

I have nominated Shaw and Crompton for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where would I let this project know of a batch or articles that need creation?

There are a batch of CDPs in Kern County, California that need articles. At Template:Kern County, California, there are a lot a Redlinks in the CDP section. You can poke around on a CDP map here: [1]. If there is a place I can put this that would get more visibility, let me know. This is the only place I've seen that has such a large problem with misisng CDP articles. There are more that don't have mention of their listings at CDPs and could do with 'Demographics' section as well. I added them to Category:WikiProject Cities articles needing attention.

Similar discussion at: Talk:Kern_County,_California#Serious_issue_with_missing_CDPs BhamBoi (talk) 02:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC) |Reply[reply]

This would be "a" place for such a request but finding willing editors is never an easy task. Is there a reason you don't want to take on the task? i.e., a conflict of interest or something of the sort? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 02:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Requested articles is the appropriate venue. SounderBruce 04:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ambox warning orange.svg Wikipedia:WikiProject Villages, a page related to this wikiproject, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Villages. Thank you. No such user (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Improve our guidelines

Hello. All participants in this WikiProject are encouraged to join the discussion here. Thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selection of a specific montage style

I have recently noticed a lot of the infobox montages (mostly on american cities) have changed a bit. I want to see if we could adopt 1 uniform style for each article's infobox montage. Some screenshots of the 2 in question are below.

Which one would be perferable for infobox montages?

WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 03:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This should serve as a continuation of the discussion on the New York City talk page. Xeror (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This definitely isn't the place to build any kind of consensus for enforcing a new style on such a large number of articles. That would have to be done over at MOS, and it wouldn't be easy there. I see an argument could be made for uniformity in article presentations, but arguing for one style over the other would have to have a stronger reason than just "they should all look similar.Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fair. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 03:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAR Notice

Edmonton 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAR Notice

Mogadishu 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAR notice

Amman 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAR notice

Bani Na'im 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAR notice

Delhi 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAR notice

Gaza City 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAR Notice

Kalimpong has been nominated for an individual 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAR notice

Kuala Lumpur 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAR notice

Kota Kinabula 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Check WP:GAR for Good article reassessments

I have pinged this place multiple times for GARs and there is going to be more pings if I don't change anything. So i made this post as a final catch all notice. Multiple city articles will be up for WP:GAR so if you want to save them go there. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAR for Montreal

Montreal 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion on infobox parameters

Looking for feedback at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#City infoboxes and extra parameters, which concerns city articles and the use of extra parameters in {{Infobox settlement}}. SounderBruce 23:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment of St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador

St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador 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. Steelkamp (talk) 15:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed
Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62)
Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Chat Moss
  2. Chew Stoke
  3. Cleveland
  4. Hamilton, Ontario
  5. Lethbridge
  6. Manchester
  7. Minneapolis
  8. Monte Ne
  9. Nathu La
  10. Quneitra
  11. Riverina
  12. Shapinsay
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities&oldid=1135081011"