Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Due to the fact that many articles use various ways to figure out population density, should there be one set calculation to figure out population density? —JJBers 16:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Neither We shouldn't be making the calculation. That would be WP:Original Research. Rather we should choose a single credible WP:Third-party source for all cities or for each country if there is not single source for the entire world. If no source for the statistic, then we should not enter a statistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloilo Wanderer (talk • contribs) 23:00 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Iloilo Wanderer: Population density calculations don't count as original research. — JJBers 16:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• The calculation itself doesn't count as OR, but the decision as to what formula to use does. TimothyJosephWood 18:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Neither, as per Iloilo Wanderer's remarks. All data are covered by WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Get it from a source if you can North8000 (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• I'm not 100% familiar with this topic, saw this was an RFC and decided to comment. Is there a difference between total area and total land area? Is total area including all of the non-habitual places, such as waters, high mountains, etc? Is land area only including the land? If that is correct, then I would support the total land area / population = population density. Tutelary (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• I believe that total land area includes high mountains, but not water. — JJBers 15:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Then I do think we should go with that. While I'm not sure if everyone lives on the mountains, I'm sure water-houses are a rare thing, not attainable for most. Tutelary (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• I support using the land area to determine population density. Any places that do have housing over water likely won't have anything close to a number of such housing to affect the total density. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• It's not area/population, but population/area which gives population density on a given area (settlement).--Vin09 (talk) 13:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed —hike395 (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Statistics are very tricky, even seemingly simple statistics like this, as this RFC proves. What is included in "area" (mountains, water, marshland)? What is included in "population" (illegal immigrants, students, military, temporary residents, missionaries away)? "There are three types of lies in the world: lies, damned lies and statistics" (supposedly Disraeli, but look up the quote for its questionable history). That is why we use third-party sources. Let statisticians and statistical agencies answer these questions. They have been debating them much longer than any of us. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there any template out there already that will take a input such as "Paris, France", and subst it out for "Paris, France", couldn't find on my own, thanks if anyone knows. WikiVirusC^(talk) 01:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see: Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Newtown, Connecticut template WhisperToMe (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Cities

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 12:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Is there a guideline from this WikiProject about "21st century" subsections in articles about cities please? Please ping me when you reply. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Your attention is called to Talk:Thomas_Guide. Should the Thomas Guides for cities be used to delineate neighborhood boundaries? Sincerely,

On the page Talk:List of agglomerations by population you can vote whether to merge it with the List of urban areas by population. Propositum (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there a guideline for listing notable people/residents in city v. county articles? Should we stick to cities, or should they appear in county articles too?Zigzig20s (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a malformed merger proposal by Mpen320 to merge Pill Hill, Chicago into Calumet Heights, Chicago. Comments welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I am proposing a change to Template:Infobox Italian comune, which would make the province parameter, which currently displays the label "Province/Metropolitan city", a binary option. Instead, there would be the mutually exclusive parameters province and metropolitan_city, which would display their respective labels. You can comment on the proposal at Template talk:Infobox Italian comune#Proposed aesthetic change. Ergo Sum 23:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox frazione has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox Italian comune. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Ergo Sum 19:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed a rather substantial edit at Template talk:Infobox frazione#Proposed edit. Any comments on it would be appreciated. Ergo Sum 06:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed the creation of a parameter called istat for {{Infobox Italian comune}}. Many municipalities in e.g. the United States have some form of identifier code in their infoboxes. Likewise, on the Italian wikipedia, the infoboxes for comuni contain ISTAT codes, since this is an important number to have. Creating this parameter would basically be a shortcut for editors instead of using a cumbersome workaround based on {{Infobox settlement}} (for which Infobox Italian comune is a wrapper). The proposal is found at Template talk:Infobox Italian comune#Proposed addition of parameter. Comments are appreciated. Ergo Sum 03:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I am wondering what the consensus is on keeping articles for census designated places (in the U.S.) that no longer exist—for instance El Cerro-Monterey Park, New Mexico, which was split into El Cerro Mission, New Mexico and Monterey Park, New Mexico for the 2010 census. Back in 2014 I dealt with this by moving El Cerro-Monterey Park to El Cerro Mission and creating a new Monterey Park article. Now I am wondering if it would have been better to keep El Cerro-Monterey Park and create new articles for both of the split-off CDPs. Does anyone have an opinion on this? Camerafiend (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Do not keep. In general, they should not be kept as they are merely populations groups for statistical purposes by the Census Bureau. Or as one editor put it, "CDP or census-designated place is bureaucratic jargon." Per the 15 April 2015 archived discussion, "The consensus is that if a settlement can be accurately described as both a census-designated place and an unincorporated community, its article should begin "XXX is an unincorporated community...", as it is a more understandable phrasing." These articles should also warn the reader, that the census definition of the area may not precisely correspond to local understanding of the area with the same name. For historical purposes as CDPs come and go, some of the information may be useful to keep in a current article in the Demographics section, where extensive Census statistics are given. Since population is only one aspect of a community, Wikipedia should strive to use terminology that is more familiar for the major portion of the article about a community. The Census Bureau using CDP should not be confused with what defines these places: the people, buildings, history and geography. Fettlemap (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is not temporary. The discussion Fettlemap cites is about how to describe census-designated places, not on whether they should have articles at all, and according to WP:GEOLAND all census-designated places are notable. That's not to say that former CDPs can be merged into other articles if necessary (which might be a better approach for some of the CDPs that were two communities fused into one CDP, like El Cerro Mission-Monterey Park), but the information should exist somewhere. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @TheCatalyst31: Does not "One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable" from WP:GEOLAND apply? Batternut (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Batternut:, CDPs are not the same as census tracts. Tracts are the smallest units for which census data is tabulated. CDPs are a way of presenting aggregated data for an unincorporated place (which might include dozens of hundreds of individual tracts)in a manner that allows comparisons with incorporated places. But I'll need to think more as to whether there is any value in keeping articles for defunct CDPs. older ≠ wiser 11:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• Yes, agreed, not census tracts. Perhaps the question is whether unincorporated places are "places without legal recognition" in terms of GEOLAND, in which case notability relies on the usual GNG rules of coverage by RS. That line could end at a pedantic analysis of the term "legal recognition". My guess would be that no laws relate to CDPs... Batternut (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• The precedent at AfD is that the government's recognition of the existence of a place counts as legal recognition. So a CDP that's recognized by the Census Bureau or an unincorporated community that's included in the Geographic Names Information System would count. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I would be careful of assuming that appearing in GNIS implies notability. GNIS does not provide hard data on population: in rural areas of the Western United States, there are many entries that are called "populated place[s]" but are really ghost towns or ruins. Many of these have articles of dubious notability (IMO). See, e.g., Dunderberg Mill, California. —hike395 (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with hike395 on GNIS and also do not think census-designated places are notable, per se. In the majority of cases, the CDP identified a populated place that is intrinsically notable. I assume most of the CDPs match the place name that residents and news organizations use and the article would not be deleted if the Census Bureau no longer identified it as a CDP. The CDP, Channel Islands Beach, California, is named after a utility district. No one says they live in Channel Islands Beach and news organizations only use it to identify the utility district. The residents identify with long standing name of their individual beach communities and Channel Islands Beach, California could be split or merged into other articles if the name was no longer used by the census bureau due to the lack of precise correspondence to the local understanding. Fettlemap (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think I am leaning this way myself. I definitely think that a place recognized by the government as a CDP is notable, but I'm not convinced that the CDP as a census/statistical construct is inherently notable. By splitting El Cerro-Monterey Park, the Census Bureau has acknowledged that it isn't actually a single place, but two places that happen to be near each other. With that in mind, I can't see much of a difference between the combined El Cerro-Monterey Park CDP and any other arbitrary population grouping for statistical purposes (like a census tract for example). Camerafiend (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• An interesting precedent is Articles for deletion/Newtown - a GNIS listed place (though not a CDP) that got deleted. Not exactly relevant, but shows that GNIS is not definitive re notability. Batternut (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• It appears GNIS tried to be very inclusive to capture as much as possible. They provide the source(s) and I consider it the gold standard when it is a quad sheet. Other times they pulled the item off a map produced by a commercial company (that filled the gap between the end of gas station maps and when Google maps became ubiquitous). From those local maps, GNIS picked up new items (schools, fire stations) that might otherwise never come to their attention. I have seen errors in the GNIS, typically without a reliable source or possibly a typo. Commercial maps deliberately introduced small errors to see if a competitor was copying their map. Fettlemap (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Keep As noted above, notability is permanent and the article for the merged CDP -- and any details it included -- shouldn't disappear merely because the CDP was split. This seems to have often in the 2010 Census, where the Census Bureau split CDPs that were composed of two distinct communities; e.g. Tweedledum-Tweedledee CDP became Tweedledum CDP and Tweedledee CDP. What I did was indicate in the Tweedledum-Tweedledee CDP article that it had been split into its two components; then I created separate articles for the two new CDPs, indicating that in previous years it had been part of the merged Tweedledum-Tweedledee CDP. I've been reluctant to accept nothing more than a GNIS entry as a justification for an article, but a CDP is a far better defined and cohesive area, which is the purpose of a Census-designated place, described for the 2010 Census to "'be one that is recognized and used in daily communication by the residents of the community' (not 'a name developed solely for planning or other purposes') and recommend that a CDP's boundaries be mapped based on the geographic extent associated with inhabitants' regular use of the named place.". Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Do not Keep for me meant an article with that exact title. The information on the notable place will be merged or otherwise preserved in another article or one with a name more in common use. I welcome the census bureau's aspiration for CDPs to be "based on the geographic extent associated with inhabitants' regular use" rather than the current ones which were developed for statistical purposes in which the definition of the area may not correspond to local understanding of the area with the same name. While CDPs come and go, notable places do not (even if they become a ghost town). Fettlemap (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Hallo, This is the first time I've noticed the existence of this project after many years of editing, and creating quite a few articles on civil parishes in England. Are they within your scope, so that I should add your banner to their talk pages? They are the lowest tier of local government division in England, though the parish name is not always that of a particular settlement (or may be a "X & Y" combination). PamD 08:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I would think so. Batternut (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Manhattan, 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. AIRcorn (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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.

Background

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)

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

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)

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)

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. Reywas92^Talk 02:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

See page 3 - https://web.archive.org/web/20141020110606/https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/pdfs/GARM/Ch9GARM.pdf • Sbmeirow • Talk • 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)

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)

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)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Jerusalem is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jerusalem until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Ankara is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankara until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Las Vegas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Las Vegas until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Montreal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Montreal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Saint Petersburg is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Saint Petersburg (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Thiruvananthapuram is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Thiruvananthapuram until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Kollam is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kollam until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Udaipur is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Udaipur until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Several portals are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Alhambra, California. They are for smaller cities and communities, mostly in the US. ɱ (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Briarcliff Manor, New York until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Seattle is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Seattle until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Boston is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Boston until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Shanghai is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Shanghai until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Mombasa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mombasa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Chittagong is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Chittagong until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Austin is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Austin until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Cleveland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cleveland until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Mumbai is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mumbai (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Dhaka is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Dhaka until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Manila is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Manila until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 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

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. 99.203.30.162 (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)

There is a discussion at this article's Talk page regarding whether the content from all 35 sub-pages should be merged. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed an IP user make lots of changes to the sister/twin city section on several city pages. Example pages: Les Ulis, Erftstadt, Hürth, Spa, Belgium and others. Does anyone with some expertise know if these changes are valid? There is no sourcing for these changes and so no easy way to validate them. Coastside (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Coastside - Sorry I missed this earlier. The go-to official source is Sister Cities International. If it isn't listed there, it should be deleted. Their directory's membership list begins on page 37.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Pondicherry, 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, 11 February 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

We request that the lead on this page be rewritten to more closely approximate a Featured Article, specifically that historic events should only be briefly summarized in the lead and their should be more about the contemporary city. I am representing the City of Franklin local Government. Below is the request for proposal. This was turned down citing it was too promotional and cited the city website, but the city website is cited only once and all the other information is factual from the US Census and other news sites. I followed the format of many other cities. Thank you in advance for any assistance one can provide. TennesseeTex (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)TennesseeTex

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Ottawa is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ottawa until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)