Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 22

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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

@Alansohn:, @Nyttend:, @Tony1:, @Johnuniq:, @RexxS:, @Colonies Chris:.

(Please let anyone else you think might be interested know of this discussion.)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC).

Background

In late 2002 User:Ram-Man (and User:Rambot), using geographic and demographic data form the US Census, created some 30,000 articles, and provided the same information for the relatively few then existing articles on US settlements. Over the next two years, to about 2004, they made a number of tweaks across the same articles.

At the same time people added a lot of other information to the new articles, this has continued to the present day until they are almost all now worthwhile articles in their own right.

In 2006, probably between March and May, I (mostly with User:SmackBot) edited these articles to fix two main problems with the wording of US Census paragraphs, tense, moving from present to past, and changing phrases like "100.0% of it and 0.0% of it water" to "all land and no water". I also rephrased the summary in the lead from "As of the 2000 Census" to "At the 200 census" and the sentence on poverty to "About 12.2% of families and 12.5% of the population were below the poverty line, including 15.8% of those under age 18 and 3.2% of those age 65 or over." and made other minor tweaks.

Since then others have edited the demographic information, possibly systematically, mostly sporadically (this already made things tricky in 2006) and the 2010 US Census has come and gone (with 2020 imminent).

User:Alansohn, and others(?) created Template:USCensusDemographics which is in use on 872 New Jersey articles, with respect to the 2010 data.

However the wording still leaves a little to be desired.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC).

Proposed stylistic and linking changes

In the following example I have bolded the parts that I propose to change, I give first the old version, and then the new:

As of the census^[1] of 2000, there were 145 people, 63 households, and 38 families residing in the village. The population density was 368.8 people per square mile (143.6/km²). There were 75 housing units at an average density of 190.8 per square mile (74.3/km²). The racial makeup of the village was 98.62% White, 0.69% Asian, and 0.69% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.07% of the population.

There were 63 households out of which 25.4% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 47.6% were married couples living together, 6.3% had a female householder with no husband present, and 38.1% were non-families. 34.9% of all households were made up of individuals and 25.4% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.30 and the average family size was 3.00.

In the village, the population was spread out with 29.0% under the age of 18, 3.4% from 18 to 24, 20.0% from 25 to 44, 24.1% from 45 to 64, and 23.4% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 42 years. For every 100 females, there were 101.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 106.0 males.

As of 2000 the median income for a household in the village was $19,750, and the median income for a family was $25,625. Males had a median income of $32,917 versus $16,875 for females. The per capita income for the village was $10,936. There were 16.2% of families and 35.8% of the population living below the poverty line, including 46.4% of under eighteens and 20.8% of those over 64.

becomes:

At the 2000 census there were 145 people, 63 households, and 38 families living in the village. The population density was 368.8 people per square mile (143.6/km²). There were 75 housing units at an average density of 190.8 per square mile (74.3/km²). The racial makeup of the village was 98.62% White, 0.69% Asian, and 0.69% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.07%.^[1]

There were 63 households out of which 25.4% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 47.6% were married couples living together, 6.3% had a female householder with no husband present, and 38.1% were non-families. 34.9% of households were one person and 25.4% were one person over 64. The average household size was 2.30 and the average family size was 3.00.^[1]

The age distribution was: 29.0% under the age of 18, 3.4% from 18 to 24, 20.0% from 25 to 44, 24.1% from 45 to 64, and 23.4% who were over 64. The median age was 42 years. For every 100 females, there were 101.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 106.0 males.^[1]

The median income for a household in the village was $19,750, and the median income for a family was $25,625. Males had a median income of $32,917 versus $16,875 for females. The per capita income for the village was $10,936. There were 16.2% of families and 35.8% of the population living below the poverty line, including 46.4% of under eighteens and 20.8% of those over 64.^[1]

1. "As of" was acceptable, though not great when the census was new. Now "at" is much simpler. "2000 census" is shorter than and probably better than "census of 2000". The comma is unnecessary.
2. 2000 census should link to 2000 United States Census (this was unnecessary when the lead included the same link, and was immediately above the demographic and geographic info).
3. "Residing" is overly formal, and should be replaced with "living" or removed altogether.
4. "of the population" is redundant.
5. "all" is redundant.
6. "were made up of individuals" is not clear, and should be replaced with "were one person" or similar.
7. "As of 2000" is repetition and should go
8. "had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older" is verbose and could be "were one person over 64" or similar.
9. becomes "over 64";
10. "In the village, the population was spread out with" becomes "The age distribution was:" ("spread out" has been bugging me for 13 years)
11. The racial groups will link to the correct section of the article covering race and ethnicity for this census: e.g. Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census#2000_Census rather than Asian (U.S. Census)
12. The reference is appended to the end of each paragraph, so that sourcing is clear.
13. If there are paragraphs relating to the American Community Survey these should be split into their own sub-section, as per Trenton, New Jersey.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC).

I think all of these changes are good, except "The age distribution was" should not be followed by a colon. And this would only apply to pages which still have the 2000 census data, any 2010 data is unaffected? What about if this content has been changed? I'd guess articles that have been more significantly edited or updated over the years would not have the same block of info placed by Rambot, if it's there at all.

What citation will it link to? They are all currently a generic link to the American FactFinder, but the Census is about to decommission that, replacing it with data.census.gov. Unfortunately it seems harder to navigate, apparently only showing annual ACS data and I cannot find either 2010 census or 2000 census information when just searching by city.

Honestly once we have 2020 census results, I don't think we should still have a whole section in articles for 20-year-old statistics at all. It will take up a lot of space to have demographics from three censuses when readers generally only need the most recent. I'd say just to link to the source data but I don't know the easiest way for people to find that. Even the standard "Historical population" boxes link to [1] which does not give an easy way to find your city's data. Reywas92^Talk 22:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed technical changes

I do not have a firm opinion on whether these are a good idea or not, but I think they merit consideration, they are not all compatible:

1. Move to an entirely template based system - and optionally:
   1. Derive the data from Wikidata or
   2. Use labelled fields
2. Replace the existing templated items with wiki-text.

The tension between templates and explicit text lies in the following: Text is easier to read, and to make function for special cases. Templates allow all wording to be changed in one place, but tend towards complexity when more special cases are built in.

Using Wikidata has known issues and benefits, which I won't expound here.

Labelled fields make repairing or fixing transclusions easier, and makes manual use easier. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC).

May I suggest this?

Rich and others, thank you: an overhaul of this text is way overdue. I'd like to suggest further streamlining of the wording.

Rich's version (bolds removed)

At the 2000 census there were 145 people, 63 households, and 38 families living in the village. The population density was 368.8 people per square mile (143.6/km²). There were 75 housing units at an average density of 190.8 per square mile (74.3/km²). The racial makeup of the village was 98.62% White, 0.69% Asian, and 0.69% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.07%.^[1]

There were 63 households out of which 25.4% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 47.6% were married couples living together, 6.3% had a female householder with no husband present, and 38.1% were non-families. 34.9% of households were one person and 25.4% were one person over 64. The average household size was 2.30 and the average family size was 3.00.^[1]

The age distribution was 29.0% under the age of 18, 3.4% from 18 to 24, 20.0% from 25 to 44, 24.1% from 45 to 64, and 23.4% who were over 64. The median age was 42 years. For every 100 females, there were 101.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 106.0 males.^[1]

The median income for a household in the village was $19,750, and the median income for a family was $25,625. Males had a median income of $32,917 versus $16,875 for females. The per capita income for the village was $10,936. There were 16.2% of families and 35.8% of the population living below the poverty line, including 46.4% of under eighteens and 20.8% of those over 64.^[1]

My suggestion, using Rich's as the starting point:

At the 2000 census, 145 people, 63 households, and 38 families lived in [name of settlement]. The population density was 368.8 per square mile (143.6/km²). There were 75 housing units at an average density of 190.8 per square mile (74.3/km²).

There were 63 households; 25.4% included children under the age of 18, 47.6% were married couples, 6.3% included an adult female householder with no husband present, and 38.1% were non-families. 34.9% of households were one person and 25.4% were one person of age 65 or older. The average household size was 2.3 and the average family size was 3.0.^[1]

The age distribution was 29.0% under the age of 18, 3.4% from 18 to 24, 20.0% from 25 to 44, 24.1% from 45 to 64, and 23.4% who were aged 65 or older The median age was 42 years. For every 100 females there were 101.4 males. For every 100 females aged 18 or older there were 106.0 males.^[1] The racial makeup was 98.62% white, 0.69% Asian, Hispanic or Latino 2.07%, and mixed race 0.69%.^[1]

The median income for a household was $19,750, and for a family $25,625. Males had a median income of $32,917, and females $16,875. The per capita income was $10,936. 16.2% of families and 35.8% of the population lived below the poverty line, including 46.4% of those under 18 and 20.8% of those 65 or older.^[1]

Notes on mine:

• Let's say the name of the place once, then not keep referring to "the village" or some such. What is the village, anyway? Many readers will wonder whether the numbers are based on a few central streets or the surrounding countryside, or the local government area. Can someone explain?
• Too much "there was/were".
• "Population density" is, in effect, defined in situ: I see no need for an extra splash of bright blue. Why was "married couples" linked? "Per capita income" is hardly worth the existing general link target, so I linked it to a more specific and useful target: "List of highest-income counties in the United States".
• "6.3% included an adult female householder with no husband present, and 38.1% were non-families". This is a category problem in all three versions (the current, Rich's, and mine). Does a single adult female belong to both groups? Can someone sort out what was meant in the census wording?
• Linking to the same target from more than one adjacent list item is unnecessary and irritating for the rare reader who would follow up the links. So I've linked to the racial component of the census just once. I wonder why race is viewed as so important as to treat it right at the top of US settlement articles; I feel uncomfortable about that. In non-US settlement articles (including those on settlements in my country, Australia, an arch racist country) the tendency is to treat it down in the body of the article.

Tony (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Just one quick note: it's only in the fairly unchanged articles that the demographics are the first section of the article. Your suggestions look good in the main, I'd rather leave per capita income unlinked than Easter egg it, though. More tomorrow. Thanks for stopping by. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC).

Rich, I don't mind if "per capita" is unlinked. Those who love links might consider putting my suggested target (without the easter-egg pipe) at the bottom under a "See also" section. Tony (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Per the village comment, I assume it might have been a custom choosen term for the specific state where you copied the text. In cities in Kansas, the term city is used instead of village, which is correct for Kansas, since there are only cities in Kansas. If someone creates a 2020 subsection in the future, and if you want to make it easier, you could use the term "community" as a generic term instead of village or city. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

We should not be using a generic catch-all term for every municipality covered by the Census. A smart enough bot would substitute city/town/village/area/community as needed. SounderBruce 07:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A thought, from someone who has tweaked the Demographics sections for a few city articles in the past: we should get rid of the links to individual races, since they are all redirects, and instead link Race and ethnicity in the United States Census as "racial makeup". It would save a lot of hassle and avoid WP:OLINK issues. SounderBruce 07:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

That's what I did in my version. I don't mind if my substitute link to the article on the race-makeup section in the census is removed, either. Tony (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)�

Agree, the term is important because it defines what the census is of. However this is generally in the lead, and is only needed in the demographics or geography section if there is possibility of confusion, and then only once.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

These are very welcome proposals: a lot of them coincide with changes I've been making informally for a long time. I especially welcome the rephrasing of the awkward sentence about age distribution, which has been a personal bugbear for many years. I would endorse Tony's suggestions to also unlink 'married couples and 'population density'. Also, 'per capita income' doesn't need a link at all, I feel - it's a well-enough known term not to need explanation, and the easter egg alternative just feels unhelpful - there are too many links of that kind all over the place, that don't lead where the reader might expect. The proposed See Also link is a good alternative. Perhaps the 'race' section coold be rephrased in such a way that there could be just the one explicit link to 'Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census#2000_Census' and the individual races could then be unlinked. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Problem in 2010 arithmetic

If we're going to do a mass change in the wording of the 2010 census, I'd like to point out a problem with the arithmetic. See Talk:Furnace Creek, California#Questionable Arithmetic. The reported fraction of "owner-occupied" housing in 2010 was a ratio to occupied housing, not total housing. The wording isn't clear. Carlossuarez46 started to fix it in 2018, but then stopped when BeenAroundAWhile objected to the wording at WP:WikiProject 2010 US Census#RfC about mass changes to California census figures.

If there's going to be a mass edit of 2010 census data, can I suggest fixing the data and using the following phrasing?

There were 186 housing units at an average density of 781.4 per square mile (301.7/km²), of which 151 were occupied. Of the occupied housing, 62 (41.1%) were owner-occupied and 89 (58.9%) were occupied by renters.

Thanks! — hike395 (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure we can clarify this at the same time. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC).

Progress

I have this more-or-less set up. It's going to require a lot of tweaking to cope with the variations in articles due to intervening edits. Some have had the 2000 census data nuked, as irrelevant, for example. It's not clear whether the occupancy data for California was done purely by hand, in which case it will vary significantly.

Here are the first few edits.

Do ping me if you see other improvements, or, of course, errors.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 18:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC).

BTW, I prefer As of the 2020 census, because "at" sounds more like a one day event or a location, where in reality a census takes far more time. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point. While a census can take a year or more in preparation, and a similar time in collation and analysis, there's generally a census day. The US 2010 census date was 1 April 2010. For the UK census the people who are recorded are those spending the night of census day, I presume the American system works similarly. Effectively in places with high literacy and where communication and travel is possible, a census is a one day event. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 19:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC).

The April 1 date is only meant as "where did you live on that date", because they have to pick some date to make it uniform for everyone. The information for 2020 says that U.S. Census workers will knock on doors as late as the month of July. https://2020census.gov/en/important-dates.html • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yep, again you would have to look at the documents, but generally you are supposed to fill out the form on that day. Everything that happens afterwards is a mopping up exercise, "Census takers will begin visiting homes that haven't responded' to the 2020 Census to help make sure everyone is counted."

All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 13:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC).

More to the point, that is the day/night when the population was X. It's a narrow enough point in time to use "at", I think. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 13:47, 9 March 2020 (UTC).

No more progress

I have done maybe 15% of this over the last couple of months, mostly today and yesterday. Unfortunately I will not be able to complete the project. The remaining 85 % is left to the community. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC).

I'm only seeing this now, and unfortunately I don't have the capacity to dive into this myself, but I just want to note that I strongly support converting this information into template form. Being able to make changes at scale is a huge advantage, and doing so abides by the don't repeat yourself principle. As for the downside of hampering customization, that can be accomplished by just making the template more flexible, and indeed likely will be over time, whereas plain text is extremely difficult to systematically improve at scale.

One small suggestion I have (what brought me here) is that it'd be nice to have some comparisons to the average. Not everyone knows what a typical median family income is, so saying e.g. the median for Foobarville, California is $70,400 is less useful than saying the median for Foobarville, California is $70,400, 14.7% above the state average.

Stuff like that can be tweaked over time, though. I'd say the big priority for now should be getting the template and ready for the 2020 census results, so that we don't have another decade of copied-and-pasted mess. Another question of note (which you all may have addressed here already, I haven't looked closely) is to what extent we should keep the old data vs. just replace it, which gets into questions of WP:Recentism. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

A (very belated) hearty thanks to Rich Farmbrough for doing the 15%. If I may ask, Rich, how did you accomplish so many good edits in that short amount of time? It doesn't look easy using AWB. — hike395 (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not easy, but I have years of experience doing this sort of thing. Unfortunately one user took exception to the edits, as he has a lot of these articles on his watchlist, and convened a discussion on AN/I which makes it difficult for me to fix this without an RFC. Another user then reverted all my edits a month or so later.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 22:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC).

I have nominated Weymouth, Dorset 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. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Erie, Pennsylvania 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. (t · c) buidhe 14:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Alanya 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. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Grand Forks, North Dakota 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. (t · c) buidhe 02:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chennai Metropolitan Bus Routes. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC) Walrus Ji (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Youngstown, Ohio 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. (t · c) buidhe 20:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Second opinions and fresh eyes would be welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation) and the related merge and request moves at Talk:Adams, Pennsylvania (disambiguation). older ≠ wiser 13:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Interested users are invited to comment on the requested move at Talk:Amnat Charoen#Requested move 26 January 2021, which needs more input. Thank you. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Huizhou, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 22 February 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

FYI, Regional municipality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Regional municipality -- 65.93.183.33 (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in 3 RMs relating to towns and cities in Azerbaijan. An uninvolved editor's opinion would be a great help: 1, 2, 3. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 18:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Chetwynd, British Columbia 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Second opinions and fresh eyes would be welcome at Requested move 13 March 2021 and subsequent merge proposal. Fettlemap (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, started a section in Talk:Local government in Canada about merging the municipal government article into it. Posted on WikiProject Canada last night, thought I'd include here as well since it has a portal on the talk page. Cheers, WildComet (talk) 20:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

About 2 years ago, I started an AfD on this subject thinking that using a single source by itself would not be enough to keep a list going. In this AfD, a suggestion was made to delete the by-name pages as "strange" but keep the main page and by-country pages as more organized. As I agree with this suggestion, I would like to bring this idea to this WikiProject first before redirecting affected pages. I believe sorting by city name is strange as the amount of time it would take to source everything with official census data would take longer than it would by country due to the amount of pages such sources would need to be added to. There are other reasons I could share, but that's only one example. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree, having these sorted alphabetically but only being able to see one letter at a time doesn't make any sense. Please do redirect (or I can do them in about a minute with AWB if you don't have it). Reywas92^Talk 05:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Reywas92, I have AWB, and will do it at my next convenience. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Jalen Folf (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Seattle 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. (t · c) buidhe 02:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I have started a discussion to that effect at the WikiProject Council. Thank you!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Most populous cities in the People's Republic of China has been nominated for merging with Template:Largest cities of China. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Catchpoke (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Huizhou, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 26 April 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

i find the templates rather arbitrary and capricious and a violation of WP:NAVCOLOR due to the fact that they only accommodate either 10 or 20 entries and only 4 pictures. these are better as a list and that is a common argument at WP:TFD. so am i missing something?Catchpoke (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a need for separate guidelines for Indonesian cities. Lack of standarization in Indonesian cities and towns articles absolutely bothers me. Infobox content & section orders varies a lot from one to another. Indonesia has 98 recognized cities and 416 regencies, which is equivalent to city, not to mention hundreds of other towns inside regencies with population below 100k. Given it's sheer number and lack of standarization, i suggest to make one solid guidelines for Indonesian cities, regencies, and towns.

There's also common mistranslation from "kecamatan" to subdistrict, which i think is rooted from Google Translate's faulty translation. According to Subdivisions of Indonesia and Districts of Indonesia, third-level administrative divisions are district and not subdistrict. Subdistrict is under district (kecamatan), and could be either urban village or just village. Mistranslation between the two could result in wrong understanding of Indonesian subdvision orders. Nyanardsan (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Came across an article about a small town in Pennsylvania that has been heavily edited in recent months by a user who appears to be a member of the "borough council". I did some cleanup but left most of the additions intact because I don't work on geography articles too much. However, I'm sure that most of the info is inappropriate for an article about a town this small, not to mention most of it is unsourced. Feel free to take a look: Houtzdale, Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sbmeirow: @SounderBruce: Letting y'all know it was all reverted by the same guy, who has also written an autobiography. JTtheOG (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The editor is edit warring and taking ownership of the page, so we'll need an admin to step in soon. SounderBruce 19:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That editor was trying to treat the wikipedia page as a community website instead of a wikipedia article. He gave up because he couldn't have it his own way. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Largest cities of Israel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Catchpoke (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• There are comments concerning issues and current classification of Diomede, Alaska. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Cheadle Hulme 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. Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Denver, 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. Hog Farm _Talk 05:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I'm a user of Italian Wikipedia. Currently I'm dealing with an improvement of those pages whose main theme is the city of L'Aquila. I'd like to improve the main page here in the English version. In my sandbox I started to rewrite the opening. I'd like to read your comments on this proposal. --Simone Serra (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Oldham 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. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

we just had the following templates unorphaned:

• Template:Largest cities of Uganda
• Template:Largest cities of Tunisia
• Template:Largest cities of Syria
• Template:Largest cities of Oman
• Template:Largest cities of Malawi
• Template:Largest cities of Mali
• Template:Largest administrative units of Malta
• Template:Largest cities of Mauritania
• Template:Largest cities of India
• Template:Largest cities of Estonia

The only one thats still orphaned is Template:Largest cities of the United States. There really is no consistency between the format of these templates. In many, if not most, cases, they are just plopped into a section that might be titled "cities". Template:Largest cities of India on india, a featured article, has never had this template on its article for years. I don't think these templates are attractive. Is there any reason they shouldn't be deleted?Catchpoke (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• If you think they should be deleted you should follow the process at WP:Templates for discussion.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

For cities whose date of establishment is not known, should they be categorised by the date of the earliest mention in historical records? Please see and comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_27#Establishments_based_on_first-mentioned_dates. – Fayenatic London 14:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Seems like lots of errors are coming from people trying to update 2019 estimated populations to 2020 populations reported by the decennial census. Most commonly in my observations, changes are being made without updating a reference; so the population estimate moves from some number to a reported number, but the reference to the 2019 estimated population either remains, or is deleted. This leaves fundamental information in the article unreferenced, or with a stale reference.

Seems like these fixes fall into the purview of this project. Is there a standardized way that this data is meant to be referenced? Due to cumulative edits over the years (and some iffy edits by automata) each article has slightly different structure and referencing. Is there a plan for making the articles homogenous? Is there a focused effort around correctly updating the data and the references? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

1) I revert most edits that don't update census references to link to 2020 census info or update references properly, and I recommend you do the same!

2) I'm currently working on converting COUNTY articles to 2020 census in Kansas, then I plan to work on the 50 largest cities in Kansas, then ...

3) I have no idea if/when an automated update is going to happen. I would like to know too!!

4) A big problem at this moment is the "QuickFacts" search engine at census.gov doesn't have census for cities of less than 5000 people.

5) Here is an example of what I changed for a COUNTY in Kansas. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morris_County,_Kansas&type=revision&diff=1039028227&oldid=1026201570&diffmode=source

6) Census link example for COUNTY = https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/morriscountykansas/POP010220

7) Census link example for CITY = https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/wichitacitykansas/POP010220

8) If you look at the text in the above QuickFacts links, they do follow a simple pattern, and most of the time you can substitute names directly into the URL without doing a search.

9) If possible, I recommend that you archive the census webpages at https://archive.org/web/ but it takes a lot more time to do it. I'm doing it for all of the Kansas county articles.

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Over many years, I have cleaned up the infobox for all city articles in Kansas to have census fields in the following order.

When I start updating the 2020 census for city articles, I plan to clear the estimate fields and fill in the new 2020 decade information.

<!-- Population -->

|population_footnotes = <!-- for decade census -->

|population_as_of = <!-- for decade census -->

|population_total = <!-- for decade census -->

|pop_est_footnotes = <!-- for non-decade estimate census -->

|pop_est_as_of = <!-- for non-decade estimate census -->

|population_est = <!-- for non-decade estimate census -->

|population_density_sq_mi = <!-- for decade census -->

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! I'm really surprised to see that the US cities are in such disarray for referencing and updating such fundamental facts. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

There is a proposed update at Talk:New Bedford, Massachusetts#Request Edits August_2021 about New Bedford, Massachusetts that may be of interest to members of this group. I work for the city of New Bedford, so I have a conflict of interest. Assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Hudson2276 (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

See a move request at Talk:Accrington/Rossendale built-up area which is an attempt at standardisation. PamD 22:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it a WP:EASTEREGG violation to pipelink a community status type (e.g. city) in an infobox settlement_type parameter to the list article applicable to the context in which it is located (e.g. [[List of cities in British Columbia)? Other examples as well.

If you care to comment, see the RfC discussion at Wikipedia talk:Piped link#RFC to clarify WP:EASTEREGG applicability to parameters in settlement infoboxes. Hwy43 (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Greetings

Requesting (brainstorming) inputs regarding Manual of Style proposal @ Chronological listing of coastal townships

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Sheerness 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Massa#Requested move 4 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 01:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Your input is welcome at Talk:Chanhassen, Minnesota#Request for Comment - Should the 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' rankings be included? - Magnolia677 (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Birchington-on-Sea 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. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Herne Bay 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. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Dhaka 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. Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nur-Sultan#Requested move 9 October 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vpab15 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Dawson Creek 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. Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Chadderton 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. Hog Farm _Talk 03:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The Urban area section of the list of largest cities seems to be using incorrect numbers for Singapore. I can't think of a methodology by which the Singapore urban area would be 600 KM^2 larger than the country, but contain fewer people than the country, much less fewer people than the city center.

It would be my guess that the population numbers are taken from two different sources with either different years or methodologies. Both are in the right ballpark of the total population of Singapore, but the country of Singapore only has a land area of 724 km^2. If the urban area's area figure is including parts of Malaysia, the population figure definitely is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArkTolei (talk • contribs) 05:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@ArkTolei: I'm not sure where you're seeing those numbers. Could you post a link to the page with the seemingly incorrect numbers? It may have something to do with including water area, but I am not sure without knowing the specific article you're looking at. eviolite (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Eviolite Sorry this is my first time on the talk pages and I thought they were specific to each article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities is the article in question. All this Syntax is alien to me. ArkTolei (talk) 06:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@ArkTolei: it looks like whoever put those numbers into the chart made a mistake when filling it in and messed up the rows. The original source for this data has Singapore at a population of 5,901,000 and an area of 523 km². The 5,271,000 and 1,287 figures in the articles seem to be for Belo Horizonte instead. I can't fix it now since I'm not at home but will try to as soon as possible. Thanks for pointing it out! Also, welcome to Wikipedia—I'll send you a bunch of helpful links for beginners on your own talk page. Best regards, eviolite (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated San Francisco 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. (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Templates "Largest cities of " has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I have created Wikidata:WikiProject Cities due to the current modelling inconsistencies of cities on Wikidata. Resolving these inconsistencies by creating a formal data model is currently being discussed here. Please join the WikiProject and give feedback about the proposed model! Lectrician1 (talk) 05:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Darjeeling 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. Hog Farm _Talk 06:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated History of Sheffield 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cancún#Requested move 26 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how to change the infoboxes to reflect better (non original research) density calculations provided here: https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Nunns-2014-NZ-Aus-population-weighted-density-small.pdf

Unfortunately the data is somewhat out of date and only for a few cities, now, but as it stands Wikipedia's infoboxes are endorsing seriously misleading density metrics.125.237.42.6 (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Vučitrn#Requested move 15 January 2022 which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiserYT (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Please help find consensus at Talk:History of Kyiv#Consistent spelling of the title term in the text. The question is whether the article text should use the spelling from its title. —Michael Z. 16:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Gyeongju 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Since this WikiProject has been unmarked as active and is apparently not going anywhere, I am going to resurrect this proposal I had in August that got some minor feedback but ultimately didn't go anywhere. To prevent it from being archived once again until sufficient discussion has occurred, I have pinned it.

I've thought about it and come to realize that the nominal "importance" parameter of the WikiProject banner probably doesn't best serve the needs of this project. I say we get rid of it and have a "core" list of 50 cities, like they do at the Film and Biography WikiProjects, and divvy up the other cities into various taskforces, such as a National Capitals taskforce, an American settlements taskforce, etc. My list for the core is as follows, but can be changed.

As the previous discussion revealed, quite a few of these cities have their own WikiProjects and are taskforces of other WikiProjects. It was suggested that they could have their own taskforces, but I feel that that would be suboptimal. Let me know what you think!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

• Since nobody has said anything to the contrary, I have gone ahead and removed the importance assessment.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 13:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  John M. Wolfson, while a big fan of New York City and San Francisco, California, we have been urged to bring through the southwestern part of the US, such as Phoenix, Arizona and Houston, Texas as growing in the business and population sectors. My upstate city is Syracuse, NY (next to Rome-Utica of the Mohawk Valley) and now Buffalo and Rochester, NY with black Mayoral leadership today.

  We also need Eastern European cities (e.g., Krakow and Warsaw, Poland), which have also been plundered at times, in the mix of new banking and economic development (e.g., today, Bank of Ukraine and Import and Export Bank), and even humanitarian aid; climate change conference and EU leadership meetings; donor versus recipient Nations at Covid-19 vaccinesl

  Of course, Toronto, Canada under the Justin Trudeau Administration, and Quebec province would love you too!

  Julie Ann Racino, Syracuse University Alumni, 2022 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:C580:D643:A164:FE94 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)JARacino2603:7081:2000:3EF3:C580:D643:A164:FE94 (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• I have now completed the transition, duly changing the template and tagging all the core cities. I decided on three taskforces: the core cities, a national capitals taskforce, and a regional capitals taskforce. Now that this has been done I am unpinning this discussion, and any further discussion can happen in subsequent sections of this talkpage.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @John M Wolfson: while i agree you can take silence as tacit support, you need to make the change correctly: in this case, set up all of the categories that this change will require, BEFORE implementing it in the template. Accordingly, I have reverted your template change pending your doing so. Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Done, thanks.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Today, on Ukranian and Polish cities as Russian Federation is engaged in active war toward the Ukraine since February 23, 2022 (See, telephone call to Ukranian Ambassador to the UN reported live on CSPAN at the UN). We warn our readers right now regarding criminal reporting on bombings in the Ukraine by Russia in both 2014 and 2022; on WWI and WWII reports regarding Germany and Russia; and on the lack of the most basic facts or factual disputes. Situation in Ukraine live today (3/10/22) with 2.3 million reported refugees in 10 days due to Russia bombings; US President Biden calls the attacks by Russia on the Ukraine, unprovoked and unjustified in 2022. Julie Ann Racino, Syracuse University Alumni, 2022 2603:7081:2000:3EF3:C580:D643:A164:FE94 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)JARacino2603:7081:2000:3EF3:C580:D643:A164:FE94 (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC) 3rd generation Polish American

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Seymour, Indiana § Namechecking and not everything. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Would some members of this WikiProject mind taking a look at this. The article has recently been expanded quite a bit by a fairly new editor. I think this editor means well, but some of the recent additions seem to be moving too far into WP:LOCAL and WP:NOTEVERYTHING territory. I could be reading too much into this and perhaps others might feel differently which is why I'm asking about it here. Additional input on the article's talk page would be appreciated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war#Requested move 5 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) regarding improving our management of geographical stubs. The thread is Future discussion on improving our management of geostubs. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Permastubs. Thank you. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Please help resolve a dispute at Talk:Odessa#Use the spelling Kyiv because this is not a historical article. —Michael Z. 00:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rutland (city), Vermont#Requested move 25 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 07:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Port Elizabeth#Requested move 28 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. BilledMammal (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Stretford 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. (t · c) buidhe 11:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated Belgrade 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. (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:List of towns in Malta#Reverted prod. We appear to have three articles, and a history of a fourth, on overlapping topics, and wider and locally knowleadgeable participation in the discussion about what to do is desirable. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:List of European cities by population within city limits regarding whether Tbilisi should be included in the list of European cities. The thread is Exclusion of Tbilisi. Thank you. FromCzech (talk) 08:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Darjeeling/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Eleusis to be moved to Elefsina. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

There is a discussion about the lead image at Talk Bradford #the_new_Bradford_montage, your input is welcome Beautifulscarlet (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Buidhe has nominated Providence, Rhode Island 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

User:Buidhe has nominated Greater Manchester 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

An article of interest to this WikiProject, r.e.: Bhagalpur Municipal Corporation, has been proposed for a merge with Bhagalpur. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Felix QW (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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: [2]. 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) |

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)

Wikipedia:Requested articles is the appropriate venue. SounderBruce 04:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

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 !

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)

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

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Minneapolis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Fukushima (city)#Requested move 23 February 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Spekkios (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Žirmūnai has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

• 
  1
• 
  2

Which one would be perferable for infobox montages?

WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 03:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This should serve as a continuation of the discussion on the New York City talk page. Xeror (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

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)

That's fair. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 03:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Xeror @WeaponizingArchitecture @Dkriegls, personally, I prefer option 2. Even though it puts the info less directly next to the photo, it's a lot more compact, which is a huge issue for collages. And readers can also always access that info by clicking on an image.

Looking forward, a best-of-both-worlds solution to this might be to have something like the "packed-hover" gallery tag option, where the caption comes up for an image when you hover the cursor over it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Gangtok 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 18:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I have started a RFC at WP:VPP asking for clarification of the OR policy regarding the use of maps and charts as sources in Wikipedia articles. I'm posting here as most City articles that I'm aware of use maps (either directly or indirectly) to provide a relative location of the city, and as such this would be an affected project. Dave (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The RFC, now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, has questions related to notability. --Rschen7754 06:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The U.S. Census Bureau has officially released the 2022 census estimates. DiscoA340 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello all, I've had to revert the addition of a NAVA flag into the article Flag of Columbus, Ohio several times. I can see other NAVA flags appear in similar articles. Can we come to a consensus on this and hopefully find a way to stop these from being added into these articles? As I see it, the North American Vexillological Association is an enthusiast group. Anyone can join, for a fee, and when they host events in cities, they create their own flag for their event. Imagine, in comparison, a train enthusiast group like NUMTOT, creating train badges or flags for every meetup within a metro system, and these badges making their way into Wikipedia articles about the metro systems. It's definitely silly and not significant to the article. ɱ (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The copyright status of these flags as free also seems dubious. All seem to be uploaded as "own work", though the images on NAVA's website are "all rights reserved". I see the NAVA Wikipedia article talk page makes some statement about Wikipedia being allowed to use the flag images, though this isn't a license; they need to be free for all to use, not just Wikipedia. ɱ (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree, this was not a flag "of Columbus". Anyone can make something that incorporates symbolism of the city including flag elements, but that's no reason to include it here. There's no actual relevance to the article's topic. Reywas92^Talk 15:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Also agreed on removal. Only reason to include a flag would be firm support or discussion by secondary sources. Regarding copyright, File:NAVA46 flag.jpg is such a simple design it is unlikely to be copyrightable. CMD (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I've just removed a bunch more, too (I think it'll be necessary to find out where all these meetings took place, and get rid of the "NAVA" stuff if need be). The only reason to include it is either if the city actually took up use of the "NAVA" design as an official flag, or if reliable and independent sources confirm that it otherwise gained some substantial significance. The problem isn't necessarily copyright (though it's possible some of these designs are complex enough to be copyrightable), but that including anything except actual official city flags in a "Flag of Examplecity, Somestate" article is misleading and inaccurate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LaSalle, Illinois#Requested move 2 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 09:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what the rules are for WikiProjects merging but I believe that a merger with WikiProject U.S. counties would be beneficial for both city and county articles. U.S. counties is currently semi-active and I've rarely seen anyone else active on the project. Both county and city pages are mostly the same (sometimes actually the same) and they mostly follow the same guidelines as U.S. cities. There are only 3,007 counties in the US, so it wouldn't add extra stain to the project as there are thousands more cities and towns in the country. All in all, merging the two projects would help to better advertise county pages which have started to become neglected over the years and thus, help to better city town pages by improving the pages where their county is located. Thank you for your time, have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Most US counties seem out of this WikiProject’s scope, and I think that, due to this project already having a lot of articles under it, the counties would just get lost. I’d love for Wikiproject US Counties to become active again, but I don’t think this will do that and I don’t have many other ideas (other than fixing and updating File:Wikipedia U.S. county articles by quality.svg, which I feel would encourage some activity) MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me to make more sense that US counties (or their equivalent, such as parishes in Louisiana) would be subprojects of the relevant state project. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Newport News, Virginia has been nominated for a 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) 19:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

We are discussing a proposal to refactor the guidelines for geographic feature notability. Please feel free to join in the discussion of this proposal. — hike395 (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

@TheLionHasSeen is making a load[3] of[4] changes[5] to city articles citing manual of style with demographic improvements. I have asked the editor to provide a link to this guideline. Is anyone familiar with it? @FloridaArmy has objected to these mass changes, but I want to make sure these changers are following guidelines. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the only one who has done this. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline; the demographics section should suffice; also, this is where I got this from "The automated demographic information (i.e. "As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were") should be removed as more location-specific information is added in dynamic prose." I culled a lot of 2000 census information, as most articles had their population tables updated but no one cared to go beyond 2000; that information was replaced with 2020 census information and ACS census estimates. Now, you could have either waited or continued to WP:HOUND at me after UtherSRG had to be insulted by them on FloridaArmy's talk page; it seems you chose the latter. I have a life. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll caution you against furtherWP:ASPERSIONS. Asking you a simple question isn't hounding. Thanks for providing a link.

The automated demographic information (i.e. "As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were") should be removed as more location-specific information is added in dynamic prose.

Many of the edits in question are simply content blanking. What information are you adding to justify removing this information? Nemov (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

A discussion at Template talk:Infobox settlement#Native name may be of interest to city editors. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey all, just made an account. Thought maybe this worked like a comment thread, and wrote the following. Still learning the ropes, so thanks for your patience!

"Hey fellow Liberty natives! This article reads like an advertisement, not an encylopedia article.

Frankly, this is unacceptable. I'm new to actually editing Wikipedia, and I have yet to figure out exactly how to get it to say that thing about not meeting standards for tone at the top, but it needs it. Badly.

No ill will towards whomever wrote this - there's a great deal to be proud of in this corner of the world, but there's a lot of ugly stuff too.

More to the point, an encyclopedia should be neutral, and I hope that somebody with more time on their hands than I will rectify this issue post haste. Because all I see when I read this is a small town desperate for new people to move in. And not to assume authorial intent here, but that's counterintuitive.

Thank you in advance, anyone who takes this on (assuming anybody will.)" NapkinGhost (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Shrewsbury has been nominated for a 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) 01:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

History of Singapore has been nominated for a 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) 21:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

History of Minneapolis has been nominated for a 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) 19:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Canterbury has been nominated for a 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) 01:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been adding the {{WikiProject Cities}} template to thousands of talk pages that lack it. I've also been adding an importance= parameter to each one. A look at /Assessment shows the importance parameter has been gotten rid of. I would like it made clear whether that parameter should be added, since I am currently unsure, and I don't want to add an unneeded parameter to so many talk pages. Pinging John M Wolfson, who deleted the importance categories. Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Nythar: given that there are tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of cities on Earth, it would be rather fatuous to assign each of them an "importance" parameter. (I've personally thought it would be best to wind up this project due to the wide scope, but I've been vetoed on that.) Therefore, we have followed the trend of other WikiProjects such as Film and Albums, and ditched it in favor of a "core" of 50 mega-important cities, and taskforces to take care of the rest. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  @John M Wolfson: Do you know where I can find a list of taskforces? Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Nythar: They won't apply to the vast majority of articles, but there are two located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities#Taskforces. Hope this helps! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  Also, @Nythar:, if you have a tool that you've been using to add the templates, could you also use it to remove the importance parameters? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'll do so if I come across such a page using User:Evad37/rater or AWB, which I normally use for large-scale edits. Nythar (💬-🍀) 16:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

A user is proposing this at the relevant talkpage [6]. I think it would be odd not to have a separate article for the largest settlement in the municipality. Additional input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Khirurg (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

And I think it would be odd to treat Himara in a different way from every other city and town in Albania. Even more odd is to have 2 articles, one of which is just a short copy of the other. When you make a request for comments, make it neutral without arguments for your own stance included. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:10, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Mikkeli has been nominated for a 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) 21:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Birmingham has been nominated for a 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey all! 👋 I'm currently in the process of translating lists of municipalities in the USA from the Wikipedia in English to the one in French, and preparing a demography template (it's already widely used for French communes) in order to lower the needs of maintenance of our own Wikiproject USA.

While reading Red Creek, New York, I've noticed that the "U.S. Decennial Census" reference link of its Historical population table is broken. What's supporting such numbers in the various tables shown in every article about a community in the USA? I've only found the "QuickFacts" tool on the Census Bureau website, and it seems very limited to communities with a population over 5,000 and the two last censuses. 😓

I would very much prefer if every data point of the tables had a reference that I could verify instantly online. Can anyone point me to historical US Census ressources and current data for US communities please? I'll welcome any easy-to-process data tables and ways to find them. 😃 J. N. Squire (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"I could verify instantly online"... LOL, LOL, I don't know if old historical data is available for "instant lookup". Over a decade ago, I seem to remember that I had to manually read through numerous census decade PDFs from census.gov (one per state per decade) to manually create the census tables that are currently found in city articles. Today, I recommend that you ask someone at census.gov to help point you at where those old PDFs are currently located, and ask if any old historical information has been imported into digital tables. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I looked through old edits to find this old census.gov webpage. Thoses PDFs use to be located at http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/ but I don't know where they are currently located. Look at the archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20130116045830/http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/ • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

For 2020 census, you can manually search for census of each city at https://data.census.gov/profile • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

User:SusanLesch has nominated Minneapolis 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Please could editors participate in discussions about the images in the infobox for two cities: Hyderabad and Varanasi (Benares). Part of the issue is whether there should be a change of images, but part is whether they should be displayed as a montage (i.e. a caption under the montage) or gallery (i.e. captions under each photograph).

• Talk:Hyderabad#Infobox images change with new pictures & latest features
• Talk:Varanasi#Infobox images need change for representation

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Manhattan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 18:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

A City councilor from Boston reported her phone was snatched out of her hand while visiting an encampment in a neighborhood. The discussion is about whether to include this into that neighborhood/subdivision article. Talk:Mass_and_Cass#Tania_Fernandes_Anderson_cell_phone_incident Graywalls (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gornji Log, Slovenska Bistrica#Requested move 28 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 22:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Back when the 2010 Census came out, people were quick to get the data written into the articles. Not this time; It's been 3 years now and many articles still only have paragraphs describing the 2010 Census. Why? Alexysun (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The Census Bureau is not done releasing their data from the census. I think most are waiting for a complete 1:1 replacement set, which would require more detailed releases, before doing mass replacements. SounderBruce 03:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Community articles for some states have been converted to 2020 census. I updated almost 700 community articles for state of Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Becuase that was done in an automated way by User:Rich Farmbrough, who has unfortunately been banned. If someone can make a bot that can scrape census data while editing it would be great. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Archive_22#US_Cities_-_Census_info for the last discussion on updating the paragraph format. Reywas92^Talk 15:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wait why was he banned if he was so helpful. Also, what else is automated? Alexysun (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Manhattan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 00:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place here if Zakhi meets WP:GNG. Please feel free to weigh in. Annwfwn (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Odesa#Requested move 7 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment The discussion has been snow closed. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I have opened a request for peer review to receive a broader perspective on how Fez, Morocco may be improved. Any feedback welcome. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

A task force on African settlements could be established in conjunction with WikiProject Africa. Tens of thousands of communities are found across Africa. Since many African countries have very little information about their settlements, I believe a task force that might help with the construction and upgrading of African settlement entries would be beneficial. CROIX^talk 22:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Near enough all Czech town and city articles currently have a problem: a couple of years ago, a user added a section called "Administrative parts" to them. These sections have the following problems:

• In every case, the user put this section immediately after the lead section. That is in violation of the style guidelines laid down by this wikiproject.
• In every case that I have looked at, they did not provide any source for the material they added.
• The English is often dreadful.
• The text they've added is simply of no encyclopaedic interest. London does not even contain a list of its 32 boroughs, even though they are a major aspect of the administration of the city; instead, in decent encyclopaedic style, the article describes how the city is administered and mentions that it is divided into 32 boroughs. For a small town in the Czech Republic, an unsourced list of supposed "administrative parts" is just not useful to anyone.

An example article illustrating all these problems is Skalná.

Unfortunately, the user who added this text will invariably revert its removal from any article. So I am raising the issue here to see whether people agree that the issues I've listed are problematic. 217.195.251.12 (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

A user under different IP addresses deletes sections with administrative division and galleries, which was reverted by different users (see the history of Brno and Ostrava in July 2023) and led to pp-vandalism. Some his IP addresses have been blocked for this behavior.

The layout is in a uniform form within all Czech municipalities. Although it is possible to add a reference, it is overkill for this kind of information. For example in neighbouring Poland or Germany, these sections also have no reference, there is no controversy. And btw., London has this section separated on its own page (London boroughs). The problems the anonymous user has with it are purely subjective. FromCzech (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The layout is in a uniform form within all Czech municipalities

That's because you, and you alone, have done it to all of them.

Although it is possible to add a reference, it is overkill for this kind of information

No, that's not how WP:V works. The onus is on you to provide a reliable source. Anything without can and must be removed. But even if you could provide a source, verifiability is a necessary, not sufficient criterion for inclusion. A mere regurgitation of data, in badly-written English, violating style guidelines, is not useful to anyone. It is especially ridiculous that you have put these sections immediately after the lead section in every case. What exactly led you to decide that you should add sections like this en masse? Did you not read Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure at any point? 217.195.251.12 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not see that this kind of information is cited, for example, by Italian municipalities or by the already mentioned German towns and Polish gminas. I don't see other similar essential information such as postal code or vehicle registration plates being cited. If it really was a problem, it is pointed out with a tag, not a deletion.

The order and range of sections will vary according to need per the guideline, there was no style guideline violation. In other countries, I sometimes see more fundamental differences from the proposed order. Villages that are part of municipalities are sometimes referred to in the text in the Geography and History sections, so the order is a logical sequence.

You repeatedly went against the consensus, committed WP:EDITWAR, insulted me in the edit summary, and are a convicted WP:SOCKPUPPET. As a result of these facts, I have to consider your post as trolling. Until your radical views are joined by trusted users, there is no point in further discussion. But any potential discussion must also include the administrative division of municipalities in other countries, not unsystematically in just one. FromCzech (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. And, as I said, verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. If it is not verifiable, it must be removed. If it is verifiable, it could be retained. But these sections have no encyclopaedic value. No articles, other than the Czech ones you have spammed, have similar sections. Anyone removing the sections is not acting against consensus because you are the only person who ever added them to articles. You do not get to claim that you have consensus for something you did unilaterally. What exactly led you to decide that you should add sections like these en masse?

Also, don't make personal attacks. 217.195.251.12 (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"No encyclopaedic value..." "...must be removed..." = you're the only one who thinks so. Your edits have been reverted by various users = consensus that the content should be preserved. FromCzech (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• From WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"
• From WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.... Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
• And you still didn't answer the question: what exactly led you to decide that you should add sections like these en masse? 217.195.251.12 (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's WP:PEDANTRY. I have not come across municipalities in other countries citing this kind of information – but I'm just repeating myself, I hope for the last time. If there is a consensus here that it is necessary to add references to this type of information, I will take care of the Czech ones. So far, your point of view is not shared by others.

  And as for the last question – I thought it was obvious. This information appears on the pages of municipalities in other countries and was already with some Czech ones, I just added it to the rest. But my motivations are irrelevant to this discussion so I don't know why you are asking about them. FromCzech (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References are a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. No similar sections exist at any articles other than the ones you have added them to, save perhaps for one or two isolated cases. That is because they are not encyclopaedic. 217.195.251.12 (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Only one article has been posted here, Skalná. Looking at that one, the information should have a source and the wording and placement could be improved, but I don't think the material is inherently a poor fit for the article. CMD (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Only one article"? As stated, the problem affects pretty much every single article about a Czech town or city. Equivalent sections do not exist in articles about towns in other countries. They exist only in Czech articles, because one single Czech editor decided for no apparent reason that they would ignore the style guidelines and two decades of precedence, and simply do their own thing. As you may see above, this user does not believe that they need to follow the core content policy of verifiability. The sections they have spammed across all Czech town articles are badly-written, unsourced, context-free, and guideline-violating. What argument do you see for not removing them? 92.68.182.169 (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I can see the argument for removing the current unsourced text, but the core question of divisions or smaller communities seems relevant. CMD (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will add the source to the sections in the near future, depending on when I have time. It is already available in the source in the Demographics section referring to the census. FromCzech (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not rewrite the information in the Demographics section then, if it is about demographics? CMD (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

They do not extist only in Czech articles. Here are some random examples from other countries:

• Poland (section Villages): Gmina Andrychów, Gmina Andrespol, Gmina Alwernia;
• Germany (part of Geography under various names): Aalen, Ahlen, Altenburg;
• Portugal (various placement): Alcobaça, Alcoutim, Aljezur
• Italy (as frazioni in the infobox): Avola, Albignasego, Albenga.

FromCzech (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

None of those articles contain anything resembling the uncited lists with no encyclopaedic context that you've spammed Czech articles with. Your placement of uncited, unencyclopaedic material at the very beginning of every Czech town article is especially ridiculous. I am going to remove all your uncited and unencyclopaedic lists, unless someone other than you outlines a convincing rationale for retaining them. 94.119.32.2 (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not list East Longmeadow asa city. That is incorrect information. 2601:19B:4100:3133:93F:B16C:86ED:70EA (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Generally, such specific topics pertaining to a topic are best discussed at that article's talk page rather than this much more general forum. However, according to the Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth [7]: East Longmeadow, Massachusetts is one of fourteen communities with city structures that refer to themselves as towns. Whether that makes these cities rather than towns is perhaps something to be discussed at the article's talk page or perhaps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Massachusetts. older ≠ wiser 11:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)