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.
That a person was born in a city or currently resides there is not relevant to an encyclopedia article about the city. If the person is an important part of the history of the city or if they currently conduct important business there, then that information might should be integrated into the relevant parts of the article, and possibly temporarily included in a "notable persons" section, but that does not entail recommending a "Notable natives" section, as a home for persons whose only connection to the city is when they were a child or who happen to retire there and have joined the garden club, as a permanent establishment of cities articles. - Centrx 19:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. You might scoff at a town's claim to fame that "George Washington slept here", but towns that only have local historical importance are very proud that its citizens helped raise a nationally important person through his/her formative years, or that of all the places they had visited, he/she chose that town to retire in due to its special characteristics. These lists appeared in many articles under variously-worded titles very soon after User:Rambot added 30,000+ U.S. town names, so there is great demand and interest in adding and sharing this information. GUllman 20:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Many people are proud of many things but that does not mean that it warrants an entry in an encyclopedia article. I do not scoff at the claims, but they are not relevant to an encyclopedia article about the town. The information is already in the articles about the persons. Does this pride also extend to Malcolm X being imprisoned in the state prison in Concord, MA (since deleted) or the adult porn star residing in Worcester, MA, and does that indicate some special characteristics of the towns?
If we are adducing that these people chose the town for some special characteristic, then if those special characteristics are important they can be mentioned in the body of the article, independently of a Who's Who listing why each person came to the town. What of listing children who nominally resided in the town but in fact went to a private school somewhere else and when at home generally stayed to themselves? Demand and interest in particular trivia is also not relevant to an encyclopedia. There is also demand and interest for cleverly written biographies of non-notable persons whose dozens of friends who come look at the page and who are also clearly proud of their friend.
Pride is a feeling of parents for their children and demand is a desire just the same for pornography and ludicrous television shows. They are not the criteria for inclusion in a body of knowledge. - Centrx 04:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
When you go on vacation and have a tour guide show you around the city and tell you "about" it, what do you want to know? If there are people with different interests taking the tour with you, then a good tour guide will point out different aspects of the city. What is important to one person is fascinating trivia to another and useless trivia to still another. A historian, a marketing agent, a celebrity hound, and someone intending to move to the city each have their own tunnel vision.
Wikipedia does not have to copy what encyclopedias have included before -- it is a new kind of reference work written by users containing what they feel is either important or fascinating to them, and therefore would be the same for others. It not only states facts, but encourages the increase of knowledge through the discovery of connections between subjects; its unique collaboration and linking aspects foster serendipitous discoveries. These may be discovered using the "What links here" feature, but even if you think of using it, would you learn anything new if you only clicked on the names that were familiar? Even with a high speed Internet connection, you would get discouraged before you clicked every link. Those virtual tourists who want to know "Is anyone famous from here?", can see a list of names and their claim to fame at a glance. GUllman 20:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
What then, would be the cut-off? The list becomes less and less useful as the number of persons increases. Why not make the cut-off be where there is actually some important connection between the city and the person that warrant mention in an encyclopedia? On other end, why not also include persons who happened to visit the town, or who vacation there in the summer? Is this list going to include all of the persons who have lived there ever, with the list ballooning as the famous people move or add new residences, or new people become famous, even when in 20 years no one will remember or care that Lindsay Lohan lived somewhere? The tour guide caters to whatever he thinks will cause people to pay to be on the tour, not whether the information belongs in a database of knowledge or whether people in 50 years will want to know the history of an area. The Boston Duck Tours, for example, talks about Dunkin' Donuts and newly built modern-looking courthouse while leaving out nearly all of the sites on the Freedom Trail. - Centrx 21:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in 20 years, fans of 40-year-old Lindsay Lohan will still get a twinge of excitement when they stumble onto the page for Merrick, New York for some other reason and see that she grew up there. Eighty years from now, however, if Wikipedia is still around, most of her fans will have passed away, and that line may have been removed as no longer significant compared to other celebrities. Just as nearly every word of the quaint and outdated articles in the 1911 Britannica had to be rewritten for today's style, the list of people we consider celebrities will be constantly reconsidered in the coming decades.
Even in today's mobile society, the majority of people have only one place that they most fondly call home. And even if they had moved several times and visited a lot of places, don't worry! People have been adding Notable Natives for the past 2 1/2 years, and they have already settled on an unwritten guideline for inclusion. Trust your fellow Wikipedians to keep the b.s. out as they have in the past -- they don't allow articles to be bombarded with "Paris Hilton slept here one day."
But I don't understand what is wrong with catering to the questions that people ask. What is an encyclopedia for? If someone has a valid question, especially one that is often asked, they should be able to find the answer, regardless of whether they are a Boston Duck or a Freedom Trail type of person. GUllman 08:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
First, the fact remains that the more listed "notable natives", the less useful the list is; it does not serve the purpose if the reader has to wade through the latest pop singer, the adult film star, and the college football athlete who just so happened to have been born in that town, in order to find the author and the U.S. Senator who actually chose to live there, participated in the town, and were part of its culture and affected its policies. Note also that people adding notable natives does not mean that anyone actually reads it or cares to link through to the article about the person; it indicates the pride of the editor who already know about it and not the usefulness or interest of the reader who may look at it.
Regarding the 1911 Britannica and the inclusion of non-timeless information: If it is not important for the information to be included 80 years from now, then it shouldn't be included now, barring of course some future event or discovery. The Britannica articles may have been rewritten or integrated with the rest of an article, but the information that it actually contains was not deleted, barring developments in science that proved it false (although even there it may be included for historical purposes), etc. While the style may have been changed, the actual information remained the same; analogously in "notable natives", this would be like rearranging the order of the persons listed, or renaming the section title, or rewording a brief description of the person, it would not mean taking the person out of the list, unless it was discovered that the person actually never lived in the town. - Centrx 07:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I also support the removal of the 'Notable Natives' section for two reasons: a) The only way this section can remain NPOV is to list them all, and we know this would be impossible, especially in the light of the varied opinons of what and who "notable" is; b) especially in the light of "modern notoriety", this section would be not only subject to 'a)' criteria, but be incessantly changing. At most, I would consider "historical native" personalities consistently appearing in 'mainstream' references and history books - but even then, I don't much see what this has to do with the description/function of the city itself. THEPROMENADER 12:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
If you use that first argument it kind of defeats the whole purpose of Wikipedia Romenader. Who among us does not approach this with at least a tad of bias, Western Civilizations founders (ancient Greece) noted that inherent imperfection when they invented the term "polis" to describe ones social existence and interaction, thus the modern term "politics" whos major tenet is that we all have some bias. Wether we let it affect our judgment is the test of civilization but to pretend that ANYTHING that might be a result of some minor bias is void for inclusion here, well time to let the Matrix or the Terminators rule us. Your comment though very thoughtful and well intentioned sounds a little like the one Neo gets from the Architect. Logical, reasoned, perfect in everyway but for those cursed anomalies. I say it is those anomalies that give us the impressions we have of certain cities. As in most human issues, we will know excess when we see it. The people obviously have to have a regional, national or global claim to fame and that is what the respective discussion forums are for to debate those on individual cases. I think a whole lot of what makes a city--another "human" endeavor-- is not the glass, stone or steel, not even the geographic features but possibly the humanity, and how better to summarize that humanity by noting the best and brightest or possibly the most infamous from that area. Just my two cents interested in other opinions. Hholt01 17:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia sets its own standards for whether a fact is "encyclopedic" or not, we may consider the example set by professional encyclopedists. World Book Encyclopedia (2006) refers the reader to related articles in the set in the "Study Aids" section at the end of the major articles on states and cities, including biograpies of people associated with the city; not just politicians, but also artists and authors. Encyclopedia Americana (2004) has an info box in each of its state articles listing "Prominent People Identified with (the State)" with a thumbnail biography of each one. City articles in Americana can be found (though not very often) that mention in the text famous people born in the city who didn't otherwise contribute to it. (The article on "Cincinnati" has two paragraphs near the end on famous Cincinnatians; "New Orleans" talks about composers and writers born there; "Savannah" mentions the birthplace of Juliette Gordon Low as a tourist site.) I know that when teachers assign grade school students to report on a state, or their local history, they sometimes have to include famous people. So, they are definitely not unencyclopedic, but in setting a policy, how do we extend the analogy from an annually updated encyclopedia with articles on only major cities to a constantly updatable one with articles on all cities? GUllman 03:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I gather one major distinction in that is that all the persons listed there are definitively historical and famous—Juliette Gordon Low for example is long dead—and still, these artists and authors can actually important to the history of the region and its cultural life. There is also a difference between a "Prominent Person Identified with the State" and someone who just happened to be born there or to live there briefly. The criteria here now, or rather lack of criteria, is that any person can be added, even if they are the flavor of the month. That again is the problem with the otherwise ill-conceived comment above, there is still here some criteria used, it just goes undefined as a vague differing notion inside the heads of many people. If there is no criteria, are we to just add every person born there with an article on Wikipedia to the list? What about the persons with no articles? If there is no criteria at all, it is only a matter of time before everyone is added to the list and the list becomes meaningless. - Centrx 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how even a long list would be meaningless, since the entries are short and easily browsable. I also don't think any of the lists will become unwieldy; over half the U.S population lived in small towns before 1920, and even if a large city spawned an unusually large crop of celebrities, we could divide the list by time period to identify the cohorts. And it's useful -- ever since it began, Wikipedia has grown by "playing a word association game" as a means of requesting new articles, and many people inevitably associate places with their famous residents. So far only one person has joined you in support, so may I suggest that you start with articles where you feel the Notable Natives list has already grown out of control, make your case on their Talk pages, and work your way down to shorter lists. GUllman 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it is valuable information to list notable people by the city they've been born, died or where they spend an important part of their lives, because place partly forms people. This is already done in Wikipedia by adding a category (Category:People by city) to the articles of the notable people in question. The article about the city could, in its introduction, refer to the name of its inhabitants e.g. "Residents of London are referred to as Londoners". In the article on Londoners a reference is made to the category: Category:Londoners.
These people by city categories are rather broad/unspecific though. It would be nice if you could get a list of artists or politicians etc. from a particular city: more specific categories could be made but these will make the list of categories to long/complicated. Are there (future) possibilities in Wikipedia to search to articles containing 2 (or more) specific categories, e.g. Category:Londoners and Category:Living people? A more advanced search would greatly increase interconnection between information.
Notable people will automatically be mentioned in context: a cultural context (a statue in a park), a political context (a pivotal figure in a political debate) et cetera.
I think this concludes a special section on notable natives in City or Town articles (or other geographical entities) is superfluous. Brz7 13:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm very surprised you came to that conclusion; up until the final sentence, I thought you were making a good case for keeping the notable natives section! Articles are for information. Categories are for simple classification of articles. Not all users use the category links (and what the chance of a successful Boolean category search for a specific birthplace and occupation, even if it were avaialble), and the categories don't appear at all on Wikipedia's mirror sites. We do not have categories set up for every town in the world, let alone for natives of each town, so keep this info spelled out and browsable in the article. GUllman 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reaction. I was brainstorming on different ways people could get information on notable natives. I think there are quite a few options available, enough to make a separate notable natives section superfluous. Notable natives can easily be integrated in the various sections of city articles, directly put in context: people that can not be put in context of the cultural, political etc. history of the city are probably not notable enough to be mentioned (but could be included in the categories). Categories I think are a supplementary way to get to know more about notable (and less notable) natives. Still hope for more more advanced search options in wikipedia :). What other ways are there to get information on notable natives? Lists? Any ideas?
I think the discussion here is also whether the main city article is a touristic city guide or not. Best regards, Brz7 21:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this perspective is useful (it's not an argument, more of an observation): I've created "Notable people, past and present" sections in a number of town articles in Connecticut. In a place like Greenwich, Connecticut or Ridgefield, Connecticut the list grows and grows eventually, so I create subheadings ("Athletes" or "Actors, Musicians and other entertainers" for instance), and at some point the list becomes so big and unwieldy that I create a new article for it (for instance: People of Greenwich, Connecticut, People of Ridgefield, Connecticut, People of Bridgeport, Connecticut). I leave behind on the town page a "Notable people, past and present" section with only the most famous or important people in it, along with a "See also: ...." link. This works just like any other section that becomes too big for a page but is thought worth keeping: you make another article out of it.
For a long time, I've known about celebrities in the local communities around here -- it was part of my job. But in adding people to Wiki pages over the past several months, what I've found is that I'm constantly surprised at the people who pop up -- famous people, that neither I nor the vast majority of people knew had any link to these communities (it's usually historical). I'm absolutely convinced that these sections/articles are fascinating to local people. They certainly pick up other contributions quickly. I create the people sections/articles usually by using the "what links here" device on the left column of each page, and I make sure that I click on the last "500" to get as many links as possible.
Also, I try to use a relatively large list: I call it "notable" people because I don't want to have to decide between someone who's famous and someone who is just "notable" although I define "notable" as being someone who is known well beyond the boundaries of the community, is known nationally in a broad field (nationally known business people or people known nationwide in a particular industry, for example). Essentially the list is for people who have or deserve their own Wikipedia articles. Often the lists are entirely made up of people who already have their own Wikipedia articles. I use the word "people" instead of "residents" because I want to keep the list broad enough to encompass someone who may not have lived in the community but may have come by and influenced it. I discovered that Andrew Carnegie spent a few summers in Darien, Connecticut, for instance. He was by no means a resident, and didn't affect the history of the town in any way, but no two ways about it -- it's fascinating, at least to people around here.Noroton 18:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your ideas on this issue. (Quote) "I'm absolutely convinced that these sections/articles are fascinating to local people." Yes, it is interesting to know more about where notable people live/ where they are born, also for non-local people I think. The articles you created I'd rather call lists, e.g. List of People of Ridgefield, Connecticut et cetera. These lists could add valuable information since they are more categorized than the data you get when using the categories (see my comments above).
Furthermore I still think a separate notable natives section is superfluous: in the more elaborate main articles (cf. ) or in exceptional cases in the city/town article the names of notable/famous people can be integrated in the article. Their inclusion in these articles indicates their contribution to the history, culture etc. of the particular town/city. Brz7 17:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem with Notable Natives is that it is too restrictive. The place of one's nativity is probably less important than where the individual had her or his formative years, or became "notable." Therefore this should be changed to Notable Residents. To limit it to natives will result (and likely has resulted) in revert wars between those who want to list an individual strongly associated with a city, and those who insist on the narrow but correct definition of native. Kablammo 01:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I like "Notable people, past and present". I share Kablammo's concerns about Notable Natives. Another concern I have with a focus on "natives" is that many people were born in a hospital in a city near their childhood home, but never actually lived or worked in the city where they were born. I also want to avoid a focus on residence because of the potential for nitpick wars over the actual location of the residence of someone who is strongly associated with a particular city but may have been domiciled outside the city limits. Finally, I like the idea of including "past and present" because I have seen articles where contributors were under the impression that the list was only for notable people currently residing in the city, and therefore either deleted the deceased or wrote "(deceased)" after their names.--orlady 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think "Notable people, past and present" is a) too long a title, and b) doesn't specify any relation to the town or city the page is about. For all the New Hampshire towns and cities I used "Notable inhabitants" — it's not as long, it specifies a tie to the town/city, and it's not time-specific (when they were inhabitants). But that's just my $US0.02. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
It would seem that anyone looking up a city is not going to care who are the notable natives. Many notable people hold residents in many cities. If people feel this information is useful I think a category would suffice. Alan.ca 14:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think Orlady's suggestion is a good one. As a practical matter there is likely to be a difference on how notable people are treated. It makes little sense to have a list of notable people from or in New York City or its boroughs. But the only claim to fame of many small towns is the people they have exported (or who have stayed and achieved notability nonetheless) and any policy eliminating such lists may not be honored. Kablammo 16:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Most city articles that I have seen (at least for US cities) don't have a 'notable natives' section. The reason being is that these sections tend to develop into lists, and are usually split into a 'List of notable residents of xxx city' article, linked under 'see also'. This seems to make sense to me. Dr. Cash 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Neighbourhood Infobox
I'm new to Wikipedia so I apologise if this topic has been covered before. I searched and didn't find anything. I'm working on an article on the neighbourhood I live in, Sunnyside, Calgary and I was wondering if there is an infobox I can use for it? If not I'd like to try making one but was interested in getting some feedback first. Mark 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject participation -- Hamilton, Ontario
Hi, I'm working on the Hamilton, Ontario article and I'm not sure what joining this wikiproject does for the Hamilton related articles. I thought joining the project would attract a group of other City article editors to take a look at the Hamilton article. Could someone please help me understand how I encourage group participation from outsiders on our local article? Alan.ca 22:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed. I made a couple of small edits to it yesterday. I'll take a second look at it and if it can't be cleaned up a little. —MJCdetroit 23:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Much appreciated! I will try to get by to visiting the Detroit article. Alan.ca 06:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Revitalization of the project
I have been spending some time attempting to clean up the main project page. I used some examples from the WP:BIO project. Most importantly, I would like to define departments and start setting some project goals. I am presently working to establish a template that supports article rating similar to other WikiProjects. I would appreciate any support any interested party could offer. Alan.ca 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of a collaboration-candidate. —MJCdetroit 17:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, however, I think an important first step will be to start using a new talk page banner that categorizes project covered articles by their current class rating. I would like to start a rating project in the assessment department. Alan.ca 18:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Proposing a new project talk page template: WPCities
I have begun the development of a new talk page template: {{WPCities}}. I am new to template development so I would appreciate the assistance of experienced editors. The new template features a shorter name and the ability to rate articles within the scope of the project. Alan.ca 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Due to the size of the picture, I think we should select something that is more of an icon. I tried to find a building icon, but had no luck. The globe may serve us better than a picture, in lieu of a better icon. Alan.ca 19:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. I can see that the size might be problematic. There are the Sears tower , the Empire State Building , and others. The one objection I have to the global picture is the fact that it implies centering on one part of the world, that part shown. Badbilltucker 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the pictures from New York and Chicago imply centering on a specific city or country. Again, I would prefer the globe picture until a better icon can be found or created. Alan.ca 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
City article ratings
Alan.ca and I have been discussing the use of the new template, and of ratings. Also, we should develop a scale of importance.
Importance ratings
I would propose that the following criteria (at least) should be part of our assessment of importance.
Population
Historical importance of the city (Hiroshima, Alexandria)
Cultural or religious importance of the city (Jerusalem, Mecca)
Economic importance of the city
Whether the city is a county seat or state capital (or the equivalent in its country)
National capitals should almost always be of high importance
Demand for the article ("what links here")
I think these would be a good start to determine how critical an article is, and also to evaluate its current state. What are everyone's thoughts on these? Seraphimblade 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
"Grade" ratings
We also should establish some scales for "grading". I would suggest the following for "stub", "start", and "B" (which are usually the only classes projects rate at).
Stub class
The article contains only a few sentences or just some basic facts (location, population, and so on). May need wikification and be unsourced.
Start class
While more comprehensive then a stub, the article has some serious flaws, such as any one of the following:
Lacks pictures
Unsourced or poorly sourced, may contain only a primary source, or most facts in the article cite no source.
Major sections are missing, such as history, government, or economy of the city
POV problems, including subtle ones such as undue weight on one negative event in the city government or on a few positive aspects
Serious spelling, grammatical, formatting, syntactical, or MOS problems requiring a major copyedit. May not have logical section divides, has totally empty sections, or is a "text blob" with no or inadequate division into sections.
B class
The article is well-sourced, free or mostly free of {{fact}} tags (or facts which are unsourced and should have a fact tag). May still have some incomplete sections but all major areas (history, government, economy, significance) of the city have at least some well-sourced coverage. Facts which are subject to change (such as population or members of government) are referenced clearly with a referencing style that states when the information was retrieved or gathered. The article is free of editorials, undue weight, or any other POV problems. The article may deviate slightly from the MOS but for the most part follows its recommendations, and is logically divided into sections and subsections. Grammar, syntax, and presentation are clear but may contain some minor flaws.
Better then B class
While we probably should stay away from giving "A" ratings, if an article is in very good shape, we certainly may wish to suggest that it is ready to undergo peer review in preparation for nomination for GA or FA status, or to help prepare the article to do so if there are not already active maintainers available to do so.
WikiProject Cities is rather misleading. Wouldn't it be better as WikiProject Settlements? Simply south 23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it matters. The scope of this project is clearly stated for those who don't immediately realise its purpose.--cj | talk 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Proposal - Add a GPS coordinate section to each city template.
I would propose that a section of "Noted Places" is added to the general template. This fits with geography section quite easily and makes sense
This would allow contributors to add things like:
Local Places of Interest,
Famous Places,
Hard to find locations,
Etc.
Format should be like:
Name of site, UTM Coordinate North-South, UTM coordinate East - West, a brief site description, brief significance.
Coordinate system must be universal in nature and geographic degrees minutes and seconds are difficult to enter into a personal GPS system. I vote for UTM coordinates. OR both to be totally flexible.
By establishing a standard system of waypoints for each geography, these coordinates could be published and easily downloaded into a personal GPS system for use by the public at large. See: city geographic coordinate already shown.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wwporter (talk • contribs) 13:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
You may wish to review WP:NOT. Alan.ca 21:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea to me. When somebody upgrades a mid-sized city from a stub to a start, a short list of notable places (which see to be called "Sites of interest" in the templace) in the city or metro seems like something that would make the article more interesting and useful. Over time, the list could be annotated, allowing for information about notable places with insufficient verifiable information for an independent article to have a home. Some of the places will get worked into the text; some of the sub-sections will develop until they merit their own article; some lists will grow too long and will need to be spun off. A single line of the most notable places might fit into the template for a large city, after neighborhoods, perhaps.--Hjal 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a good idea, but I have to agree with Alan.ca. This might make the article too much like a travel guide per WP:NOT#IINFO. Brien Clark 05:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
What the template is missing
There are a few things which the template lacks:
Arts and Culture. It may say something about the demographic of Wikipedia editors that we have a section on sports but not on culture.
Recreation. Sports seems oriented to professional sports; most communities do not have them. Recreation is of equal or greater importance. Suggestion: Change to Sports and Recreation. Right now it is suggested that major parks be included under Geography; I would move them to Sports and Recreation.
Climate. Under geography, or in own section?
I am a latecomer to this page, so please excuse the duplication if these suggestions have already been dealt with and buried in the archives. Kablammo 16:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You raise an interesting point of discussion. I was pondering if sports would fall under the heading Culture or not. Alan.ca 06:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Pro sports can be viewed as entertainment. Suggestions: Add Culture before the Sports section. First write about fine arts, then popular culture and entertainment. Then change Sports to Sports and recreation. As pro sports likely would be written about first, there would be a transition from the popular culture/entertainment text. Recreation includes both amateur sports and parks (which is why I would move the parks from geography). Kablammo 23:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Commercial spam issue
The views of the editors in this project are being sought on the following topic:
When is it appropriate to list a local commercial service which is available in a city/town? User:Bill Clark has undertaken an effort to add the name of the cable television provider in a large number of cities and towns (see his post above).
My concerns are these. Cable TV service is simply an ordinary commercial service available to local residents, and the name of a particular cable TV service is not especially interesting and does not qualify as bona fide encyclopedic content. In my view, listing the name of a local cable TV provider is simply commercial spam which generally does not belong on city/town pages.
My concern is compounded by User:Bill Clark's practice of helpfully adding a link to an external commercial site where the reader can sign up for the local cable TV service that he has listed. User:Bill Clark has adopted the practice of adding this external link as a "reference."
Finally, User:Bill Clark has indicated that he intends to add this information to a large number of city/town sites, and has indicated that he does not see anything wrong with it (please see his defense of his actions here).
These actions appear to simply add non-encyclopedic commercial information (that is, spam) to a large number of sites, and are therefore subject to removal.
Your comments are requested, please. Spamreporter1 16:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
If Cable TV service is "simply an ordinary commercial service available to local residents" then the same is true of electricity, gas, water, waste disposal, etc. My interest happens to be with US cable companies, but I'm curious as to whether you'd raise similar objections to adding links to these other kinds of public utilities? It would mean a lot more work for me, but I'd be willing to expand on the "Economy/Utility" section on pages I edit to include ALL varieties of public utility, if you think that would make the contributions more balanced. --Bill Clark 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
My view is that User:Bill Clark's comment is illuminating of the problem. I believe that one good way to see what qualifies as encyclopedic content is the following question: "If I were an interested reader from Johannesburg or Sydney, what would I want to know about, say, Statesboro, Georgia?" I would find the history, geography, demographics of the town of value--but the names of the local water company, gas company, and other bona fide public utilities are of strictly local interest. This type of local consumer information is not really encyclopedic.
Again, this concern about non-encyclopedic content is amplified by User:Bill Clark's practice of linking to an external commercial site, plus the intended scale of adding commercial links to hundreds of city sites. Spamreporter1 19:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Exclude I would prefer to exclude the specific name of any utility or local business. However, in the economy section of Hamilton, Ontario, the specific names of the steel companies are used, but that is because they represent over 50% of the local economy. The question for me: How does naming the cable company enhance a foreign visitors understanding of that community? You may want to get some feedback from WP:WPSPAMAlan.ca 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I generally agree with Alan.ca. However, I think that there actually are many instances in which the names of major local businesses (with links to Wikipedia articles about those businesses) are very relevant to understanding the community. Also, occasionally the name of a public utility or cable company may be relevant to understanding the history, geography, and economy of a community. For example, if a town was established at the site of a hydroelectric dam, it would be very important to tell about the company that operates the dam. Similarly, if the town has historically had problems with the lack of or unreliability of public water supply, electricity, or telephone service, the name of the company that fixed that situation could be an important part of the town's history. In yet another example, I know of one city where the municipality's contracts with cable companies have been chronic political issues that could warrant discussion in an encyclopedia article. --orlady 19:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The important questions here seem to be:
1) Should public utilities be included on city pages (under the "Economy" section) ?
2) Should cable providers be considered public utilities (they are according to the definition on public utility) ?
3) Should there be a difference between mentioning of privately owned (though publicly contracted) utilities, and municipal ones ?
4) What references should be used to establish facts regarding which companies (public or private) act as utilities for each locale ?
User:Spamreporter1 and User:Alan.ca seem to be answering "no" to even the first (most general) question, which I find puzzling. Before I proceed with any more edits to city pages, I'll likely finish off with creating all of the missing article pages for the US cable companies that I know of. At that point, I'll be able to more readily generate a list of cities to edit, and can look over the list to determine which articles already have Economy and/or Public utility sections, and what kinds of companies are listed. That at least should help us to get a better feel for existing precedent. --Bill Clark 19:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I would not list cable companies under economy or with utilities-- they are utilities only because they contract to use public rights-of-way and utility easements.
Interjection: That's not true. Cable companies are utilities in the same sense as power companies, water companies, gas companies, etc. – in many cases, they are one in the same entity (e.g. Alameda Power and Telecom, Muscatine Power and Water). --Bill Clark 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree. Legally they may be utilties, but the reason for so characterizing is to take advantage of pre-existing utilty easements. Otherwise they would not have been able to obtain the rights to run their cables through already-dedicated utility easments. But are cable companies regulated by state public utility commissions? And if we provide description of cable services should we also, in the interests of equity, provide a listing of satellite services available? That is why I think we should focus on which media provide local content, and deal with cable companies there. Kablammo 21:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Cable companies are media, and in fact usually have to provide local access and some local programming in order to use obtain the rights to use the municipal rights-of-way. I think cable companies should be listed in media, with no greater prominence than given to the local broadcast and print stations, and without links to subscription pages. It is because they provide local programming that they should be listed under media; otherwise a local broadcast station could be listed, but a cable provider with local programming would not be. Kablammo 20:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Policy WP:NOT I agree with Orlady, there may be a rare case where a cable company would be mentioned in a City article. In a case where that corporation is a large part of the identity of that locale, it may make sense. However, in general, I don't see cable companies as a key component of a City economy. Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory seems to apply to the blanket inclusion of cable companies to City Articles. Alan.ca 20:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I understand the point, but I think my point above still applies. Are we to mention local television stations under media, but refuse to mention a cable provider which provides local content? It's not an issue of the local economy (and I agree it should not be mentioned there), it's an issue of treating media the same. Kablammo 21:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be answering "No" to question #2 above ("Should cable providers be considered public utilities?") and I'd like to point out that in many cases, the cable utility provider is the same as the power utility, water utility, etc. It's not a simple matter to separate them, and listing companies that provide more than one utility but not listing ones that provide a single utility seems arbitrary. Would you also answer "No" to question #1 (Should public utilities be included on city pages?) and why? --Bill Clark 21:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I have done some work on an article which has a section on power supply (Duluth, Minnesota). I formatted it to follow the template and did some copyediting, but did not do much in the way of substantive contributions. (I did not write the section, but if memory serves, I moved it to Economy.) But it does not bother me that the section is there, nor would it bother me if utility suppliers are listed in other articles. (I don't think the point is all that important.) I think however that cable companies differ from energy suppliers, which is why I would handle them under media. Kablammo 22:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Folks, as the originator of this thread, just to stay focused, there are three issues here; most of the comment are only on the first issue below (and subparts of that first issue).
(A) Is the name of the local cable TV provider sufficiently encyclopedic that it can/should be listed on city pages?
My own answer - only in rare cases, where there is something unusual about the provider. We don't normally name local businesses unless there is something quite unusual.
(B) Should the name of the local cable TV provider be connected to an external link which is the commercial website of that provider?
My own answer - almost never; sending our readers to a commercial site where they can sign up for the service listed, to me, is to me clearly the sign of spam. If there is no other site available for the information (except the cable TV company's own site), that to me is also a signal that the information is not encyclopedic.
(C) Should this cable TV information with external commercial link be placed on hundreds of city sites around the country? (which is the user's intent)
Again, my own answer is no, and again, placing commercial sites on hundreds of sites is a disturbing signal of spam.
So, again, the comments above have focused mainly on Question (A) above, but it's really the whole campaign here (all three steps above) which I believe are impermissible, in addition to Question (A) alone.
It would be useful to hear your comments as well on Question B and Question C please. Spamreporter1 22:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
(A) The unusual feature of the cable providers in this case is that they are public utilities. As such, they are fundamentally different from other businesses in a given locale, and typically have a special legal relationship to the municipal government (either because they are an entity created and managed by that government, or because they have been granted exclusive rights-of-way for operating on municipal infrastructure). This is why I ask questions #1 and #2 above, as they pertain directly to the issue of whether public utilities (including cable utilities) should be mentioned on city pages.
(B) The only such links in place are either on the article page for the cable provider itself (which are clearly appropriate) or as references to support the claim that a particular company provides service in a particular location. I'm not sure how else to source the second kind of link, except by linking to a webpage maintained by the cable provider in question. Perhaps some local government websites would also list such information, and I'll check on that and give preference to such links whenever possible. (Addition: I have re-edited the articles for cities serviced by Northland and replaced the citations of the Northland website with citations of the official city webpages, whenever I could find such information – see Kosciusko, Mississippi and Mount Shasta, California for examples) I don't think adding unsourced material to webpages is a good alternative to providing a reference that links to a commercial page. As to whether this is spam, I ask you: what could I possibly be trying to promote? Cable in general? This whole thread started because my initial edits were for Northland Communications Corporation and I was accused of spamming for them, but since that time it's been made clear (both by later edits, and by the discussion in general) that I was simply using them as the first among many in my list, and have no interest in any particular cable company.
(C) My (eventual) intention is to add such information to every page for every US city. Clearly that's a long-term goal. It's also something that I'm delaying any further work on, pending the outcome of this discussion.
Please also see Amarillo, Texas. Somebody has added public utilities (including the local cable utility) under an "Infrastructure" section. Does this make more sense than under the "Economy" section? --Bill Clark 01:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The following is my summary of the reactions thus far (as near as I can understand them):
(A) Is the name of the local cable TV provider sufficiently encyclopedic that it can/should be listed on city pages?
EXCLUDE Alan.ca
EXCLUDE orlady (unless unusual circumstances are present, such as significant history of problems)
EXCLUDE Kablammo (unless cable company is a significant provider of local content, and then list under media, with other content providers)
(B) Should the name of the local cable TV provider be connected to an external link which is the commercial website of that provider?
EXCLUDE Kablammo
EXCLUDE Spamreporter1 (my own vote)
(C) Should this cable TV information with external commercial link be placed on hundreds of city sites around the country? (which is the user's intent)
EXCLUDE Alan.ca (not appropriate for wide-scale routine inclusion on city sites)
EXCLUDE orlady (not appropriate for wide-scale routine inclusion on city sites)
EXCLUDE Kablammo (not appropriate for wide-scale routine inclusion on city sites; need to make case-by-case assessment of amount of local content actually provided)
EXCLUDE Spamreporter1 (not appropriate for wide-scale routine inclusion on city sites -my own vote)
Responders, please make corrections if you believe that I have mis-summarized your response.
Any other responses? Spamreporter1 07:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
On question B, list me as "EXCLUDE." The summary of my other (previously stated) views is OK.--orlady 15:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Public Utilities on City pages
I'm moving this to a new section so that it's easier to follow. Once these discussions are complete, I'll archive this page and clean it up.
In light of the concerns outlined in sections above, I'm proposing to do the following:
1) Add an "Economy" section with a "Public utilities" sub-section to pages that do not already have one.
2) Add a "References" section to pages that do not already have one.
3) Add a listing of ALL public utilities (including water, wastewater/sewage, electric, natural gas, telephone, and cable utilities) in the "Public utilities" subsection, to pages that do not already list such utilities. I will add missing utilities to pages that include some, but not all, utilities.
4) Provide references in the form of links to appropriate pages. Whenever available, these links will be to a page on the official website for the city in question, or some similar official (and non-commercial) webpage. If no non-commercial page is available as a reliable reference, then I will provide a link to an appropriate page on the website of the utility itself, which might be commercial.
If you have specific complaints with regards to any points of this plan, please be explicit. I feel that the above plan is a reasonable modification to the original, and would appreciate any feedback before proceeding.
Oppose in strongest terms - Your plan makes things even worse than before, albeit less blatantly commercial. Wiki is not a collection of links. This is not encyclopedic information. You are cluttering up the articles with useless information available on dozens of sites throughout the Net. If I had the time, I would be going around deleting this sort of cruft from pages that are already cluttered with it. Please cease and desist, for the reasons explained by almost every single person posting to this discussion.--Orange Mike 18:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
In my view, User:Bill Clark's latest proposal makes matters worse. First, the names of local utilities is not encyclopedic content.
Second, the argument that this type of information may be found in some other articles is the type of argument disapproved of as a "common spammer strawman." The correct response (adapted from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam) is "Simply because some other articles contain non-encyclopedic information does not mean that this type of information must be allowed everywhere."
Third, the one common theme in all of User:Bill Clark's proposals is contained again in the most recent posting (above): seeking to link "to an appropriate page on the website of the utility itself, which might be commercial." This persistent effort to include an external link to a commercial website where the reader can buy the product discussed is highly indicative of spamming behavior.
Other responses, please. Spamreporter1 18:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I think Bill gets the point. I don't know that we're talking about spam here, possibly more of an inclusion debate on the issue of turning an article into a directory. I edit a lot of City articles and I can tell you, including a cable company in the article is nowhere near the most offensive inclusion I have seen to date. Alan.ca 11:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Cable TV spamming issue resolved (for the moment)
User:Bill Clark has apparently withdrawn his proposal regarding large scale additions to city sites, has indicated that he is "leaving" WikiPedia, and has attempted to remove traces of his behavior (see his attempted deletions of his most proposal). While good faith has been assumed, unfortunately, all of these actions are consistent with the profile of an intended spammer.
I will be archiving all of these discussions and his conduct, for future use by others the next time there is a similar attempt regarding Cable TV, or future actions by someone who appears to be User:Bill Clark. Spamreporter1 19:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your approach to this. The inclusion of cable companies in community articles is a matter of legitimate debate. You appear to be coming at this with a heavy hand, despite having signed up just days ago. Please do not bite those who make good faith contributions. -Will Beback · † · 20:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Will. An extended debate has been taking place (see above), with everyone having a chance to have their voice heard. If you examine all of the comments during the discussion, you will see that good faith has been assumed by all throughout. If you examine the comments made to him, he was treated with respect and courtesy throughout. User:Bill Clark persisted in tenacious arguments when no one supported his views, and worse, his arguments always ended with his wanting to link to external commercial sites. If he has left unhappy, it is only because he insisted on wanting to perform actions which were inconsistent with the views of a consensus of people who weighed in. Spamreporter1 23:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You did not assume good faith, as is indicated by the fact that you called me a spammer (albeit couched in weasle words) at every opportunity, and consistently mischaracterize my actions to suit your preconceptions. Consider the facts and see if they are the actions of a spammer (nevermind my edit history, which consisted almost exclusively of contributing new articles on philosophers, prior to getting caught up in this whole mess with cable companies):
I added "Public utilities" sections to some articles on cities, along with a reference citation to the local cable company's website, and also some links to community portals for those cities. I agree that these actions in and of themselves could be spamming, but my actions below and consistent attempts to bring together discussion on the issue rather than hiding or dragging my feet show otherwise.
After being accused of spamming for Northland Communications (who were first on my list of cable companies), I made the mistake of entering into conversations with User:Spamreporter1, who had just created their account and has yet to make any contributions to article space. I had already begun editing articles related to other cable companies (in addition to creating many of them that had been missing) and so I don't think anyone believes I'm spamming for Northland anymore (though I may be wrong there.. I'm not sure WHO User:Spamreporter1 thinks I'm spamming for.. maybe all cable companies in the country?)
After being convinced that the external links were inappropriate (I've since come across a huge number of these portals and now agree they are not worth linking to) I voluntarily removed every single one of them. I left the reference citation links in place (and made it clear ahead of time that I would be doing so, despite User:Spamreporter1's implications that I was trying to get away with something). I felt that a reference to a commercial website was better than no reference at all. I asked what alternative references might be used in place of the links to commercial sites, and received no help or suggestions of any kind.
I then took it upon myself to investigate further, and found non-commercial websites that listed some utilities, usually on the official city websites. Wherever such pages existed, I replaced the references to the commercial (cable company) webpage, and also added references to the other kinds of utilities. Again, all of this was done voluntarily, without any help or advice from anybody else, and while the discussions were still taking place and I was under no obligation to make such changes (pending the outcome of the debate).
I lost my temper after reading a comment by User:Orangemike demanding that I "cease and desist" with my edits (which I'd already put on hold -- and said as much at least half a dozen times). I started composing a rather angry reply, thought better of it, and changed it to one that said I was planning to take a WikiBreak. When I tried to submit that, I encountered an edit conflict and saw that User:Spamreporter1 had posted yet more accusations that I was a spammer. That was the last straw and so I flipped out and decided to remove every contribution I had ever made to Wikipedia (most of which I knew would be reverted back anyway, since I write some good articles, if I do say so myself: Hector-Neri_Castañeda, Michael_Devitt, William_Lycan).
User:Spamreporter1 took my actions as "evidence" that I must have been a spammer the whole time, despite the fact that the very first things I deleted were the cable company references about which he'd been complaining in the first place.
User:Spamreporter1 has no interest in articles on cities, and only came to this page (after I pointed him here) in order to continue his attacks on me. I have a genuine interest in adding public utilities to articles about cities. I started off with cable companies, but after finding that official city websites were a good reference and typically included all other utilities, I was interested in adding all of them. User:Spamreporter1 has brought other people into this discussion with the specific intent of blocking what he sees as "spam", without regard to this actual project.
User:Spamreporter1 reverted many of my edits prior to discussion, and not once did I undo those reversions. I have been nothing but cooperative and pro-active in trying to meet all of User:Spamreporter1's increasingly unreasonable demands, up until the very end when I lost my temper.
There is absolutely no good faith here, and User:Spamreporter1 should be ashamed.
I think this is an unfortunate case study in Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I reviewed the body of work by Bill Clark and think that we have lost a valuable contributer. He was motivated to do a comprehensive series of articles on a specific area of interest, and the stubs he created were useful. But now he probably won't be around to expand them. Dhaluza 01:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe it is useful to respond to personal attacks by people who disagree with a consensus view. I will simply let readers review the body of discussions on this matter and draw their own conclusions. Spamreporter1 06:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Further, Bill Clark stated here: "I've been an editor since 2002, under another account," and explains that he quit Wikipedia once before. Spamreporter1 07:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that this process proceeded so quickly, and with relatively few participants. A more sedate pace, and more restrained discussion, would have been helpful. While I think cable providers which provide local programming should be listed under media, I am not opposed to having a section for public utilities. (And the point is fairly debatable whether cable companies should be listed there, although I would not.) If I am with a company looking for a city to locate a new plant, it would make a difference to me whether the power company is a co-op, a municipal utility, or a large public utility. And I would be interested in their names. I do not read the foregoing discussion as providing a consensus on the appropriateness of a public utility section and I for one do not oppose it. Kablammo 13:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - There's only so much space before an article dies of bloat. As I said before, there are lots of other places to find this information. We cannot be all things to all potential users. (But I certainly didn't mean to drive Clark away!) --Orange Mike 16:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think information on cable operators and other utilities is useful. If you get the chance, please see the proposal, perhaps too late, that I left at User talk:Bill Clark#Lists of utilities. --A. B.(talk) 16:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I was not calling for a vote on this. It would not be wise to have a handful of editors (some of whom, like myself, only recently came to this page) make a decision on this issue and impose our views nationwide or worldwide. Articles as diverse as Milwaukee and Mumbai have discussions on public utilities and we should not make a decision precluding such content. Allow the articles to develop. Kablammo 21:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
While everyone is obviously entitled to their opinion on this issue, the very strong consensus among experienced editors (see above) was that local "public utility" information was strictly local, non-encyclopedic information (some used stronger terms) that doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except under unusual circumstances). Simply "allowing the articles to develop" encourages link farms, non-notable lists, and all the other stuff that people want to put on a page. Rather than "allow" these barnacles to develop, I believe that this WikiProject is a good place for a discussion/vote to give guidance to editors who want to slim down strictly local excesses. Spamreporter1 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Demographics Source
Is there any consensus on what demographics should be used for city articles? I know rambot used United States Census 2000 and many users have added demographics from the 2005 American Community Survey. There are some city pages that use third-party demographics, like the opening paragraph of Riverside, California, from 2006—which seems odd since the city's website itself quotes the 2005 ACS data.[1] What do you guys think? Brien Clark 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Census I find it shocking that the ACS article had 0 source citations and the 2000 Census article wasn't much better. I cannot comment on the credibility of the ACS as the article was lacking sourced citations and I wouldn't want to base my opinion on what may be original research. My advice would be to improve the ACS article before continuing this discussion. Alan.ca 06:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to clean up the article. The 2005 ACS data seems legit since the U.S. Census Bureau's American FactFinder[2] data quotes both the 2000 census data and the 2005 ACS data. I'm not sure how legit any data past 2005 can be, since it would not be officially sanctioned by the Census Bureau. Brien Clark 04:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a great plan Brien. Let me know if you need any help. Alan.ca 07:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Ann Arbor, Michigan FAR
Ann Arbor, Michigan has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The article would look much better if the crime statistics section of Demographics didn't have an empty space for "Comparison with national averages". --orlady 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Article in need of attention
I bring this article to your attention so that someone familiar with this topic might be able to fix the article and possibly bring it into the fold of your project: Westside San Bernardino, California. Thanks. --G1076 14:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I reviewed the article you mention and decided to propose a merger. It seems the parent article is almost in as bad of shape. If you agree with the merge proposal feel free to execute it before the 14 days. WP:MERGEAlan.ca 20:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Curious Question about removing WikiProject tags from city articles
Curiosity ... Is there a recognized protocol about adding or removing WikiProject tags from city articles? There's an interesting experience going on over at WikiProject California, and WikiProject Southern California.
Some time ago, WikiProject California members had placed their project tags on all articles about California cities. Those tags have been in place for some time. Recently certain members of WikiProject Southern California, after discussion on that project's talk page (only), decided to remove the WikiProject California tags for (almost all) Southern California cities, and replace the tags with WikiProject Southern California tags - only.
That is, the WikiProject Southern California members didn't simply add the WikiProject Southern California tag to Southern California cities, the WikiProject California tags were completely removed. This was done apparently without consultation with the WikiProject California members.
It would seem at first glance that all the cities in Southern California could appropriately remain as part of both WikiProject California and WikiProject Southern California - it is after all one state! There are many articles across Wikipedia which have multiple WikiProject tags.
I don't know what the answer is if there is a recognized protocol about the following:
Is there a consensus here about who can add and who can remove WikiProject tags from city articles?
Is there a consensus here about when a city article can have more than one WikiProject tag?
Are there any observations that anyone in this group has about this situation? Spamreporter1 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like some kind of odd gaming going on. Any article can be under the auspices of a number of different projects; it's not an exclusivity thing! The yanked tags should be restored, and the offending people should be gently chided. Is there anything on the talk pages of either project? --Orange Mike 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
There was some discussion on the Southern California page, but none on the California page. I don't think it was gaming; it appears that some of the Southern California editors have a good faith view about which WikiProject tags should appear. The question is whether their views regarding this removal reflect consensus. Each of the other people who have chimed in so far have felt that having both tags is appropriate. Spamreporter1 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
We had a similar situation at WikiProject Kentucky, which spawned several child projects, including WikiProject Louisville, WikiProject Bluegrass Region, and WikiProject KYOVA Region. In particular, the Louisville (perhaps more appropriately, the Louisville Metro) project began changing WPKentucky tags to WPLouisville tags. At first, I also resented that change, but I came to realize that it does help get the best editors for a particular topic on those articles. We list good and featured articles from the child projects on the WPKentucky page and generally try to work in partnership with the child projects. And, in cases of significant overlap, we leave both banners. For example, Frankfort, Kentucky is located in the Bluegrass Region, but is also the state capital. Acdixon 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I was going to say the same thing, basically, but Acdixon beat me to it. WPLou and WPKY get along quite well, and oftentimes in the few cases where we have a jurisdictional question, we just keep both project banners on the talk page. It's all good. There's normally no need for dual city/region and state project coverage. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes people feel that too many project banners clutter the talk page. You may want to consider adding small=yes as a template option to implement the smaller versions of the templates. Alan.ca 20:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
What precedent? Categories, Stubs and Wikiprojects are quite different. Alan.ca 22:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with BlankVerse. The Southern California wikiproject did the right thing technically, but apparently they should have provided better courtesy to the state-level project. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Note
To try to follow all discussions on this issue, you have to look at the talk pages for at least four different WikiProjects (California, SoCal, CITIES, and COUNCIL), as well as the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject, because the sockpuppet [3] Spamreporter1 has been copying different comments to the different pages without telling the different WikiProjects or the authors of those comments, and without identifying where the different comments came from. BlankVerse 14:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
The views of each of those Projects was solicited because each is affected by the topic. I have requested that any responses be condensed, and have assisted that process. People are going to respond where they want, and I'm trying to avoid disputes over where the conversation is going to take place, by performing the clerical act of copying responses. If anyone has a suggestion of a single place that all interested parties are comfortable watching and responding there, that would be a good solution. Spamreporter1 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
My comment at California was moved to SoCal, not copied. I copied it back myself. Although this issue did not really grab me at first, I'm begining to wonder if somebody should be drafting a WP:Hubris policy.--Hjal 08:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I see that another editor moved your comment (not me). It was exactly this type of action that I was trying to avoid by copying comments to a condensed location. Spamreporter1 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
All done by a bot
I have to wonder if some of the extreme hostility and incivility that has been part of this discussion on this project's talk page, and some other project's talk pages is the result of some editors assuming that the SoCal WikiProject has been 'undoing' some editor's hard work. In reality, the tagging of almost all the article talk pages (on over 10,000 articles!) with the {{WikiProject California}} banner was done by a Bot, User:MetsBot. At the time, the bot's owner received quite a few complaints, and because of that quit doing any bot-tagging for WikiProjects. It really wasn't the bot's fault, but the fact that that some articles had been miscategorized (such as a couple of Oregon cities that probably some waggish vandal had categorized as California cities). BlankVerse 14:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
WikiProjectBanners
There seems to be a Template:WikiProjectBanners which is able to combine multiple wikiproject templates into one. This seems to work quite well for city articles that fall under multiple wikiprojects. Dr. Cash 04:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Responses from WikiProject Australia and WikiProject India
At the suggestion of a more senior editor, I made inquiry of WikiProject Australia and WikiProject India about their structure. It appears they avoid this "dual-tagging/single-tagging" issue altogether by using a "project/sub-project structure" rather than a "parent/descendant" structure.
I have received the following responses to my inquiries to WikiProject Australia and WikiProject India about their "sub-project" structure:
In reality, subprojects of WikiProject Australia are their own autonomous group with their own sense of community. Sub-projects of WP:AUS generally maintain themselves, however fall under the parent WikiProject Australia for WP:1.0 assessment purposes. Some Australian sub-projects fall outside of the parent project and have decided to assess their own aticles (an example is Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia, leading to the situation where a talk page becomes cluttered with many unneccessary templates. We're about to combine assessments for sub-projects into the master {{WP Australia}} template so that sub-projects need not create their own assessment scheme. The benefit of this is that sub-projects can assess their own articles, and their assessments contribute to provide an overall look at the state of Australia-related articles without fragmenting the results. You may want to look at WP:INDIA which has already adapted what we require. -- Longhair\talk 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
We're try to change to adapt to editor's needs. Check back often, you never know what we've been up to until you take a look ;) -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Longhair (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
Our response will be similar to the Australian one above. I had initially copied their template and improved upon it.
1) Sub-projects work autonomously and have their own community. They have seperate project pages and discussion pages. See WP:KERALA.
2) COTW still works at the parent level since participation is low.
3) All sub-projects use the same project banner. For example, {{WP India|kerala=yes}} for an article that falls under the scope of India and Kerala.
4) The project banner creates assessment categories at individual project level as well as at the parent. Class tag is shared across projects. Since Importance could differ between sub-projects, we have separate importance tags for each project. For example, {{WP India|kerala=yes|class=FA|importance=High|kerala-importance=Top}} will put the article under Top importance for Kerala project and High for the India project.
5) Sub-projects are identified as workgroups on the talk page banner. For a few of our projects (Indian cinema), banner displays the sub-project in a separate box. For example, {{WP India|cinema=yes}} will generate two boxes, one for India and one for Cinema. This way, the sub-project gets more ad-space. See Talk:Aishwarya Rai. This is needed for topical projects that loosely integrate into the national project. Indian cinema has both India and Films as parents.
6) The parent project's menu bar is displayed on all sub-project pages. This will give visibility and help invite more participants into various sub-projects. In topical projects such as Indian cinema, the menu bar is trimmed down to a small box. The menu bar displays assessment statistics table of the project currently displayed. See WP:KERALA and WP:INCINE.
7) The automation department at the parent level supports all sub-projects. They help with automated talk page tagging.
This type of integration avoids redundancy and helps sub-projects concentrate on the article improvement than worry about templates and technical stuff.
Hope that helps. Regards, Ganeshk(talk) 03:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Importance of this Wikiproject
I'm confused, why are we having a Wikiproject ranking debate on this discussion page? If we're discussing where this project fits I can offer my thoughts. It seems that localized wikiprojects have a good ability to collect photographs and references. However, they tend to be biased towards their regional articles and rate their own projects within a very narrow scope. As I have been reviewing articles for this international wikiproject, I find that I am able to discover the best content in the world and use this experience to provide objective ratings of the capital cities. One of the key problems with this encyclopedia is the lack of cohesive international coverage. If you take a look at the work list for this project you will find that Youngstown, Ohio, a small town with less than 100 thousand people is at GA status, while Rome is a Start-class article. I cannot see how localized Wikiprojects would even notice such a discrepancy. My goal is to organize a group of people who want to improve the coverage of the most important cities in the world. To bring cities like Rome up to GA status before we start narrowing our focus to every little town in a province. Alan.ca 13:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason that the issue of parent/descendent WP relationship has spilled over here, is that the issue of what WP tags should be on city articles is where this issue first arose.
The question: Where there is a parent/descendent relationship between two WPs, when should the descendant WP tag be the only tag that appears on the city article, and when should city articles have both the parent and descendent tags?
To use a (hypothetical) example, when should the [[WP:OHIO]] tag be "dual-tagged" on all Ohio city articles, and when should the [[WP:WEST OHIO]] tag be the only tag that appears on Ohio city articles?
Recently, I am having a disagreement with Alan.ca concerning sub-sections in city articles. I was told that it is preferable that such sub-sections not be used for city articles (see Gangtok). At the same time, I am of the opinion that there are several topics that are broad enough to cover several other topics (e.g. culture covers events, sites of interest, media, and sports), and hence warrant sub-sectioning for organization purposes (see Canberra).
Instead of continuing to argue this matter, I am asking for more input on this matter, which cover the following:
Should sub-section formatting be considered for city articles that are FA or are trying to achieve FA?
Should sub-sections even be used, and if so to what extent?
Feedback is appreciated.
PentawingTalk 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
To be specific, I believe that excessive use of subsections often indicates that a section has become too long. In the Ann Arbor, Michigan#Culture section they have 14 paragraphs with only 4 reliable sources cited. I have discussed the issues with this specific article in more detail at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan. Alan.ca 13:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This page 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.
