Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

Active discussions
WikiProject Cities (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

US Cities - Census infoEdit

@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).

BackgroundEdit

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 changesEdit

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. Reywas92Talk 22:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed technical changesEdit

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?Edit

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. • SbmeirowTalk • 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)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m text of ref

Problem in 2010 arithmeticEdit

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).

ProgressEdit

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. • SbmeirowTalk • 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.htmlSbmeirowTalk • 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 progressEdit

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)

RFC Discussion: Definition of Chinatown?Edit

Please see the request for comment Talk:Chinatown,_Houston#Definition(s)_of_Chinatown_used/cited_by_the_article_Request_for_Comment_(RFC) regarding how Chinatown (the Southwest one) in Houston should be defined.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Flagstaff, ArizonaEdit

A Good Article reassessment has been opened for the article Flagstaff, Arizona, which your WikiProject might be interested in. Kingsif (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC relief maps in infoboxesEdit

The question whether or not to use relief maps in the infobox for cities has come up often. There seems to be no set guidelines on these policies. For my part the relieft maps are more than a little distracting. Political maps properly show the placement of cities with the various political regions. While a relief map might be of use when commenting on the geography of a city and perhaps lay in that section. I would argue that political maps without relief should be the default. What is the actual policy on this though? It seems to be quite arbitrary on how and when these rules are applied. Thank you for any comment on this MoS for city infoboxes. Krazytea(talk) 14:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

  • @Krazytea: can you provide some examples? I think it might be a case-by-case sort of thing. I could see a good argument for it in hilly cities like Rio de Janeiro, but it's obviously not needed for e.g. Chicago. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A better citation link for U.S. Census dataEdit

The new QuickFacts tool for the Census Bureau uses a simpler URL scheme (e.g. census.gov/quickfacts/everettcitywashington for its basic data sets, which could be a suitable replacement for FactFinder links. A bot using Wayback Medic is currently replacing all of the FactFinder links with an ugly generic citation to the Census homepage, which is clearly unsuitable. I don't have the technical know-how, but could a bot be activated to replace the old FactFinder and new generic-link citations with the following:

<ref name="QuickFacts">{{cite web |title=QuickFacts: %ARTICLE NAME% |url=https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/%city_name%city%state_name% |publisher=[[United States Census Bureau]] |accessdate=April 12, 2020}}</ref>

I've already used this format at Everett, Washington, where it looks a lot better. SounderBruce 06:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


Notice of reassessmentEdit

Bexley, Ohio, an article that you or your project may be interested in, 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. ɱ (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Off wiki controversy affecting an FA article of interest to this projectEdit

Please see Talk:Ann Arbor, Michigan#Change the main Ann Arbor city photo. John from Idegon (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Question on whether a Phnom Penh navigational template should be in "Fall of Phnom Penh"Edit

Hi! Please see: Talk:Fall_of_Phnom_Penh in regards to a question on whether a Phnom Penh navigational template should be in "Fall of Phnom Penh" WhisperToMe (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Resources for expanding articles on individual citiesEdit

These resources look interesting. More reliable sources can probably be found for most of the communities profiles in these articles. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 23:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

  • "The Weirdest Small Towns In The United States". Ranker. Retrieved 2020-05-20.
  • "Monowi, Nebraska". Atlas Obscura. Retrieved 2020-05-20.
  • "10 Eerie Ghost Towns and the Disasters That Made Them". Ranker. Retrieved 2020-05-20.
Neither Ranker nor Atlas Obscura are reliable sources. They are good lists pointing out cities that have quirks, but adding these facts to articles would require better sourcing (which is likely available for the more famous ones). SounderBruce 02:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

FYI: I started a relevant thread at WT:USA about census stuff on US location articlesEdit

See here. CJK09 (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

MysoreEdit

I have nominated Mysore 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. DrKay (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge Discussion Input requestsEdit

Proposed merger of Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture to Demchok

Hi! There is a merger proposal here for the articles on the village(s) of Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture and Demchok in the Sino-Indian border dispute. Any input is appreciated! — MarkH21talk 23:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture

An article of interest to the project—Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture—has been proposed for merging with Demchok. Project members are invited to participate at the merger discussion. AnomalousAtom (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Discuss it >>>Here<<<. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 15:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Show Washington on map of Germantown, MarylandEdit

I have just added the following to Talk: Germantown, Maryland:

Considering this sentence
Germantown is located approximately 25–30 miles (40–48 km) outside the U.S. capital of Washington, D.C. and is an important part of the Washington metropolitan area.
I think it would be valuable to add Washington, DC to the maps, at least to Location of Germantown in Montgomery County and the U.S. state of Maryland.


That article is not very active, so I am adding this notice to the Discussion sections of WikiProjects Maryland (which is currently rated semi-active) and Cities.

--16:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Abolish importance assessment for a core list and taskforcesEdit

I know this talkpage isn't very active, but I've thought 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.

Let me know what you think! – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Some of these cities are the centers of metropolitan areas, like, for example, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Los Angeles area task force, so their task forces should reflect that fact. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Given that taskforces can be associated with multiple WikiProjects, I'm fine with that. Do note that several cities on the list have their own WikiProjects, so I don't think they'll need to be taskforced here. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 13:49, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
On second thought, given that the contents of the core list can change and that several cities have their own full-fledged WikiProjects (not to mention the very many cities that have either, making programming the banner difficult), I oppose specific-city taskforces in this WikiProject, although they can exist in others. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

A move discussion requires your attentionEdit

Talk:Peć#Requested move 18 August 2020 is a move discussion which has seen a lot of editors with very few edits in English wikipedia who appear to !vote. Regardless of the outcome of that discussion, it needs to be the product of the wikipedia community, not the result of any off-wiki activity as the editing patterns indicate. The only way that can be ensured is if the community is active in that discussion. Regardless of what you may eventually think about the move, please take a few minutes to participate. The more involved we are, the better our project becomes. Thank you :) --Maleschreiber (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Relisted move discussion requires attentionEdit

Talk:Mališevo#Requested move 8 August 2020 is a discussion about the article title of a town in Kosovo. It has been relisted and new participation would be welcome in the discussion.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Need a few more eyes at MeccaEdit

Can we get a few eyes over at Mecca...have GA review going on by two new high school editors.--Moxy 🍁 03:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

List of short place namesEdit

This appears to only accept latin-letter place names. There should be a complementary list for non-Latin place names that are short. (non-ideographic/logographic/syllabic scripts; ie. in Korean it would be two letters and not two characters (multiple letters per syllabic character) for a short "2" name) -- 65.94.170.98 (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@65.94.170.98: You can add the place to the list if its romanization has 1 or 2 letters. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I was referring to having a second list for places whose native name is short (ie. not romanized) -- 65.94.170.98 (talk) 07:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

General consensus to justify inclusion of "notable people" into city articlesEdit

In Lake Oswego, Oregon, I was finding "notable" (defined as "having Wikipedia article" in hidden comment) people such as someone who happened to go to high school there. What is the general consensus of Cities Project as guidelines for justifying inclusion of someone into articles about cities? One such example is Michael Jones (entrepreneur), who was a former Myspace CEO who went to high school in Lake Oswego. Should a person like such should be added to the city article where the high school is located?

The hidden comment (before I edited out) in the page read:

"· Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability. · The biographical article must mention how they are associated with L.O., whether born, raised, or residing. · The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited in this article. · Alphabetical by last name please"

Is this consistent with the general project wide or even broader consensus?

Graywalls (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Move discussionEdit

Hello, everybody. Talk:Vučitrn#Requested move 20 August 2020 is a move discussion that has been relisted but hasn't seen much activity since then. Regardless of what you may eventually think about the move, please take a few minutes to participate. Involvement of the community in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#A move discussion requires your attention enriched the discussion and more of the same is needed in the current discussion. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)


Notable peopleEdit

The present definition is someone who has a Wikipedia page and born and/or lives in the locality. A discussion from 10 years ago Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline/Archive_2#Are_notable_people_more_than_residence? brings up a good point that long term community members and others who had a significant influence within the city should be included. However, how should we deal with professional athletes and such who are notable for their sports who lived in the subject city for some years or attended high school (but was not born in that city) but not for something tied to the community? Also, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline doesn't line up. Since local consensus can not override a wider consensus, then do we apply the more stringent of the two when the higher consensus (Project Cities wide vs Project Cities/US) is more stringent? The US Cities say having Wikipedia page isn't mandatory. Graywalls (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines contradict each other all the time. WP:CCSG is unique as well. In my experience, US Cities has a much wider consensus; its take page is enormous. The first sentence of WP:CITSTRUCT acknowledges these differences: "This reference is a supplement to specific guidelines on writing about U.K. cities and towns, U.S. cities, Canadian cities, Philippine cities and municipalities, and Indian cities. It does not replace those, but amalgamates the information in order to serve as advice for writing about settlements not in those geographic regions." Magnolia677 (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

US CitiesEdit

I posted the discussion over there and directed it here since I already started it here. It would make sense for busier US cities pages to have LESS lenient criteria to avoid the proliferation of run of the mill people from piling up into the city's article or "list of people from locality" page. The guidelines in WPC is include only those with Wiki page, born and/or current resident of locale. The WP USC doesn't require a WP entry; but that the person meets WP:GNG if a page was to be created. The US Cities project guidelines say "notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time". I can see it makes sense for a non-native, notable politician of a city to be included in that city's page even after they move away; however what about various notable athletes whose only connection seems to be attending high school in a particular city? I wouldn't call moving from a different place and going to high school in that city "significant amount of time", but let's see what the project consensus is Graywalls (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

In practice, names entered on the US list without an article are quickly nuked. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
And I do a great deal of that nuking....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
What about the threshold level of connection for people that do have article to remain in there? Graywalls (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Let's look at Holly Madison. In which locality articles is it appropriate for her to exist under "notable people" section? Born in Astoria, Oregon , moved to Craig, Alaska at two, then to Prince of Wales Island (Alaska), then St. Helens, Oregon Attended Portland State University for two years , moved to Los Angeles and attended Loyola Marymount UniversityGraywalls (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The consensus has always been that working or going to school in Foo doesn't automatically make a person from Foo. Born in Foo yes, Born near Foo, no. (I'm a published author if I ever got notable enough for a WP article, I'd hate to see near used as a categorizing factor. I've lived across the street or less than a two block walk from other communities in my lifetime. Don't get me started on all the zip codes I've lived in too...) I see no reason to change it....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
She's in the locality page of every one of those places, except Los Angeles. With small towns wanting to associate with the famous, the practice of adding notable people that have minimal connection with the city needs to be put under control. If someone was born in first locality, then moved to a second locality as an infant and lived in the second city for 20 years, then move somewhere else again and become notable, then, it's reasonable to designated the second town as "home" but certainly not in the "notable people" in all three locality. Graywalls (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
With the closure of many rural hospitals and the consolidation of specialities in urban/suburban centers, some cities will hardly have any people born in the them in the foreseeable future. Both my daughter and grandson do not have a connection to the city of their birth where there was a hospital but they would have a notable connection to where they lived most of their young life. It seems that the "birth city" is becoming more and more meaningless in the US. I noticed articles on sports figures talk about their hometown. People, who from a young age lived in a town, should be listed there even though they were born in the nearby community with a hospital. The college years does not appear to be an issue as many college towns specifically mention that Alumni should be listed in the college only unless there was a notable connection to the community. Although much of this is subjective, actual notability with a community should be verified with reliable sources describing their connection to the community and not just a birth record or other simple record. Death is similar: the Woodland Hills, Los Angeles article has the following notice: The Motion Picture & Television Country House and Hospital, a private retirement, nursing care and acute-care hospital facility is reserved for industry professionals. The section includes some people who lived and/or died there, among other residents. Fettlemap (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Common sense can be applied here. The first home which the person lives in after returning from the hospital can reasonably be called the origin for practical purposes. It's what we have going on with Holly Madison we want to avoid. If a person was born in an obscure community, but doesn't remain in that community, then what we don't want happening is those people being added to "notable people from..." for that obscure community. Graywalls (talk) 08:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Holly MadisonEdit

The "general" cities guidelines would keep her relevant only in Astroria. But with the US rules, it's a bit ambiguous and she's in every single one of the below. Which place(s) should see be listed in?

Graywalls (talk) 09:50, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

MoS and general input for Slab City, CaliforniaEdit

I am looking for comments on MoS and general contents on Slab City, California that I have been working on for a while. Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

FAR for TulsaEdit

I have nominated Tulsa, Oklahoma 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 00:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Rova of Antananarivo featured article reviewEdit

I have nominated Rova of Antananarivo 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 02:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

FAR for IstanbulEdit

I have nominated Istanbul 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 04:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

El Hatillo Municipality FAREdit

I have nominated El Hatillo Municipality 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) 17:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Cities".