Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Cities page. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
The current WikiProject Cities Collaboration of the Month is Los Angeles. The previous collaboration was n/a. |
 Archives |
|---|
|
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Sections with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. |
[edit] Kent, Ohio GAN
I have nominated Kent, Ohio as a Good article. Anyone who is able to review and assess the article would be much appreciated! The process can begin here. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Scope of a city's article
Is there guidance available on defining the scope of an article? Should an article on a city scrupulously avoid mentioning anything outside the city limits, or is there room for suburban elements to be incorporated where they have a strong association with the city proper? Powers T 19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's up to consensus. Typically, city articles try to stick to events in the city proper, but it's perfectly acceptable to mention things like the metropolitan population or "suburban elements", as you put it, if there is a strong connection. It's really more of a case-by-case thing than some hard-and-fast rule. Best, epicAdam(talk) 21:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's case-by-case but also a common sense thing too. City articles are about that specific city, which is defined by its actual boundaries. It doesn't mean things outside the city cannot, under any circumstances, be mentioned, but care must be made to state why any mention of those things outside of the city affect it whether it be historical or current influence. Too many city articles include quite a few things outside the city itself much like a chamber of commerce or other promotional site would to make the city look better. I've always erred on the side of sticking to the city boundaries and then taking those exceptions one by one. Those "suburban connections" need to be "strong" as Epicadam stated AND properly sourced and it needs to be made clear not only why the connection exists but that whatever it is IS located in a different city/town (which will have its own article of course). --JonRidinger (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- To me, that's very different from what Adam said. Your claim that "city articles are about that specific city", with no room for leeway, is very different from "It's up to consensus". It is precisely that question which I am trying to address. Many people mean much more than just "what's within the city limits" when they talk about "the city of so-and-so". Powers T 15:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- Epicadam stated "city articles try to stick to events in the city proper". The city proper is the actual physical boundaries of the city as opposed to the "greater city" which includes its suburbs or related neighbors. From what he said and what I said it's basically stick to the physical boundaries and take the exceptions one by one. I never said there was no leeway, but the leeway isn't as wide as many editors and many average readers would like it to be. Exceptions DO exist, but when they do, the connections are clearly visible through the information available (reliable sources). Simply relying on the fact that many locals may not distinguish between one city or another (because, for example, ZIP codes do not always follow municipal boundaries) or lump them all together is largely irrelevant unless that lack of distinction can be shown with WP:RS. That's also why articles about larger metropolitan areas were created. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- There's a middle ground, though, between the multi-county metro areas and the area around a city known by the city's name, that I don't think is being covered the way it should be if we limit the city article to the city limits. It's not just confusion caused by ZIP codes, it's that people have a broader perception of what "the city" is than just where the lines fall on the map. Powers T 14:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely different people have different perceptions of what "the city" is and how it is defined. I see it even in my hometown. That's why sticking to the actual boundaries and taking the exceptions one by one is the best route so that all of the city articles have some sort of similarity and standard. Remember, in the end, these are Wikipedia articles, not articles by each city, so they need to conform to certain standards and guidelines. As an editor, we have to think along the lines of Wikipedia standards and policies as opposed to acting as residents (i.e. simply applying our local understandings that may or may not even be sourced) for the respective town/city we live in when we edit. What one considers "the city" others might not for various reasons. This is particularly true of larger cities. Many in the main city may consider the nearby suburbs part of their definition of "the city", but unless there is a published survey we have no way to know that. What I've seen is that the defintion of a "greater city" is very ambiguous (Greater Cleveland comes to mind). Even with Metro areas, there are published sources that sometimes reference how one metro area is "officially defined" but also address how it is perceived by locals (like a smaller city that is officially in one metro area but borders another). The key is sources. Anything that you think fits a statement like "is often considered part of XXXXX city..." would need some type of source to verify. Otherwise it's just heresay. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously, everything must be sourced. But I would contend that we don't need sources that literally say "is often considered part of XXXXX city", merely that they say a particular "thing" is in "XXXXX city". I've had that contention dismissed as "confusion" on the part of the writer (based on ZIP codes) and not something we can use because we "know" the thing isn't within the city limits. Powers T 17:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely different people have different perceptions of what "the city" is and how it is defined. I see it even in my hometown. That's why sticking to the actual boundaries and taking the exceptions one by one is the best route so that all of the city articles have some sort of similarity and standard. Remember, in the end, these are Wikipedia articles, not articles by each city, so they need to conform to certain standards and guidelines. As an editor, we have to think along the lines of Wikipedia standards and policies as opposed to acting as residents (i.e. simply applying our local understandings that may or may not even be sourced) for the respective town/city we live in when we edit. What one considers "the city" others might not for various reasons. This is particularly true of larger cities. Many in the main city may consider the nearby suburbs part of their definition of "the city", but unless there is a published survey we have no way to know that. What I've seen is that the defintion of a "greater city" is very ambiguous (Greater Cleveland comes to mind). Even with Metro areas, there are published sources that sometimes reference how one metro area is "officially defined" but also address how it is perceived by locals (like a smaller city that is officially in one metro area but borders another). The key is sources. Anything that you think fits a statement like "is often considered part of XXXXX city..." would need some type of source to verify. Otherwise it's just heresay. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- There's a middle ground, though, between the multi-county metro areas and the area around a city known by the city's name, that I don't think is being covered the way it should be if we limit the city article to the city limits. It's not just confusion caused by ZIP codes, it's that people have a broader perception of what "the city" is than just where the lines fall on the map. Powers T 14:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Epicadam stated "city articles try to stick to events in the city proper". The city proper is the actual physical boundaries of the city as opposed to the "greater city" which includes its suburbs or related neighbors. From what he said and what I said it's basically stick to the physical boundaries and take the exceptions one by one. I never said there was no leeway, but the leeway isn't as wide as many editors and many average readers would like it to be. Exceptions DO exist, but when they do, the connections are clearly visible through the information available (reliable sources). Simply relying on the fact that many locals may not distinguish between one city or another (because, for example, ZIP codes do not always follow municipal boundaries) or lump them all together is largely irrelevant unless that lack of distinction can be shown with WP:RS. That's also why articles about larger metropolitan areas were created. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- To me, that's very different from what Adam said. Your claim that "city articles are about that specific city", with no room for leeway, is very different from "It's up to consensus". It is precisely that question which I am trying to address. Many people mean much more than just "what's within the city limits" when they talk about "the city of so-and-so". Powers T 15:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's case-by-case but also a common sense thing too. City articles are about that specific city, which is defined by its actual boundaries. It doesn't mean things outside the city cannot, under any circumstances, be mentioned, but care must be made to state why any mention of those things outside of the city affect it whether it be historical or current influence. Too many city articles include quite a few things outside the city itself much like a chamber of commerce or other promotional site would to make the city look better. I've always erred on the side of sticking to the city boundaries and then taking those exceptions one by one. Those "suburban connections" need to be "strong" as Epicadam stated AND properly sourced and it needs to be made clear not only why the connection exists but that whatever it is IS located in a different city/town (which will have its own article of course). --JonRidinger (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Hi LtPowers. Let me see if I can try to clarify. This Wikiproject provides guidelines that are meant to apply to all cities. For this reason, the general consensus is that articles about a particular city should remain confined to information about the city proper, meaning the physical lines on the map. However, these guidelines, like all Wiki guidelines, are not hard-and-fast rules. That is what I meant by exceptions made on a case-by-case basis through consensus.
-
-
-
-
-
- Using a familiar example, the article on Washington, D.C. contains information about the September 11 attacks, even though the Pentagon is physically located in Arlington, Virginia. The decision to include the information that falls outside the city proper was based on the fact that there exists a strong connection between the Pentagon and Washington as the U.S. capital, and because the attacks had an extremely significant effect on the city. That addition, however, is an exception to the rule. Is there a specific city article where you believe information should be included despite being outside the city proper? It may help to provide better guidance if we knew what in particular may be a problem. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the specific issue is a long-running (because I'm slow to respond) debate on Talk:Rochester, New York. Some time ago, User:Beirne undertook to excise any and all companies and institutions that are located outside the city limits. My concern is that doing so leaves out much of what is widely considered "iconic" about "Rochester" (as a concept, versus as a geographic entity) such as Rochester Institute of Technology and Wegmans. The response (from Beirne and others) was that such things could go in the article for the Rochester metro area, but that article's remit is far too broad to convey the close association that exists between the city and these technically-suburban entities. For example, Rochester is widely considered a center for education, but only the University of Rochester and a satellite campus of Monroe Community College are within the city limits; the large number of suburban colleges is absolutely relevant to the city but apparently not allowed to be mentioned. This, I feel, is a disservice to the reader, who, for example, may have a perception of Rochester as an educational center but reads the article, sees only a couple of institutions mentioned, and figures she must have heard wrong. Powers T 17:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I just found this so I guess I'll jump in. The problem here is the repeated references to many people believing things about Rochester that are not in fact true. Jon mentioned this above when he stressed the importance of reliable sources. A map is generally a reliable source, but trying to base what goes in the article on a vague sense of what many people believe will not lead to an accurate article. In the case of Rochester being considered a center for education, it apparently is not actually so, with only one medium sized university and a branch of a community college. I believe everything mentioned in the article is in Monroe County, so perhaps that could serve as a reasonably sized location for this information. --Beirne (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- But that wouldn't jive with what the sources say. That's what I mean about substituting our own judgment for that of the sources. If the sources attribute something to Rochester, we shouldn't look at a map, shrug, and say "I guess they're wrong." Powers T 18:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- There are competing sources so some judgment is required. Many businesses have a post office named for the major city while they are in the suburbs. This should not define what is in a city, but for many people it does. My definition, though, post offices do not necessarily stick to city boundaries, so the city name is only a rough guideline. This leads to my second problem with making a city article cover its metro area. When it happens there is then no article about the city. If the article on Rochester includes things in the suburbs, then someone reading the article will not be able to learn about what is in the city itself. This is how I came to work on the article. I've never been to the city, but after finding an ancestor lived there for a while I read the article. I found it was full of things outside of the city, leading me to believe, for example, that the Rochester Institute of Technology and Wegmans, along with many other businesses were in the city. This gave me and likely others false information about the city of Rochester. Including things that people think are in the city just to avoid some kind of "disservice" leads to a misleading article. When people go to read the article Wikipedia's duty is to give them the truth, not confirm people's erroneous perceptions. --Beirne (talk) 19:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- But that wouldn't jive with what the sources say. That's what I mean about substituting our own judgment for that of the sources. If the sources attribute something to Rochester, we shouldn't look at a map, shrug, and say "I guess they're wrong." Powers T 18:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- I just found this so I guess I'll jump in. The problem here is the repeated references to many people believing things about Rochester that are not in fact true. Jon mentioned this above when he stressed the importance of reliable sources. A map is generally a reliable source, but trying to base what goes in the article on a vague sense of what many people believe will not lead to an accurate article. In the case of Rochester being considered a center for education, it apparently is not actually so, with only one medium sized university and a branch of a community college. I believe everything mentioned in the article is in Monroe County, so perhaps that could serve as a reasonably sized location for this information. --Beirne (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well, the specific issue is a long-running (because I'm slow to respond) debate on Talk:Rochester, New York. Some time ago, User:Beirne undertook to excise any and all companies and institutions that are located outside the city limits. My concern is that doing so leaves out much of what is widely considered "iconic" about "Rochester" (as a concept, versus as a geographic entity) such as Rochester Institute of Technology and Wegmans. The response (from Beirne and others) was that such things could go in the article for the Rochester metro area, but that article's remit is far too broad to convey the close association that exists between the city and these technically-suburban entities. For example, Rochester is widely considered a center for education, but only the University of Rochester and a satellite campus of Monroe Community College are within the city limits; the large number of suburban colleges is absolutely relevant to the city but apparently not allowed to be mentioned. This, I feel, is a disservice to the reader, who, for example, may have a perception of Rochester as an educational center but reads the article, sees only a couple of institutions mentioned, and figures she must have heard wrong. Powers T 17:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Using a familiar example, the article on Washington, D.C. contains information about the September 11 attacks, even though the Pentagon is physically located in Arlington, Virginia. The decision to include the information that falls outside the city proper was based on the fact that there exists a strong connection between the Pentagon and Washington as the U.S. capital, and because the attacks had an extremely significant effect on the city. That addition, however, is an exception to the rule. Is there a specific city article where you believe information should be included despite being outside the city proper? It may help to provide better guidance if we knew what in particular may be a problem. Best, epicAdam(talk) 15:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Ahh. This makes much more sense now. And I have to say, I agree with LtPowers. The Rochester Institute of Technology actually being located in Henrietta is a minor point. The overall connection of the university to the city is undeniable; just like the connections between Harvard University (in Cambridge) and Boston, or the New York Giants (in New Jersey) and New York City. In these types of instances, I completely support inclusion of closely associated entities/institutions in the primary city article. To do otherwise would be to throw common sense out the window to the detriment of readers in order to satisfy what is a strictly editorial . In these instances, however, articles should note if the formal location is indeed in another town; that way readers are informed but not mislead.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That said, however, some things do not warrant inclusion. I would hold that where companies generally do not meet the threshold necessary to warrant an exception; where companies have their headquarters is largely irrelevant. There are only a few instances I can think of where companies headquartered outside the city proper warrant mention; for example, the inclusion of Ford and Chrysler in the article on Detroit. Despite the fact those companies are technically located outside Detroit proper, the connection between them and Detroit is central to the story of Detroit. Best, epicAdam(talk) 19:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- RIT being in Henrietta is a major point. It left Rochester in 1968. Because of the historic tie and Rochester being in the name, I put a sentence in the Rochester article explaining that the institute was founded in the city and moved to Henrietta in 1968. This fit because the founding happened in the city and it clarified what happened to it. In the case of Harvard, I took it out of the Boston article a while back because it is not in the city, nor was it founded there. Some people pointed out that parts of the university are in Boston and put those parts in the article, which was perfect.
- Sticking to city boundaries is not an editorial , it is a way to get accurate articles that are not filled with unrelated material. If something outside of the boundaries of the city relate to it, then it is suitable for mention. The relationship needs to be clearly defined, though, and explained in the article. People thinking something is in the city is not a basis for inclusion. In the example of Wegman's that was mentioned earlier, it used to be in the article and I took it out. I know of nothing notable in the fact that Wegman's is near Rochester. If something interesting can be said about that then it may fit in the article, but to just drop it in the article because it is in Greater Rochester adds clutter and confusion. --Beirne (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- But that's exactly the sort of thing that does a disservice to our readers -- they expect to read something about Wegmans when they come to the Rochester article, and about deaf people, and about Buffalo Bills training camp, and about the Erie Canal, and about Lou Gramm and Brian Gionta. At least, many of them do -- apparently, you did not. =) But I honestly think you're an outlier in that respect. Powers T 21:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Eh, not so fast LtPowers... I wouldn't go to an article on Rochester expecting to read about Wegman's. Really, companies should only be mentioned if they're either major employers or otherwise significant. I'm willing to go so far as to include information about major universities and sports teams, etc. that are culturally significant and strongly relate to the city but I don't see how Wegman's and other companies fit in. Being perfectly honest, the only company I really associate with Rochester is Eastman Kodak; you could get by mentioning it because it's a rather sizable Fortune 500 company. It would be really great if you could find a list of the top employers in the city; that is far more relevant than just a list of companies. Best, epicAdam(talk) 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wegmans is absolutely culturally significant to the city. It's a major part of the city's identity. The East Avenue store is always referred to as "the last remaining Wegmans in the city". Not to the extent Kodak was in its heyday, of course, but it's still relevant, just like Xerox and B&L are still. As for top employers, such lists are usually centered around the county or metro, even when they say "Rochester" (like this one), so it's very hard to find that kind of data. And I'm not sure whether you'd be looking for a list of city employers or a list of employers of city residents. Powers T 23:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- Eh, not so fast LtPowers... I wouldn't go to an article on Rochester expecting to read about Wegman's. Really, companies should only be mentioned if they're either major employers or otherwise significant. I'm willing to go so far as to include information about major universities and sports teams, etc. that are culturally significant and strongly relate to the city but I don't see how Wegman's and other companies fit in. Being perfectly honest, the only company I really associate with Rochester is Eastman Kodak; you could get by mentioning it because it's a rather sizable Fortune 500 company. It would be really great if you could find a list of the top employers in the city; that is far more relevant than just a list of companies. Best, epicAdam(talk) 21:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
┌───────────────────────────────────────┘
Wegman's does not sound significant to Rochester if the headquarters is in another community and only one grocery store is left in the city. An in general, we do a service for the readers who come to the Rochester article by writing about things and people that are related to the city of Rochester and not adding to their confusion. B&L and Xerox are examples of businesses in the city (I assume) that are significant and are the kind of ones that should be included. --Beirne (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, you're advocating substituting our own judgment for that of the sources. "Rochester's Big Three" were always Kodak, Xerox, and B&L, even after Xerox moved its HQ to Connecticut. And countless sources talk about Wegmans when writing about Rochester, and Rochester is almost always listed as Wegmans' HQ location, and yet you look at a map and say "Well, they're wrong." Powers T 23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know what the problem is about Xerox, and B&L. I said they should be included in the article. I didn't say anything about Kodak but it should obviously be there too. Regarding Wegmans, here's the deal. According to the Wegmans FAQ, the HQ is at 1500 Brooks Ave. with a Rochester post office. This, as we all know, tells us nothing definitive about what community the headquarters is in. So I looked up the address in the Monroe County Real Property Data, and found that the address is in Gates. I consider this definitive but it takes a couple of steps to get there. Here's a secondary source, though, that says the HQ is in Gates. So saying that the Wegmans HQ is in Rochester would mislead readers, such as myself when I started reading the article. --Beirne (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- To answer the original question - no, articles on cities are bound like other articles to WP:TOPIC. Slopping over city boundaries distracts from the Metro article which is better scoped to handle such material. It also places material in two (or more) places, all of which require updating and maintenance. There is no need to create problems for other editors later. One place is enough for most items. Water systems (for example) may have to be included in both articles because it is the same system. So there are logical exceptions because they cannot be avoided.
-
-
-
- My classic example for this was Hoboken which was (at one time anyway) claiming LaGuardia as a "local airport", in another state, another city and a long time away during rush hour.
-
-
-
- As far as including DC in the 9/11 attacks, this only makes sense because DC itself was threatened (the White House). And perhaps involved in treating the injured. Otherwise it would not be well placed. Note that having this in three local articles, all requiring maintenance, is nuisance enough: the Pentagon, Arlington and the Metro area. Student7 (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Hoboken, sure. But surely you wouldn't advocate removing all mention of Newark Liberty from the New York City article, would you? And I strongly challenge your assertion about the Metro article, which has a scope far, far larger than that of the city. The two are not comparable alternatives to each other. Powers T 12:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is common practice to list the airports that serve a major city, so it is reasonable to list Newark Liberty in the NYC article. Regarding the Metro article, if you put metro Rochester content in the Rochester article, you leave the city of Rochester with no article of its own. If you put it in the bigger Metro Rochester article, you have added content that easily fits in with no confusion. If you feel that the Metro article covers too much ground, add the content to the Monroe County article. That will include a lot of metro Rochester, such as Henrietta, Gates, and Pittsford. Or if you can find a valid smaller definition of metro Rochester than create a new article. So far, though, I haven't heard of one that is defined by a valid secondary source. Instead the Rochester article was inflated with content from an undefined notion of what is Greater Rochester. --Beirne (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not inflated; it's following the sources. Powers T 16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- What sources? I showed via solid sources that RIT is in Henrietta and Wegman's HQ is in Gates, which we both know are correct. There is no reason to favor sources that say they are in Rochester when we know they aren't. --Beirne (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Specifics should be kept to the article's talk page, where I've given many in the past. Powers T 16:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, we can continue the discussion here. The question is the which type of source is more important, one that is correct or one that supports one's point. If it can be proven via valid sources that something is not in the city, they why consider ones that say it is? --Beirne (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- See, that's why I really don't think you get my point. As I've explained repeatedly, I'm not interested in trying to say "Wegmans is headquartered in the city of Rochester." I don't believe it, I'm not trying to find sources that say that, and I don't think such sources exist. You're continuing to argue against a position I don't take. Powers T 19:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, we can continue the discussion here. The question is the which type of source is more important, one that is correct or one that supports one's point. If it can be proven via valid sources that something is not in the city, they why consider ones that say it is? --Beirne (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Specifics should be kept to the article's talk page, where I've given many in the past. Powers T 16:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- What sources? I showed via solid sources that RIT is in Henrietta and Wegman's HQ is in Gates, which we both know are correct. There is no reason to favor sources that say they are in Rochester when we know they aren't. --Beirne (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's not inflated; it's following the sources. Powers T 16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is common practice to list the airports that serve a major city, so it is reasonable to list Newark Liberty in the NYC article. Regarding the Metro article, if you put metro Rochester content in the Rochester article, you leave the city of Rochester with no article of its own. If you put it in the bigger Metro Rochester article, you have added content that easily fits in with no confusion. If you feel that the Metro article covers too much ground, add the content to the Monroe County article. That will include a lot of metro Rochester, such as Henrietta, Gates, and Pittsford. Or if you can find a valid smaller definition of metro Rochester than create a new article. So far, though, I haven't heard of one that is defined by a valid secondary source. Instead the Rochester article was inflated with content from an undefined notion of what is Greater Rochester. --Beirne (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Hoboken, sure. But surely you wouldn't advocate removing all mention of Newark Liberty from the New York City article, would you? And I strongly challenge your assertion about the Metro article, which has a scope far, far larger than that of the city. The two are not comparable alternatives to each other. Powers T 12:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
-
-
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
OK, what do you want to say about Wegmans in the Rochester article? With the HQ in Gates and one store in the city, there does not seem to be much of a relationship between Wegmans and the city. --Beirne (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
-
- One of the problems with this discussion is that some editors apparently believe that place articles differ from other articles. They do not. There is potential overlap between "mathematics" and "geometry." "Philosophy" and "Religion." "Physics" and "Electricity." One of the guiding precepts in all these articles is not to include stuff that is definitely going to be, and therefore maintained, in another article. A pointer/link to the other article will do nicely. "Centerville is a city in Indiana. It is part of the[[Centeville metropolitan statistical area]]. No different than any other topic. These discussions seem to pretend that there is horrible confusion that cannot be resolved without needlessly duplicating information that belongs in a parent (metro) article. I don't see the problem here.
-
- Bayonne is a part of the NYC metro area. There is no one wringing their hands over Bayonne because it has a different name than its metro. What is in Bayonne stays in Bayonne! There is no requirement to claim attributes outside city boundaries, nor is there any advantage. Who cares? So what? If the reader cares, let them go to the higher level article, as they would in "Mathematics" from "Geometry." No need to duplicate both articles in both articles. See WP:TOPIC. Student7 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] City Seals
At both of the recent FAC reviews for the current city articles, Kent, Ohio and Stephens City, Virginia the issue of the use of city seals has been brought up. Both times concern has been expressed that if the seal is copyrighted, it does not meet WP:NFCC. Obviously having the seal is not required for a city article, but it seems like making a consistent policy would be in order (like either they are a necessary part ot not) since it will come up at FAC. My personal opinion is that since a city seal is usually quite visible on various signs, buildings, and other items in a given city, having it in the article could be defended with a rationale as an element of the city rather than simply as decorating the infobox. Of course many seals aren't copyrighted, but still. What do others think?
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephens City, Virginia/archive1
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kent, Ohio/archive1
--JonRidinger (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Comment: what is a city proper
There is a new RFC at Talk:List of cities proper by population#Guiding principles for List of cities proper by population about how to define what a city proper is. While it may seem straightforward for some countries such as the U.S., this question is not so easy to answer for other countries, e.g. China. Any comments would help make our city lists more internally consistent. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 19:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Small correction. This RFC does not ask for a new definition of city proper. There are various. It asks which definition to use consistently for the purpose of List of cities proper by population. -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Jamestown and Santa Fe are missing.
I am the 10th great grandson of Sir George Yeardley who was was on the second fleet of supply ships into the Jamestown Virginia area in 1609 and Governor of Virginia in 1618 and 1626 (attributed with forming the very first representative form of government in America. I now live in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Both Jamestown, Virginia and Santa Fe, New Mexico were founded in 1607-1610 depending upon accounts...years before the Mayflower. Santa Fe's history actually goes back to the 1500s. They (Jamestown and Santa Fe) have both been continuously inhabited since that time but are missing from this article. Please add them to the New World list as they actually are the second/third oldest town in the U.S.
71.213.154.16 (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC) Ken Dutton (Yeardley) Santa Fe, New Mexico
[edit] Featured Picture of Melbourne needing home
File:Yarra Night Panorama, Melbourne - Feb 2005.jpg. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Turpan/Turfan
There is a naming disagreement at Talk:Turfan#Naming. If anyone is interested in offering suggestions you are free to comment. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Bronx/The Bronx
This project has its banner on this article, so I wanted to point out that a discussion is ongoing about opening an RfC to determine whether the article should be at Bronx or The Bronx. [1] Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
- The RfC has now been opened at Talk:Bronx#Request for Comments on renaming "(The) Bronx" (September 2010). —— Shakescene (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Bratislava FAR initiated
I have nominated Bratislava 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. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Include the name of towns' or cities' inhabitants
I am a newcomer, so please excuse me if I miss the point. I think it would be interesting to add an item in all web pages about cities, towns (or even greater areas, as counties, regions or countries) stating how their inhabitants are called (gentile names and adjectives). In many cases it might be obvious, but there are many others which do not follow the expected rules. Thanks.Rafel-go (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
- I don't quite understand the question. Are you asking us to say that people from Milan are called "Milanese," maybe? Or "Italians?" Or do you mean that some of the inhabitants are Arabic or Gypsies? Student7 (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
-
- I think the question is about demonyms such as Parisian, Londoner, New Yorker, Bostonian, Berliner, Muscovite [Los] Angeleno, Liverpudlian, Mancunian, Glaswegian, Scouse, Cairene, Madrileño, Carioca or Porteño. If you look at Template:Infobox settlement, there are in fact two lines near the bottom to give just that information.
-
-
population_demonym = population_note =
-
-
- What I think is needed is more encouragement for those working on such articles to fill the "demonym" line. (A good start might be to replace a handy but obscure linguistic term of art like "demonym", which many editors may not understand. And looking up demonym, I learn the specialised word "gentilic", apparently a synonym of "demonym".)—— Shakescene (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- Demonym should be kept. I don't think people would understand the word "gentilic" any more than demonym. Best, epicAdam(talk) 13:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that demonym is preferable to gentilic (at least it can't be confused with half a dozen other meanings.) But it's still obscure jargon. The problem is how to express that idea in a very few words. ("What the inhabitants are called"; "name of the inhabitants"). —— Shakescene (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- Demonym should be kept. I don't think people would understand the word "gentilic" any more than demonym. Best, epicAdam(talk) 13:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
-
[edit] Town Common
There are other Town Commons in Rhode Island. There is one located in North Smithfield and Bristol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.110.206.64 (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] FAR notice Ahmedabad
I have nominated Ahmedabad 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
[edit] oldest European city
Reggia calabria and Cumais cannot be the the first European cities. The world didn't start and stop with the Greeks. The Etruscans, Ligurians and the Canaanites(Phoenicians) had established cities well before them. What about Spain and Portugal? Couldn't they have had a "European" city earlier than this? I recently read an article on Wikipedia that claimed the Chaldeans with others founded the first European city, albeit at the current location of Reggia Calabria. When I clicked on this no mention was made of this Chaldean voyage. It was all about the Greeks. Sheesh! Magnificat71 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject San Diego
I have formed a new WikiProject to organize San Diego. If anybody interested, please add your name on the participants. If have have questions about it, please feel free to add comments. JJ98 (Talk) 21:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Jerusalem
There is currently a discussion taking place at Talk:Jerusalem over how the article should word certain issues. Some editors want the word "proclaimed" to be added to the first sentence of the article to describe it as the "proclaimed capital" of Israel as the international community does not recognise it as the capital of Israel, others disagree and think the status quo which has existed for about 3 years should remain (something that has been debated many times over the years but retained), and several compromises have also been suggested. The issue has now also spread to other matters, with some editors wanting it to say "proclaimed flag", "proclaimed mayor" , "proclaimed coat of arms" etc, to also highlight the fact the international community does not recognise the status of Jerusalem. This matter could have implications for other articles if changes are made and a similar pattern followed. So input from other editors would be helpful. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Notable People sections
I've requested feedback on some changes to the Notable people section guide on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Notable people sections. ThanksDkriegls (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Reference requested: New Market, IA
I'd like to see a reference for the following sentence in the article on New Market, Iowa, but I can't find the original author's name.
According to a 2005 US News & World Report article, New Market is a de facto as well as a de jure "sundown town" meaning that African-Americans are banned from living within New Market city limits by local ordinance.
