Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
  1. September 2002
  2. November 2004 (partial)
  3. April 2005 (partial)
  4. June 2006 (partial)
  5. December 2006
  6. February 2007
  7. July 2007
  8. December 2007

Contents


[edit] "Born in" should be cited . . .

Although I'm not fond of "Prominent Native" sections for city pages, at the very least each notation should bear a source. I went through the list for Inglewood, California [[1]], adding sources for the natives where I could find them and just deleting the names that couldn't be sourced. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Its really prevalent in smaller cities, where there are typically laundry lists of C-list celebrities and athletes with unreferenced ties. Is it really important for those researching Binghamton, New York to know that Ota Ulč may live there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccwaters (talk • contribs) 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

athinaios and I are having a discussion about the use of pronunciation in Brussels. We are not reaching an agreement, and I was about to take our discussion to the talkpage of Brussels, but felt that it is relevant enough for a wider Project discussion. There is a guideline - Help:Pronunciation that pronunciation on Wiki should be in IPA. However, I can see the usefulness of having the local pronunciation for articles on cities. asthinaios and I are not in disagreement on that issue, however asthinaios feels that there should be a pronunciation for each official language in Belgium because Brussels is the capital city. My view is that German is not the official language of Brussels and would not be heard in Brussels any more than in any other non-German European city. There is an argument that we are not WikiTravel and all pronunciation should be in IPA, however the German article is a FA and has both German and IPA pronunciation. I feel where it makes sense it's fine, though where it doesn't we wouldn't be pushing too hard against Wiki convention. Is there something we could write up to put in the guideline on the use of names in different languages and pronunciation in city articles? Something like: Names of the city should be given in each of the city's official languages. Pronunciation of the city name should be in IPA as per Help:Pronunciation, though can also be in the main local language(s) if thought helpful. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to stress that this thread appears to be a misunderstanding. Brüssel is not a variant local pronunciation of Brussels, but its actual name in German, one of the three official languages of Belgium, of which Brussels is still the capital. All three official Belgian names of the city have been in the article since January, 2003. Whether we remove the pronunciations is one issue, but this really seems to be about removing the name as a whole. If anywhere, this thread should be on the Brussels talkpage, in my opinion. athinaios | Talk 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I've put a note on the Brussels talkpage linking to here. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Comments

Hi I`m currently working into expand Panama City, I would ask everybody as a favor, please see Panama City, Panama page, and leave any comment or suggestion about how to improve it in the Talk page. If posible it would be nice if someone make a To Do List as a guideline. Thanks. Nando Cdl (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 250th anniversary of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

2008 marks the 250th year of the city of Pittsburgh. I was thinking that it would be really nice to get the city's wikipedia article up to Featured Article status; it's currently a B-class article, having never even been a GA or FA, or even nominated for peer review.

Anyone willing to help with this? Please leave comments over at Talk:Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] userbox

Are there any userboxes for users who are participants in this project
anyway , if there arent here's a proposition

This user is a member of WikiProject Cities
This user is a member of WikiProject Cities




--Bindicapriqi (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potential adjustments to the project banner

Would the members of this project object to having the project banner equipped with additional functions which would allow your banner to assess for the various extant geography (national, regional, etc.) WikiProjects and subprojects as well? I believe that this project probably has more information available on how to construct city articles than most national projects do, and combining the banners would help to reduce the banner oversaturation problem as well. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tel Aviv

Just to let you know that Tel Aviv, a current FAC currently has a copyedit request. If you are able, please contrinute atWikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The reviewers of the article want another copyedit so if anyone could help, itd be much appreciated. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Templates with red links/2008-Jan-Cities

Hi, I think this belongs to you. Please note that I am continuing to collect and add relevant templates to the page. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notes, Footnotes, References

At Nyttend's suggestion I have placed remarks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Guideline#Notes, Footnotes, References about following the Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout headings suggestions and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Section headings guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glenrio

Glenrio is a community in the southwestern United States (acknowledged by the USGS to be in both New Mexico and Texas), but it doesn't have a state name attached as is required for US communities. There's been a lowlevel discussion on this community for the past several weeks, and we're not entirely sure what to do with it — it's obviously not a significant and well-known community like Philadelphia, New York City, and Chicago that don't have state names attached. What's the proper state name to attach to an unincorporated community in two states? Or should Glenrio be made an exception because of its peculiar situation? Nyttend (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How about titling it "Glenrio, Texas/New Mexico"? Does that violate any policy? -- Orlady (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's supposed to have one state name attached; but the current format violates it as well. Therefore, we have to make an exception to some sort of policy :-)
Well, that's an interesting one. I see three possibilities:
  1. Leave it at Glenrio. While fairly well-established, the US city naming in WP:NC:CITY is not beyond WP:IAR when there is good reason to do so.
  2. Use Glenrio, New Mexico since that is the name of the post office. However, Glenrio, NM, maps to zip code 88434 -- although the USPS indicates Glenrio is an acceptable name while the actual name is San Jon, NM. The zip code on the Texas side appears to be 790XX, although I'm not sure what the XX means.
  3. Use Glenrio, Texas, it looks like most of whatever is left of the place is on the Texas side of the border.
At the moment, I think I'm inclined to the first option. older ≠ wiser 01:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I really don't like the idea of not having a state name, but all other options discussed seem worse. Perhaps Glenrio, United States? It's not well known enough to stand by its own in the way that the other three cities do. Hopefully we'll get more of you WP:CITY members to comment on this Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Urrgh, Glenrio, US, would be awful. There's nothing binding about WP:NC:CITY on unincorporated communities in any case, it is simply convention, and in some cases there is value to being unconventional. older ≠ wiser 02:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I also disagree with the 'Glenrio, US' idea. What about Glenrio (New Mexico, Texas)? Dr. Cash (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you do have a good point, since no other communities nationwide (AFAIK) do that. Communities also use the "COMMUNITYNAME, STATENAME" format, so the parentheses wouldn't be as good as a standard format name. If we use both names, we'd do better to use a comma like with municipalities. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Apparently I'm not the first one to think of "PLACENAME, United States": Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) notes 'A United States city's article should never be titled simply "city, country" (e.g "Detroit, United States").' Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
And by the way, with the ZIP code: ZIP codes come in a three-layer format — the first number being a region of the country, the second and third being a subregion, and the fourth and fifth being specific post offices within the subregion. Therefore, if there's a ZIP 79001, it's post office #1 in subregion #90 of region #7. Nyttend (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand somewhat about what ZIP codes mean. I just wasn't sure what the Census Bureau meant by listing the ZCTA as 790XX. From the Census Bureau mapping there isn't any more specific code available than that for the area including Glenrio. older ≠ wiser 13:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
When the Census Bureau lumps several areas together into a single statistical unit, it usually means there aren't enough people in the smaller area to report statistics on them without violating the confidentiality of the census forms. --Orlady (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
As awkward as Dr. Cash's idea sounds (Glenrio, New Mexico, Texas), I think I like it. It is unique. A google hit with either state will bring it up. Still have some template problems about where to include it. I assume both states (or maybe that's already been resolved). Student7 (talk) 15:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
What about Glenrio, New Mexico and Texas? We don't use parentheses for unincorporated communities, and if we list as Glenrio, New Mexico, Texas, it makes it look like it's a neighborhood of a Texas community named New Mexico. This way, we could get both names in without any confusion. And don't worry about the template problems; if we're having a single article under a single title for both states, it should be listed on both templates. Nyttend (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured picture candidate

The Prinsengracht in Amsterdam by night
The Prinsengracht in Amsterdam by night

I have nominated a picture of the Prinsengracht in city center of Amsterdam as a featured picture candidate. If you agree that this picture is among the best pictures on Wikipedia, please support the nomination on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Prinsengracht by night. Thank you for your help. – Ilse@ 11:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UK vs US standards for outline

I assume that when neither country is involved, whoever gets there first uses their countries standards? I'm editing a city in the old USSR. It currently has UK-like features and nomenclature. I don't think there's been any spelling mishaps (!) but the real problem is structure and nomenclature which seems very very British. "Motorways," "Civil society," "Sport" (instead of Athletics), etc. Since they were there first, this prevails, right? One problem here is that cities within a country will not have the same structure at all since the structural differences (which I just messed up!) are substantial. I imagine this has been discussed before. Student7 (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Try changing it to the English style you prefer. If nobody complains, then you're good. Only if there is a dispute do we fall back to that "policy" of defering to the original style. Yes, this policy would sometimes result in variations within a non-English speaking country, but in the end that is better than some non-productive dispute about whether to use US- or UK- English. --Polaron | Talk 14:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
US vs. UK English is really just a matter of semantics, and officially, the manual of style has no preference here. Articles on more US-based topics should use the US-based English, and UK-based topics should use the UK English. Editors are discouraged from making major changes strictly favoring one usage over the other. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
  • If the article quality is high enough to debate the different versions of Engish, I'm impressed. Alan.ca (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public domain text style again

The walling off of public domain text as quotations is again being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Return of PD text style. Forcing public domain text to be wrapped inside quotations would affect many city/town articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh? You're going around to how many wikiprojects, to try to raise an alarm not well-related to the discussion you raised about Bathhouse Row. By the way, Bathhouse Row is a very nice set of historic buildings in Hot Springs, Arkansas, that is a National Historic Landmark of the united states. doncram (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Two wikiprojects, as I mentioned in that discussion, due to city/town articles having sections (or being since creation wholly composed) from Census and other government descriptions, and many ship descriptions coming from public domain sources. They're quite susceptible to a requirement of locking PD text inside quotation marks. -- SEWilco (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you point to a specific city/town article, or two, which includes public domain text, and which has (or for which you could provide) a link to the specific public domain source of that text? That would help focus the discussion here. If you're talking about very generic short descriptions of places edited by anonymous Census department staff, then I think the correct treatment would be different than for long quotations written by Harrison, that are copied into the Bathhouse Row article. For other readers, Bathhouse Row is a set of buildings that a woman named Harrison nominated for U.S. National Historic Landmark designation. I think it would be more productive if we could talk about the issues you see with the use of public domain text in City/Town articles here, and talk about the Bathhouse Row article in the discussion section you opened about it over there. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The first two towns I clicked on are Bartlett, Illinois and Ephrata, Pennsylvania. I suspect the Geography and Demographics sections are from Rambot; you'll have to ask him what his sources were and what other parts of articles were created from PD text. You might want to ask others before asking him to rerun the bot to wrap things in quotation marks. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither of those articles mention use of a public domain source for text in the article. Can you provide a link to the specific PD text that you think was copied into either of these articles? And if you are telling me that there is PD material copied into these articles, which is not attributed, then i would indeed have the opinion that the articles would be improved by at least mentioning the source. Don't you agree? Or, do you think there are other issues with these articles? Also, it would help the discussion if you would clarify whether you have an issue with these articles' use of PD text, or if you project that someone else does, or what. I think it would help if you would own up to your own complaints, if you have them. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant entries for city's website and coordinates

As this project would be involved, I wanted to place a notice here that a question was posted at WP:External links about the listing of a city's official website in multiple places in an article, as well as multiple listings of the coordinates. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to the EL question over there. As far as the coords, it helps to have them in multiple places: at the top so we can easily find them when accessing the article; in the infobox because it's a summary; in the geography section because they're geography; and in the ELs because they're external links. This already came up some time ago in discussion about {{Geolinks-US-cityscale}}. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with having this information in multiple places in the article, as a little bit of redundancy is good. But I'm not crazy with what the template puts in the external links section (e.g. "City is at coordinates lat/long"). This looks rather boring and trivial, and doesn't really stick to the 'external links' thing very well. The template used to actually have more details about what site (google maps) that was being linked to here, which was better. But this new template design really sucks, IMHO. Other than that, I have no problem with the other redundancies. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, it's not my favorite either, but they've done so much battling about it that bringing it up again would likely be pointless. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] City v. Town

I know this is a perennial debate, but, other than using the undefined and apparently random decision of the US Census to call a place a town or a city, is there any standard wikipedia policy on this matter? From reading in the archives, it looks like a lot of, at least, the articles about cities and towns were created by 'bot, which just went mindlessly (as robots do) with whatever the census said. Pilch62 (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. Yet another case where the Census Bureau classification does not accord with local statutes. For those interested, this concerns Pocomoke City, Maryland. This looks to be similar to the situation with California, where municipalities can style themselves as either cities or towns, but that styling is without any express distinction under state laws. See Article 23A Section 10 of the Maryland Code [2] older ≠ wiser 12:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe there is a policy or even an established guideline on this. However, in the absence of any other information, articles for U.S. incorporated places do generally use what the Census Bureau uses. That said, if there is information from state law or from the city/town/village charter, I think that should override the Census designation if they differ. If state law does not make a distinction as it appears to be in this case, I say go with what the place calls itself. --Polaron | Talk 12:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This official state list of municipalities refers to it as a city, aside from the Census listing it so. Nyttend (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Pocomoke City's formal NAME is Pocomoke City. Similarly, there is an abandoned town in Accomack County, Virginia that is officially called "Franklin CIty". That doesn't make it a city, either--it's still a few run-down buildings at the end of a landing. Googling "Pocomoke City" and town results in multiple references among state court records and state and local newspapers to the place as a "town". Pilch62 (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
PS: THe Maryland Manual also refers to Ocean City, MD, which is defined by the Census as a "town", as a "city". If we're going to use the Maryland Manual as a source, then we'll have to change Ocean City, too. The point is that the Maryland Manuel refers to each municipality by what it calls itself, which is not necessarily what it is. Frankly, I think the simplest solution would be to call all incorporated entities in Md. (that aren't counties) "municipalities", since that's what, under state law, they are. Pilch62 (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously we can't search for "Pocomoke City" and city, since that's the same as searching for "Pocomoke City" by itself. Googling local references, on the other hand, isn't necessarily what we want: in a couple of minutes, I found lots of references (here are three [3] [4] [5]) that speak of Dexter City (population 166, surely a village) as a town, even though there aren't any towns in Ohio. The way locals and even simple officials speak of places isn't the way to do it. See Gallipolis, Ohio, pop. 4180, for a further example: the municipal website calls it a city, and the Census Bureau calls it a city, but the state law is obvious that it's a village. Yes, there is precedent for overturning the Census statistics when they're plainly wrong, such as with Gallipolis, but since Maryland doesn't make a distinction of this sort, I don't see how we can have a source more authoritative than the Census Bureau. What is your official source, by the way, for wanting to call it a town? Nyttend (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
How is Ohio relevant to Maryland? And your implication that wikipedia MUST use the Census is entirely wrong--please show where on wikipedia it requires a municipality must be described by what the Census calls it? As for a source, please search "pocomoke city" and "town" in the Maryland Archives--you will find many references to the "Town of Pocomoke City". What I find most perplexing is your insistence that we MUST call this municipality a city, based solely on the Census, without ANY wikipedia policy or rule to back you up, and incontravention of both state and local use. Pilch62 (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if you'd stop SHOUTING here. My point about Dexter City is that (1) the Census Bureau doesn't always call a municipality something because it's in the name, and (2) that people often call it something other than what it really is: if people can call Dexter City a town when it's a village, surely people could call Pocomoke City a town when it's a city — but that doesn't change what it really is. As far as Gallipolis: in this case, as in the case of cities such as Agawam and Amesbury in Massachusetts, the Census Bureau made an error, and this has been corrected — with an official reference that demonstrates the Bureau's error. I'm not saying that Ohio (or Massachusetts) has the same local government structure as does Maryland: it's simply that people don't always call a municipality what it is, and that therefore we must depend on official sources. The guidelines (see below) say that Census data should be the basis for demographic data, and the data are measured for the city of Pocomoke City, not the town of Pocomoke City. If we grant that PC is a town, either (1) we have an internal inconsistency, with the article referring to PC as a town and the demographics as a city, or (2) we're violating what we're supposed to do, since the data are for a city. Therefore, the only way to follow the guidelines properly is to list it as a city unless we have overwhelming reasons to do otherwise. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I would have appreciated if you had chosen to discuss the issue instead of simply reverting--it's obvious that you are the only person here who has this implicit belief that cities and towns should be defined by what the Census says, and it would nice if you'd acknowledge that. And you show no guidelines in this post, nor have you yet to show any citation (other than your own belief) that there must be some "error" on the part of the Census before a designation other than theirs is used. In any case, "demographic data" has nothing to do with what wikipedia decides to call cities or towns--demographic data is just that, data about the demography of an place, and has nothing to do with nomenclature regarding that place. Again, please provide citations for your points regarding wikipedia policy: you have yet to do so, and it's becoming more difficult to believe that you're arguing in good faith without them. Pilch62 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You also fail to provide any rationale for the distinction the Census mkes between a city or a town, while presuming that that distinction is somehow significant to the data the Census presents. If the Census doesn't define the difference between a town and a city (which it doesn't), please explain why the Census choice between calling a place a city or a town is in any way definitive for wikipedia (or anyone, for that matter). Pilch62 (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
How can I provide a rationale? I'm not the Census Bureau. Moreover, the demographics section includes bits such as "residing in the city" and "household in the city" — that's what I mean. Furthermore, I have never seen an official and reliable source that refers to the place as a town, while I have this reliable source, the Census Bureau, that says it's a city. Just because the judge that you note is a reliable source on some things doesn't mean that s/he is on this. Is Bill Clinton a reliable source on the intricacies of heart surgery, or is George Bush a reliable source on Tibetan languages? Neither your judge nor my farm near Dexter City is a reliable source on what kind of municipality PM is. On the other hand, the entire point of the Census Bureau is to provide a reliable source for the population and society of our nation; unless you're calling its reliability into question, I don't see why you continue to prefer else (which specific source you've never cited) to the Census Bureau.
Please note that the Census Bureau performs a Census of Governments every five years; the most recent one that's online seems to have been 2002. Obviously, errors can be and are made (Gallipolis was still listed as a city in 2002), but the Census Bureau surveys (or attempts to, if the local government doesn't fill out its survey) every local government nationwide, and I would guess that it asks the locals to tell them what kind of municipality they are. If the Census is dependable enough for the organisation of our Congress to depend on it, and if Wikipedia finds it dependable enough that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline says that demographic numbers in all US municipality articles are supposed to be solely from US Census data, I don't see why we should attempt to override the Census in this way without a specific, proven example of how the Census Bureau made an error. I have no absolute policy statement that we have to use the Census in this way, but from "good and necessary consequence" I believe that it logically follows that we should follow the Census in this way too. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
So you've refused to look at the Maryland Archives via the link I provided directly above?? Or are you saying that Maryland legislative and court records are not official and reliable?? You're certainly lying when you say I've never provided a source--it's directly above. Again, I have to question your good faith in continuing to make this argument if you don't even bother to look at the official sources I've provided. There is NOTHING reliable about the Census designation of town vs. county--ít's merely what some nameless bureaucrat at the Census decided to label it, and the fact that neither you nor the census provides a rationale for the distinction makes your reliance on it laughable. I DO think that the Maryland Assembly and the Maryland judiciary do know just a bit more about the appropriate designation for municipalities in their own state than ANYONE at the Census. And in any case you have ALSO failed (yet again) to provide ANY source for your continued assertion that wikipedia requires the use of the Census designation. That pretty much ends this discussion. Pilch62 (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
By the way, please note that the Census Bureau performs a Census of Governments every five years. In 2000, the most recent Census of Governments was 1997. Obviously, errors can be and are made (Gallipolis was still listed as a city in 2002), but the Census Bureau surveys (or attempts to, if the local government doesn't fill out its survey) every local government nationwide. If it's dependable enough for the organisation of our Congress to depend on it, and if Wikipedia finds it dependable enough that the demographic numbers in all US municipality articles are supposed to be solely from US Census data, I don't see why we should attempt to override the Census in this way without a specific, proven example of how the Census Bureau made an error. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Discussions like this often hinge on whether (and where) to use the technical rather than the practical or vernacular meaning of certain terms. Some users apply the terms "town" and "city" quite strictly according to statistical classifications while others use the words more as descriptions to convey a sense of the nature of the settlement. Each has merit, and many sources do both. For instance, the Maryland Municipal League (an association of cities and towns controlled and maintained by city and town governments) uses the name "Pocomoke City" while also repeatedly calling it a town: The town was incorporated..., the town offers stores and services along Route 13..., the town is the business center for the surrounding area..., etc.[6] Determining which of these approaches is the clearest, most accurate and most suitable for Wikipedia I guess is the question.
BTW, semi-related posts regarding towns and cities appear in discussions at the U.S. Counties WikiProject. Huwmanbeing ☀★ 16:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. What I find of concern is robotically referring to the US Census to distinguish between the two, when the Census itself doesn't have a definition (technical or otherwise) for either term. Also, it doesn't do wikipedia any good in terms of its reputation for reliability if articles on general subjects use terms in a contrary fashion to the way those terms are used in the "real world". Rather than trying to jam the round peg into the square hole, a more subtle, case-by-case approach seems to be called for. Pilch62 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The U.S. Census does have standards it follows when determining how to classify a populated place, as described in FIPS 55.3; they aren't assigned arbitrarily. Nyttend is correct to assert the importance of census data, since it's a significant part of a great many articles and is a widely-used and reputable source.
It's true that technical Census terminology in WP has sometimes been simplified or its categories combined for the sake of accessibility; however, barring a strong rationale for doing so (or clear evidence of error), it's reasonable to follow the Census. Also, I do tend to agree that, when in doubt, articles should give preference to the "real world" nature of the place, largely because doing so conveys a more accurate description of the subject. In this case, though, the stuff I've seen isn't consistent in terms of "city" versus "town", and both terms appear. The archives link you posted seems to be a portal, and searches on "Pocomoke" return a great number of results. Which documents in particular are you looking at? Huwmanbeing ☀★ 17:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't see on that page of the Census site where any definition or description of a distinction between town and city is made--I searched. If you can point to a numbered paragraph where that exists, I'd appreciate it. And I am not at all suggesting that Census terminology shouldn't be used--I have no problem at all with CDPs, for example (which some people appear to). But one can point to objective criteria that the Census uses to define them--I have yet to see or be shown any objective (or subjective! ;) Census criteria for calling a place a town or a city, and don't believe there are any. Are far as the Maryland Archives, a search of the two search items "Pocomoke City" (in quotes) and "town" will reveal many instances of Maryland legislation referring to "Town of Pocomoke City". Pilch62 (talk) 18:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
There is only one instance of "Town of Pocomoke City" (dated 1929) but there is also one instance of "City of Pocomoke City" (dated 1953), so that doesn't help. What does the charter of Pocomoke City call itself? Also, regarding the Census municipality classifications, as Nyttend mentioned above, the Census Bureau does a survey of municipal governments, basically asking them what they are. The Census generally uses the classification that is listed by whoever in the municipal office is responsible for filling out the census forms. --Polaron | Talk 18:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, I just searched *only* for "town of pocomoke city" and came up with 66 instances, into the 1960s--I didn't scroll through the list further. That doesn't even include references to, e.g., "said town" referring back to a reference to "Pocomoke City", which my other search revealed. Here's the link--sorry I didn't provide this earlier, but I didn't think anyone would have trouble duplicating my results. I also did the same search, using "city of pocomoke city", which brings up 6 results. And I'm really not sure that using what one clerk in any city or town government had to say on one particular day about what the city or town is legally called (or even what it's called locally) is probative at all--I've talked to lots of those clerks, and they're not any more trained to make that kind of distinction than US Census officials. Likewise, the kind of civic boosterism on the part of a town clerk is likely to result in lots of places with "City" in their name being called a city, whether that's accurate or not. Again, it seems to me WP should be hewing either to some kind of objective criteria (as for CDPs, or incorporated entities), or at least some kind of legal status, rather than what some guy at the Census happened to say (or hear) on a particular day. If the Census HAD objective criteria for a city/town distinction, which they're certainly capable of creating, since they've done it for so many other things, I'd shut up. But they haven't . .. . Pilch62 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand what the Census does. It simply uses the term that the municipal government tells them. In that sense, it's not really the Census Bureau doing the classification. Now regarding the search results of "town of" versus "city of", the latest "town" result is for 1963 (one instance) with several instances of 1953. The earliest instance of "city" is 1943 with some results for 1990. Could it be that Pocomoke City changed what it calls itself sometime between 1943 and 1963? Again, what does the charter of Pocomoke City call itself? Could you contact several officials of Pocomoke City to ask what their legal municipality type is? You could just use "municipality" and get away from this problem as state law makes no distinction anyway. --Polaron | Talk 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Not at all--I understand that that's exactly what the Census does. But I wouldn't trust a town clerk to provide me with accurate legal information about what kind of entity a municipality is any more than it seems to me a Census official should trust one (and I know some town attorneys I wouldn't trust to know the correct answer, either  ;). As for the reference to "City of Pocomoke City" in 1990, it is not in the legislation itself, but rather in the headnote provided by the publisher. And in Maryland, as you point out, it doesn't matter whether a municipality calls itself a town or a city--they are all, by definition, municipalites--so there could be no "legal" change from town to city. As I said elsewhere in this voluminous debate ;), I would have no objection to changing all the references to Md. cities & towns to municipalities, but that's not how WP has been arranged (at least at this point). But, if I were going to sue Pocomoke City, and had to choose accurately whether to sue "Town of Pocomoke City" or "City of Pocomoke City", I'd go with "Town", and wouldn't feel it necessary to alert my malpractice insurer, either.  ;) Another example: one can do the same two searches in the Maryland Archives regarding Ocean City, MD, whose legal name most certainly is "Town of Ocean City, Maryland" (I know this from personal experience), and one comes up with over 100 refs to "Town of" and a dozen to "City of". Of course, Ocean City has been involved in more litigation and legislation than Pocomoke . . . Pilch62 (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] It's obvious that I am not the only person here who has this implicit belief that cities and towns should be defined by what the Census says. If we doubt the Census Bureau (on which vast numbers of aspects of American society, including the government, rest!) on the type of municipality, why should we trust them on population? I'd trust the municipal official, a professional, to be more accurate than average people, but the guidelines (linked twice above) say that we should trust the demographics that consist simply of responses by individuals, households, and families. Obviously, the state data are inconsistent: of course state law is a reliable source, generally more reliable than the Census, but if we can't determine from the state law, why shouldn't the PC article trust the source that over 99% of municipality articles trust without question? Nyttend (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No one doubts the demographic data per se, which is what the main job of the Census Bureau is. However, the place type itself is something else altogether. One can trust demographic information without having to trust legal municipal classifications. The Census does get its place types mixed up sometimes. --Polaron | Talk 20:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Polaron. And to answer Nyttend's questions: we know what MD state law says, therefore it is unnecessary to rely on unreliable info from the Census. And the municpality articles trust without question because they were created with a robot. Robots don't ASK questions. End of debate. Pilch62 (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
But what is the type of place? We don't know from state law what type of municipality it is: it's not like Vermont, where the state constitution lists every municipality. Since the state law doesn't say that the Census is wrong, why do we have to reject the conclusions of the Census? Nyttend (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, this is getting ridiculous--if you can't accept facts, and refuse to document your own points, you oughtn't be an editor on wikipedia. I've proven mine, and I'm not going to continue this pointless discussion to humor your inability to accept facts. Good day. Pilch62 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
is it me, or is this debate turning in a circle? the Census doesn't have the final word on the categorization of state place-names. that's the province of the state. the "type of municipality it is" is a moot point; according to maryland law, it is a municipality. that's what it is! - Metanoid (talk, email) 16:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not you--someone here is arguing for the sake of argument, because he apparently can't admit to being incorrect, which I find annoying after a while. Pilch62 (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Just one comment from an innocent bystander here  :) Since the census is important to the article, I would think that we would try to follow the census. The only time this has almost failed for me (okay Vermont, different rules) I started to follow "local convention." Mercifully, someone stopped me at the critical moment. In retrospect, it would have messed things up royally for all our successors to that article and allied articles, had we tried to follow some seat of the pants "local convention." In lieu of adequate census direction, my thought, probably naive, is to follow state statutes. I realize that may not answer the question for some local case which may have to worked out separately. A "waiver," as it were. ) But sticking with the census will stand us in good stead for the editors who follow our trail. They can't get lost that way and could if we use ambiguous appellations. 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
well, IMO, that doesn't help much. the debate is partly over what counts as "adequate census direction", and if there actually is such a thing. it's the Census that's ambiguous here. and (if you've followed the sources, both here and at the article under contention), you'll see that maryland law, where incorporated locales are concerned, allows only for "municipalities". several other states do likewise. - Metanoid (talk, email) 21:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The Census Bureau has this "requirement" that a municipality be classified as either a city, town, village, or borough, even if the state doesn't. For the article, we don't have to be exclusionary. For example, we can say: "Pocomoke City is a municipality in the U.S. state of Maryland. The U.S. Census Bureau classifies it as a city." --Polaron | Talk 22:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Remember, please, that this whole thing started with a question: is it a city or a town? No source has ever been provided for its status being a town. As far as Metanoid's statement is concerned, also note §9 of the same part of the Maryland Code as Bkonrad noted above: it recognizes the existence of "cities, towns, and villages". As far as Polaron's most recent statement, please remember that consistency requires that a similar entry be given for every municipality in the state: if we have to say this for Pocomoke City, we have to say, "Annapolis is a municipality in the U.S. state of Maryland. The U.S. Census Bureau classifies it as a city." And as far as Pilch's last statement: I've documented my points over and over again, and (unlike his points, which I acknowledge and find to be insufficient) have found that that documentation has been ignored. If my questions are left unanswered — notably, my question for sources for it being a town —, I will press to have them answered. Nyttend (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, just an out and out lie--several sources were provided. Nyttend, if you revert the Worcester County pages again, I will report you for intentional vandalism. Pilch62 (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think that these make sense, since several sources of equal standing were provided that call it a city, and since you don't think that they count as good sources, yours must not either. I've added all the relevant sources (including the Maryland Municipal that is the least authoritative in my mind) to the article. Nyttend (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The Maryland Legislature calls it a town--the fact that you have lied repeatedly saying that no sources were provided to you pretty much makes anything you say irrelevant at this point, since it's obvious you're not acting in good faith. Pilch62 (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Straw Poll on Kosovar City name

I'd like to draw everyone attention to vote here, It is about how the name of the kosovar capital should be like , with s,sh or š --Cradel 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I'd like to remind everyone that an RfC is most definitely not a vote, comment and discussion is indeed welcome. Happy‑melon 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chamber of Commerce Links

It has been suggested that a discussion that started at here and here on the appropriateness of Chamber of Commerce and official tourism external links be continued here. My feeling is that Chamber of Commerce links are boosterish, bordering on advertising and low in encyclopedic content, but are borderline acceptable (http://www.chemungchamber.org/ was the original point of contention). However, official tourism sites (http://www.orlandoinfo.com is an especially egregious example) frequently cross the line into pure advertising with little or no redeeming value, and should be avoided.

Comments, guidelines, advice? TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all C of C sites are equal. I don't think there is any basis to categorically exclude all C of C sites. At the same time, I don't see any reason to give them an automatic pass either. The more egregiously commercial should be omitted. older ≠ wiser 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Category:Deprecated Banner WikiProject Cities articles

The articles that were in the above Category now have the new Banner WPCities. Kathleen.wright5 13:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Templates of city populations

Hello to all. I am interested in joining this WikiProject in order to standardize the templates that shows the top 20 cities of the countries. I have already helped out by making three others (after the original on of Mexico, but they are all beginning to separate from being standardized and a "war" is beginning to be fought over them. I wanted to know if (along with me joining) these templates, and future ones, can be standardized as part of this project. Please tell me what you think, and if this could be possible. — NuclearVacuum 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gangtok in FAR

Gangtok 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. Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is to be included here?

Having many small municipalities included on my watchlist, I have seen an astounding number of municipalities being tagged as part of the Cities Wikiproject, including places with barely hundreds of residents. Is it the intention of this project to tag every single article for every municipality on earth as part of this project? Is there manpower to do all of the tagging and why shouldn't this be done by bot? Is there any expectation that the tens or hundreds of thousands of such articles will be updated in any meaningful manner? Alansohn (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong FAR

Hong Kong 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. --Joowwww (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cities in the USA

Hi,

I noticed that cities in USA, such as Boston, have images of their position in their state. I don't know much of the position of the states in the USA. Shouldn't someone add a image of a city's position in the USA as a whole? That's more friendly to readers such as myself. Thanks Mallerd (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Since the US is so large geographically, I think that the location within the state is a better option. One can easily see where in the state the city is, and if they're interested, they can click on the state link to find out where that state is in the union. Putting a dot on the USA map wouldn't be as accurate as putting a dot on the state map. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is done for Russia, Australia and China. Brazil and Canada don't seem to do this however. Mallerd (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree that a map showing the location in a country is helpful. I rather like the pushpin maps that are on some U.S. places, such as Egelston Township, Michigan, that show both the location within the state and a smaller inset showing the location of the state within the nation. older ≠ wiser 21:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's useful. Mallerd (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review for Meridian, Mississippi

I've just requested a peer review for this article. I've never really commented on this WikiProject, but the page is in it. If anyone would be willing to participate in the review, suggestions would be helpful. I'm trying to get the article to GA or even FA status. Thanks to all! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Traffic density

Question for you folks. Is there a useful standard way to measure the road traffic density in a city, for both local streets and highways? I suppose one could take the population and divide by geographical area as an estimate, but I was thinking there might be a more scientific way of measuring the actual traffic (e.g. provided by municipal surveys). Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Redeveloped harbourfronts

I live in a city where our inner harbour has been remade for recreational use, in the Old Port of Montreal. This redevelopment was in part inspired I think by Baltimore's Inner Harbor. I see that the Auckland waterfront is being redeveloped. And here in Canada, the Harbourfront is a bustling concern, as is HarbourFront in Singapore, False Creek and many others. I'd like to create a category, to group them in a way which is distinct from the categories for parks and places in their respective cities. I'm sure there are many such areas and I've only scratched the surface. Any thoughts on this prospective category and my proposed name? Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that the parent category for this proposed cat, Category:Ports and harbours, uses Commonwealth spelling and I will too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As much as I am leery about terms that begin with "Post-" many of these re-developed harbours are mixed use, with recreational land along the water but also residential and other commercial use (malls, etc.). So would Category:Post-industrial harbourfronts be a better choice than Category:Recreational harborfronts? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm now thinking that Category:Redeveloped harbourfronts is the way to go. "Redeveloped" is broad enough to include all use, and the category page would explain that this is a cat for historic ports that have been developed for recreational, touristic, residential and other post-industrial use. cheers, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I've created the category as Category:Redeveloped ports and harbours, based on the main parent cat: Category:Ports and harbours. Please make any comments on the category Talk page -- or help to populate. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FritzpollBot

I wanted to inform this group about a new bot currently in development, User:FritzpollBot, that will potentially create millions of articles for places that are missing on Wikipedia. See User:Fritzpoll/Geo categorical assessments for some statistics, 28000+ in Bangladesh and 78,000+ in Pakistan. I would appreciate it if members of this group add suggestions to the bot approval page. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Bot approved: dabbing help needed

Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on cities and settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 12:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article status for San Francisco, California

Although this article is listed as a Featured Article, it no longer meets the criteria. For the most part, it looks very good. There is a lack of references throughout the article, though. If the article can be thoroughly referenced, I have no problem with it remaining as a Featured Article. I wanted to mention this to the relevant WikiProjects to see if anyone is willing to work on the sourcing for this article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco, California 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. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)