Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

San Jose, California FAR

San Jose, 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Former cities

Hello all. I've begun work on the article for Edo (the city which has since become Tokyo) and I was wondering if you all have any standards, precendents, infoboxes, or other suggestions for Former Cities on the whole. New Amsterdam and Constantinople are both excellent articles, I think, but don't really follow a standard "city" format, and are devoted much more to chronological history than discussions of Society, Culture, Geography, Governance and administration, etc. as a normal city article would be.

Since the format (i.e. the headings/sections and such) for cities should work just fine for former cities, I guess my question really is whether or not there is (or can be made) an alternate infobox which lists population over time, key mayors/administrators, key events, etc. as much of the information on the current city infobox is focused on modern-day current population, governors, post codes, telephone area codes, and the like.

But also, if any of you write extensively these types of articles (Constantinople, New Amsterdam, History of X City), I'd be eager to hear your thoughts as to your approach, style, format, whatever.

I've posted a similar comment on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Former_countries#Former_cities and would look forward to, perhaps, some collaboration between the two projects on making this work. I apologize for my total lack of understanding of template coding, else I'd do it myself and/or help out more considerably. Cheers. LordAmeth 11:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

For the infobox, one example that comes to mind is York, Ontario which was amalgamated in 1998 with Toronto. I'll see about putting together an infobox for you later today. :) —MJCdetroit 12:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Auto-generation of missing city articles

I've been noticing that there's many cities and towns in the U.S. that didn't have articles auto-generated for them in the early days of the Wikipedia, like what was done for most cities, well, U.S. cities anyway. Does anyone have the know-how and time to look into this and see if it's feasible to finish creating all the city/town articles via bot? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles to be included or excluded in city wikiprojects

Has any city wikiproject established any (somewhat hardened) rules for what articles to include or exclude, especially in relation to people articles but also other article types? I'm thinking of working on something like this for WikiProject Louisville. Thanks. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Johannesburg FAR

Johannesburg 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. Epbr123 18:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Just thought people would be interested,... the article on Minneapolis, Minnesota has just been promoted to featured status! This article has recently undergone a tremendous amount of research and editing recently, and is definitely worthy of the FA star! Susanlesch has done a large portion of the editing. Congratulations! Dr. Cash 20:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleveland, Ohio FAR

Cleveland, Ohio has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Scope of project

What is the scope of this project? Does an article like Sør-Trøndelag really fall within the scope of this project? If so, it seems the project is slightly missnamed. Jerazol 21:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that article should be removed from the project (you can remove it). If that area was in the U.S., it would not be included in this Cities project, as it would fit within Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. counties.--orlady 23:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Counties are not part of WikiProject Cities. Epbr123 23:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any downward limit to the size of settlement that inherently belongs to the project? Do you consider both Flåvær and Skageflå to be within the project's scope? __meco 07:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No minimum population has been specified, but small towns typically get a low priority level. Alan.ca 13:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-tagging of categories

Having taken upon myself to tag all Norwegian settlement articles with the WPCities banner I have made a few misses which fortunately are quickly corrected. Dr. Cash is doing a big job following in my footsteps adding priority and class and also correcting any mistakes he sees me doing. On my talk page I was told that categories for cities should not be categorized, only the articles themselves. I am wondering though if this means that the project doesn't want category pages to be tagged at all? E.g. this removal of the project banner from a category page where all the article entries are themselves settlements makes me curious about this. Would that mean that also categories such as Category:Municipalities of Norway or Category:Cities in Norway should not get tagged?

I would think that tagging categories where all entries are inherently within the scope of the project would be a smart and useful thing (a) showing editors that any new articles should be tagged with the project banner right away, and (b) because the tags function as recruitment posters for the project. Besides, since there is a "class = Category" parameter that is valid within the banner template, and there is little maintenance to worry about with a category page, I would think that some application of the project banner to category talk pages would be appropriate. I'm not aware of any previous discussions you may have had on this subject. __meco 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is some policy somewhere that forbids it (or advises against it with good reason), it seems like a good idea to tag the appropriate categories. People are always going around proposing to delete lists and categories--without a project tag, one aof ours might get removed without an opportunity to oppose the deletion. We should also review tagged categories to make sure that they are sensible within the parameters of the project.--Hjal 03:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-tagging of templates

As a follow-up to the issue of categories there seems also to be an issue with whether templates should be included in the project. Dr. Cash and I appear have diverging opinions on this and he has reverted my addition of the WPCities template to Template talk:Municipalities in the Balearic Islands with the edit comment "rm template from WPCities (unnecessary to have individual templates in wikiproject; cities only please)." Also the templates contained in Category:Norway county templates (the templates albeit county templates themselves do contain a list of minicipalities) were divested of the WPCities tag. Is Dr. Cash to strict in his assessment of what whould be included or am I too liberal here? __meco 08:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Importance of Eidsvoll

Eidsvoll is one of Norway's 400 plus municipalities located some 50km north of Oslo with a population of less than 20,000. Basically this justifies it being classified as low importance in the WPCities assessment scheme. However, in Norway this is historically a rather significant location as the Norwegian Constitution was signed here in 1814. This fact may (or may not, I don't know) be more prominent in the awareness of Norwegians than it would be in other countries. I just wonder if this would justify jacking it into the mid-importance range? The assessment criteria currently don't seem to justify this (although, I suppose, if we dug up some 1814 international newspapers there would surely be mention of this). __meco 08:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. The article has been reassessed at mid-importance, due to the historical significance. I wasn't aware of this before. Thanks for pointing it out. While the 'importance' assessment generally follows population, there are exceptions that can be made for things like major news coverage, major cultural events held there, or other things that might be historically significant. For example, Williamsburg, Virginia in the US would fall under this category, as the population is very small (less than 25K), but it's historical significance during the american colonial period is very significant. Dr. Cash 08:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

City list?

Is there a list of city articles tagged for this project? Or is the only list the Category:Cities one? Most other projects generate a list purely from the tags added to talk pages. Folks at 137 09:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


Grants Pass, Oregon >> modifying "Media" standards with major town forum (adding "Media: Internet")

I'm still primitive on editing pages. If you think this idea is beneficial, please come to the Grants Pass, Oregon, page and assist. The idea is also for other cities regarding what's in "Media". Grants Pass >> Grants Pass, Oregon / Wikipedia

Basically, I suggested the adddition of "I Love Grants Pass" to the Grants Pass page. Its basically the only forum website in Grants Pass, and its a significant website. While discussing that as an "External Link", I visited Wikipedia's page on the City of Portland, Oregon, and noticed a "Media" section that listed commercial television and radio stations, and newspapers. On the Grants Pass page, I suggested that it also have a "Media" page, with the addition of major city website forums. Because if newspapers are included, it makes no sense to exclude top-tier websites in cities that are dedicated to the city's specific information. I think that other city pages, like Portland, Oregon, should also include "Media: Internet" alongside newspapers and radio stations, if there are websites that fit. As for Grants Pass, if you can help on this and advance getting that link added, please come on over, as its almost out of my league. I know how to make a few minor edits, add a photo, and a few paragraphs. Thanks.Mdvaden 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Forum and blog sites generally do not fall under the 'media' category of an article. The reason for this is that, although the internet can definitely be thought of as a form of media, blogs and forums have very, very limited editorial control (and in most cases, none at all), versus traditional media like newspapers, radio, and television stations. So their notability and reliability generally fails wikipedia's reliable source guideline.
They are also generally discouraged from being added to the 'external links' section, primarily because wikipedia is not the place to promote a personal website (see WP:EL). If a forum site grew enough, and became notable enough to warrant its own wikipedia article, then it might be able to be added to the media section (examples would be sites like Slashdot or Fark.com, which have considerable followings). But I would wager a good bet that, in the case of ilovegrantspass.com, that it would go up for deletion within 1-2 weeks of being created, citing non-notability. Dr. Cash 21:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Modification to this kind of policy should occur in the near future, with internet media becoming prevelant. For example, the I Love Grants Pass forums have more news stored than the local newspaper. And newspapers are allowed on Wikipedia, as in Portland's case. Some newspapers are "personal" almost as much as some websites. This leaves a bit of inconsistency. I propose that SOME forums be allowed in some situations, but only after discussion. A guideline could be to add only the 2 or 3 largest forums in a city, and only after discussion and review produces approval that the particular websites contain significant information. The "user" level can be ascertained by the forum's index pages, which virtually all list the total number of users. Anyway, its not my call, but I think it would serve more encyclopedic benefits than the "Chamber of Commerce" listed for a city, since the Chambers are profit driven business groups offering almost no information. Thanks for the replies.Mdvaden 04:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Newspapers have an editorial board, editorial policy, as well as a formal and official business license. It is an official channel in a particular city or market (more likely, market, because most newspapers cross city borders these days). The Chamber of Commerce also has an official and formal connection with the city (although the Chamber is usually only linked to under external links in city articles and not included in the article itself. Most discussion forums and blogs are run by some nerd living in his mother's basement who just makes the site look official (and most don't do a very good job at this). True, some might have more users than others, but in the long run, they're mostly just blogs,... Nevertheless, IF a forum site has a large following and a good amount of traffic, if would be useful to link to it under the external links section. But if a forum has very few users and almost no traffic, as judged by looking at the forums themselves and the user section, then it should definitely NOT be linked from external links, because it has not attained any level of notability yet, and wikipedia is not a place to promote websites. Dr. Cash 06:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a good perspective. The forum I mentioned, in relation to Grants Pass, is reputable enough that even the local Sheriff law enforcement post announcements and feedback on it. For now, One contributor posted a DMOZ link in External Links, to a tier that includes the forum. But for now, I'm going to study this angle and get more familiar with how other city pages are being designed. No rush. Thanks again.Mdvaden 03:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you have a sound outlook on this issue, and it appears reasonable from my perspective that "I Love Grants Pass" could be included in the Wikipedia Grants Pass article. Doing as you suggested, looking up the forum index tells me that there are 700 registered users, and with Grants Pass being a city of 30,000 people, this is significant, I suppose. As for your concerns over Wikipedia's present strictness towards web forums, which I share, the rationale for this has expounded by Dr. Cash. I also agree with your prognosis that this will be modified (i.e. relaxed) in the foreseeable future, or at least it ought to. __meco 07:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
My input (as it has consistently been) is that Wikipedia is not the place for this type of "community bulletin board" information (such as local utilities, etc). A handy test that I use for encyclopedic content/notability, is "What would someone researching from Berlin (or Tokyo, or Nairobi) want to know about this city?" This kind of "local services" information is not "encyclopedic" and often is simply spam. Spamreporter1 21:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Spamreporter. dot com sites are mostly selling themselves and their subscribers, often real estate or c-of-c related. These are essentially spam sites as far as I am concerned and I have been removing them whenever possible. I like a "clean" external reference section with geo stuff and maybe the official city webpage. That should be about it. Huge lists are counterproductive anyway - no one is going to bother going through a monster list of webpages after reading a lengthy article. Everyone listed has the self-satisfaction of being included, but no one winds up with any new "eyes" on their page. Kind of funny when you think about it! Student7 02:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Duluth GA/R

Please be advised that the Duluth, Minnesota aticle is currently being demoted from its WP:GA status at WP:GA/R. The causes are: not enough references, too much lists, and random year wikification.--SidiLemine 13:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte, North Carolina

In my opinion, this article's mass transit section has turned into a pro-con piece on the light-rail system under development. The edits appear to be driven by one user with a strong point of view - as evidenced by the fact that only one side of the "debate" has sources. The debate may well be interesting (if fully developed), but I think it's a bit much for a city article. I think a summary would be more appropriate - and a separate article on the light rail system more appropriate. The anon-editor, however, doesn't appear to agree. I'm going to unwatch the article for a few weeks and see how it sorts itself out. Rklawton 17:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Mokum

Someone deleted {{WPCities}} from Talk: Mokum. Isn't this article within the scope of this project? – Ilse@ 10:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I re-added the project template. – Ilse@ 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Flag icons in twin towns sections

Hi. This has been the subject of some recent controversy at Gibraltar, where various editors have very strong opinions on whether Flag of the United Kingdom or Flag of Northern Ireland is the best flag to represent Ballymena. I would propose there is no need for these flags at all; even a very big city will likely only have 10 or fewer twinned with it, and text is perfectly adequate for this many entries. Does anyone have a good encyclopedic reason why these divisive icons should remain, in terms of added value to the project? If not I think we should remove them. WP:FLAGCRUFT is an essay which provides a far more detailed rationale about why we should be careful in how we use flags on Wikipedia. --John 19:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree that there's no need to include flags in the twin town sections. It just seems to be a tradition that's formed in city articles for no reason. The twin town section should be written in prose anyway. Epbr123 19:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Personally, I kind of like the use of the flagicon templates in sister cities & twin towns sections. They seem pretty minor, and sort of spruce up the section a bit. I do object to their overuse in other sections, however, but I think in this section it is acceptable. Dr. Cash 06:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Marshall, Texas FAR

Marshall, Texas will be put up for FAR within the next week. If any objections, please discuss on its talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okiefromokla (talk • contribs) 20:57, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Project page update

I've updated the main project page, moving some information to linked pages, removing some old and stale information, and overall freshening things up a bit to make it easier to read. I've also added a list at the top to some of the articles currently undergoing FAC, GAC, or peer review, so perhaps some editors can take a look at them and give a little extra TLC to some of the FAC candidates as needed. I'll try to keep this list updated on at least a weekly basis, as time permits. Dr. Cash 06:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Chennai

Chennai 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.

Can any town be listed under "list of towns"

Or do they have to be incorporated? Brian Pearson 00:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Postal codes

Should USPS postal codes be called abbreviations or should they more properly be called postal codes? Most almanacs list abbreviations for the states, but they are not the two-letter codes.Wl7aml 22:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

USPS postal codes (zip codes) are clearly not abbreviations, and hardly encyclopedic. Many cities have LOTS of zip codes, and including them in an article isn't really necessary. Furthermore, without a more detailed geographic reference regarding what area is specifically covered by the zip code, it's almost useless information. Dr. Cash 04:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

FAR notice

Seattle, Washington 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. LaraLove 17:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Marshall, Texas FAR

Marshall, Texas 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. Okiefromokla•talk 17:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Please add WP:FAR notices to the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities page, in the top area where review announces are. Thanks! Dr. Cash 18:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ashdod - peer review

A request for Peer Review of Ashdod, Israel, has been listed. We will appreciate any comments that will help us improve the article. -- Derwig 18:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please add WP:PR notices to the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities page, in the top area where review announcements are. Thanks! Dr. Cash 20:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

zip codes & area codes in city infoboxes?

Since when did we establish consensus that this information was either desired or actually encyclopedic to be included in city infoboxes. I was under the understanding that it was far too much information, and totally unnecessary to be included. But apparently, CapitalR has taken it upon himself to automatically start updating infoboxes with this totally unencyclopedic crap. Dr. Cash 07:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Geolinks discussion affects Cities/Guideline

The Cities/Guideline page suggests using a Geolinks template in the "External links" section. The Geolinks templates may be superseded by recent changes in the coord template which provide a list of mapping services when the geographical coordinate is clicked on. Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Geolinks-coord_Issues and consider changes to your guideline. I notice that recent versions of the Geobox template emit coord-style coordinates and locator maps. (SEWilco 16:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

More contributers needed

Good day every one . I spend a very long time trying to improve several cities articles , for example :Jeddah . In fact, i couldn't even reach the GA class because simply i'm working alone . is there anyone interested to join :)  A M M A R  14:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes on New York City article

Hi there has been a flurry of activity on images on the New York City article. I think they need a little more collaborative attention and invite other editors' opinions: Talk:New_York_City#Images_need_attention. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 14:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

A Question

Hello, I was wondering if WP:CITIES was just for larger cities or for any town, anywhere. I would like to add a WP:CITIES template to the Stephens City, Virginia page, but want to make sure it fits within the rules of this WP. Thanks for any help you can give. Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 03:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The wikiproject supports any city or town (large or small). I've added the template to Stephens City, Virginia, and assessed it at B-class (article has good detail on its history section, and is taking shape, but is largely unreferenced), with low-importance (based on population). Dr. Cash (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I completely forgot I posted this here. Many thanks though. I need to get the "Further Reading" section into the references. I have had too much on my plate. I will work on that sometime this morning (pushing 3am here) or tomorrow. Please let me know (here or on my talk page) on how to improve on the article as well. I would like to get the article up to featured status (well, I hope I can). Take Care...NeutralHomer T:C 07:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

New project: U.S. streets

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets --NE2 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirection of census-designated places

User:Polaron is proposing the redirection of CDP articles throughout Vermont to the towns in which they are located. If this is accepted, this would lay precedent for similar action to all other CDP articles to the governmental bodies in which they are located, whether towns, townships, or counties. Please offer your comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vermont. Nyttend 20:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not correct. Only those towns that have a single CDP with the exact same name as the town. I don't see how this would be a precedent except for the exact same situations in other New England towns. --Polaron | Talk 20:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. However, what's the difference? If any CDP deserves to be redirected, all others do as well. Nyttend 20:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Because while towns in New England are incorporated places, they are not classified as such by the U.S. Census Bureau. CDPs for the larger towns are created so that they will appear in various tabulations for places. Otherwise, no such "place" would exist. --Polaron | Talk 20:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Omit Barcelona, Spain from project

Barcelona, Spain should be omitted from this project until the issues of the current article's serious imbalance and poorly-written English are addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.33.35.125 (talk) 16:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not a reason to remove an article from a wikiproject. On the contrary, it's probably an indication that more users should be paying attention to it. Dr. Cash (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Project name

I've just noticed a number of pages I'm watching have been added to this "Cities" project, eg, Kintbury and Greenham. They are all small villages in the England and can by no stretch of the imagination ever be classified as cities. It is most confusing to the reader having a cities tag stuck on a page for these articles. Should this project not have a more appropriate name? How about Wikipedia Project:Places or Wikipedia Project: Cities, Towns and Villages? If not I think it is more appropriate to remove the tag altogether to avoid confusion. Dahliarose (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Your front page...

...looks awfully funny. I'm using Explorer and the participants text is overwriting what is below it. I didn't want to remove or revert anything, but you might want to take a look. Katr67 17:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Same for me. It's almost unreadable. I would prefer that this got fixed by someone who understands the scroll-box thingy, but I'm going to revert to the old list if this isn't fixed soon. Perhaps the list should be on a sub-page?--Hjal (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
  • 24-Dec-2007: (5 days later) I have fixed the Participant table, half-converted into table form by another volunteer on 07-Oct-2007 (see below: Adjusting participant table). There were several, multiple formatting problems. I agree with you that keeping the Participant table as a subpage would be better, because I think future formatting bugs could be just as confusing, to garble the front-page again. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Tennessee nominated for Featured List

List of cities and towns in Tennessee is up for Featured List consideration. Please add any comments to its FLC discussion page. This may be a good template for other states to adopt for their lists of cities as well. Kaldari 18:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Presentation of economic statistics

The original distribution of census statistics was done well for the time several years ago and well before my time. Lumped together, they are terrifically boring. I have taken to breaking off the statistics on personal income and placing it in a separate section under "Economy." The section also includes statistics on business, etc.

Where is it written that statistics must be presented in the same old dull, unreadable way? Student7 (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Guideline calls for just that, when the demographics section itself is improved.--Hjal (talk) 05:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Importance of an article

I have seen that all capitals of countries are de facto considered "Top"-importance articles just because of being capitals, and however many cities which can be much more populated, more economicalty important or, in particular, more likely to appear and be searched in an Encyclopedia, are rated with a lower degree of importance. As an example, I can not sincerely understand that the stub Moroni, Comoros is a more important article than Barcelona, Los Angeles, California, Sao Paulo or San Francisco, California.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 16:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please answer if there is really a criterium to classify what Top or High importance means?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 17:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Article assessment guidelines, for both class & importance, are outlined here. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Altrincham

Hello WikiProject Cities team,

Just a note that Altrincham (of England) is a current featured article candidate. The nomination/discussion page is found here. -- Jza84 · (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Adjusting participant table

24-Dec-2007: The participant list was half-converted into a table, beginning on October 7, 2007; however, the precise formatting of the wikitable (transcluding another wikitable) was not completed until now (24Dec07), so the table was too narrow and overran the ending paragraphs. The "div style" was changed from "height:400px" to "width:520px" for a wider notes column. Beyond the efforts at Wikipedia, remember that the wiki-collaboration software (MediaWiki version 1.6) is a beta-level technology, attempting to extend incompatible features of prior wiki software. It's all very confusing, not the work of experienced computer scientists, but rather a series of hacks done by hacks to meet the approval of hacks, and who knew sane people would one day use wiki projects? Wikipedia could migrate to some type of professional wiki software, but currently MediaWiki (version 1.8.2?) is being enhanced and might become more usable some day. Honestly, the wiki-edit mode doesn't even allow search-and-replace, which is a trivial edit feature fully implemented over 30 years ago, so everyone is frustrated and trying to get formatting and wikitables to work. Thanks for your understanding. If an "elephant is a horse designed by committee" then MediaWiki software is a crippled two-legged elephant with a hernia, to keep the focus to the highest possible praise for MediaWiki software. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)