This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I took the time to format everything as tables because there is a cleanup warning: "Sections are mixtures of bulleted lists and tables with each of the entries either supported by a single source or unverified". This update was reverted because some population data is missing, leading to empty cells in those cases. However, it's still a step in the right direction to have the tables in the first place. That just seems logical. If I'm wrong, please point me to the policy for this formatting rule. Mahemoff (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Update: Instead of responding here, the same individual has subsequently reverted the other index pages in this sequence, for the same (bogus imo) reason. The updates I made also brought consistency to all the pages, whereas now we have some places broken up by province and others as a flat list. Th ere may be some updates needed for the all-table format, but this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The current format is consistent and would be improved with a table for each country. Mahemoff (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
The issue I have with early table formatting is that all the tables are sortable, which if sorted by population, cities without recorded data will be placed below cities with actual data; an inaccurate sort. For this reason, I have clarified on the cleanup templates that data must be complete before conversion. Jalen Folf(talk) 00:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
Is this based on any official Wikipedia policy or just personal taste? Absent an official policy, I don't see how the current heterogeneous format is superior to tables throughout, even if some cells don't have population anyway. By default, the table is *not* sorted by population. The table format still lets someone sort by city name and region, which are both useful and not possible with the current list format. Furthermore, if someone does need to sort by population, then yes obviously cities without recorded population will not be part of the sort, but so what? It's not any different with the current list format. I just don't see how that's any justification for keeping lists when lists don't do this any better. Missing data is missing data regardless.Mahemoff (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
I would also agree that a homoegenous table format on the articles is the most adequate. The best solution, I would add, is simply completing missing information in countries where the city statistics are lacking. So far, I've been trying to add and reformat tables to be 1) sortable with 2) alphabetical default order. What I've been finding that takes out this uniformity created by the tables is the presence of regions in some countries. I want to add that either all tables should have regions or none of them should. So far I've been adding no regions, as it looks like the norm in most countries' tables. Kors2019 (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
