Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

Latest comment: 2 days ago by Onegreatjoke in topic Good article reassessment for Shrewsbury
WikiProject Cities (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Selection of a specific montage styleEdit

I have recently noticed a lot of the infobox montages (mostly on american cities) have changed a bit. I want to see if we could adopt 1 uniform style for each article's infobox montage. Some screenshots of the 2 in question are below.

Which one would be perferable for infobox montages?

WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 03:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This should serve as a continuation of the discussion on the New York City talk page. Xeror (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This definitely isn't the place to build any kind of consensus for enforcing a new style on such a large number of articles. That would have to be done over at MOS, and it wouldn't be easy there. I see an argument could be made for uniformity in article presentations, but arguing for one style over the other would have to have a stronger reason than just "they should all look similar.Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fair. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 03:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xeror @WeaponizingArchitecture @Dkriegls, personally, I prefer option 2. Even though it puts the info less directly next to the photo, it's a lot more compact, which is a huge issue for collages. And readers can also always access that info by clicking on an image.
Looking forward, a best-of-both-worlds solution to this might be to have something like the "packed-hover" gallery tag option, where the caption comes up for an image when you hover the cursor over it. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for ŽirmūnaiEdit

Žirmūnai has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAR for GangtokEdit

I have nominated Gangtok for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 18:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on Maps and ChartsEdit

I have started a RFC at WP:VPP asking for clarification of the OR policy regarding the use of maps and charts as sources in Wikipedia articles. I'm posting here as most City articles that I'm aware of use maps (either directly or indirectly) to provide a relative location of the city, and as such this would be an affected project. Dave (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The RFC, now at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Using maps as sources, has questions related to notability. --Rschen7754 06:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2022 census estimatesEdit

The U.S. Census Bureau has officially released the 2022 census estimates. DiscoA340 (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amateur flagsEdit

Hello all, I've had to revert the addition of a NAVA flag into the article Flag of Columbus, Ohio several times. I can see other NAVA flags appear in similar articles. Can we come to a consensus on this and hopefully find a way to stop these from being added into these articles? As I see it, the North American Vexillological Association is an enthusiast group. Anyone can join, for a fee, and when they host events in cities, they create their own flag for their event. Imagine, in comparison, a train enthusiast group like NUMTOT, creating train badges or flags for every meetup within a metro system, and these badges making their way into Wikipedia articles about the metro systems. It's definitely silly and not significant to the article. ɱ (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copyright status of these flags as free also seems dubious. All seem to be uploaded as "own work", though the images on NAVA's website are "all rights reserved". I see the NAVA Wikipedia article talk page makes some statement about Wikipedia being allowed to use the flag images, though this isn't a license; they need to be free for all to use, not just Wikipedia. ɱ (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, this was not a flag "of Columbus". Anyone can make something that incorporates symbolism of the city including flag elements, but that's no reason to include it here. There's no actual relevance to the article's topic. Reywas92Talk 15:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also agreed on removal. Only reason to include a flag would be firm support or discussion by secondary sources. Regarding copyright, File:NAVA46 flag.jpg is such a simple design it is unlikely to be copyrightable. CMD (talk) 00:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just removed a bunch more, too (I think it'll be necessary to find out where all these meetings took place, and get rid of the "NAVA" stuff if need be). The only reason to include it is either if the city actually took up use of the "NAVA" design as an official flag, or if reliable and independent sources confirm that it otherwise gained some substantial significance. The problem isn't necessarily copyright (though it's possible some of these designs are complex enough to be copyrightable), but that including anything except actual official city flags in a "Flag of Examplecity, Somestate" article is misleading and inaccurate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed merger with Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. countiesEdit

I don't know what the rules are for WikiProjects merging but I believe that a merger with WikiProject U.S. counties would be beneficial for both city and county articles. U.S. counties is currently semi-active and I've rarely seen anyone else active on the project. Both county and city pages are mostly the same (sometimes actually the same) and they mostly follow the same guidelines as U.S. cities. There are only 3,007 counties in the US, so it wouldn't add extra stain to the project as there are thousands more cities and towns in the country. All in all, merging the two projects would help to better advertise county pages which have started to become neglected over the years and thus, help to better city town pages by improving the pages where their county is located. Thank you for your time, have a good day! DiscoA340 (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most US counties seem out of this WikiProject’s scope, and I think that, due to this project already having a lot of articles under it, the counties would just get lost. I’d love for Wikiproject US Counties to become active again, but I don’t think this will do that and I don’t have many other ideas (other than fixing and updating File:Wikipedia U.S. county articles by quality.svg, which I feel would encourage some activity) MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me to make more sense that US counties (or their equivalent, such as parishes in Louisiana) would be subprojects of the relevant state project. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move at Talk:LaSalle, Illinois#Requested move 2 April 2023Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:LaSalle, Illinois#Requested move 2 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 09:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project-independent quality assessmentsEdit

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for Newport News, VirginiaEdit

Newport News, Virginia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed refactoring of geographic feature notabilityEdit

We are discussing a proposal to refactor the guidelines for geographic feature notability. Please feel free to join in the discussion of this proposal. — hike395 (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

City Census ChangesEdit

@TheLionHasSeen is making a load[1] of[2] changes[3] to city articles citing manual of style with demographic improvements. I have asked the editor to provide a link to this guideline. Is anyone familiar with it? @FloridaArmy has objected to these mass changes, but I want to make sure these changers are following guidelines. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not the only one who has done this. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline; the demographics section should suffice; also, this is where I got this from "The automated demographic information (i.e. "As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were") should be removed as more location-specific information is added in dynamic prose." I culled a lot of 2000 census information, as most articles had their population tables updated but no one cared to go beyond 2000; that information was replaced with 2020 census information and ACS census estimates. Now, you could have either waited or continued to WP:HOUND at me after UtherSRG had to be insulted by them on FloridaArmy's talk page; it seems you chose the latter. I have a life. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll caution you against furtherWP:ASPERSIONS. Asking you a simple question isn't hounding. Thanks for providing a link.
The automated demographic information (i.e. "As of the censusGR2 of 2000, there were") should be removed as more location-specific information is added in dynamic prose.
Many of the edits in question are simply content blanking. What information are you adding to justify removing this information? Nemov (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Native name" in infoboxEdit

A discussion at Template talk:Infobox settlement#Native name may be of interest to city editors. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liberty, NYEdit

Hey all, just made an account. Thought maybe this worked like a comment thread, and wrote the following. Still learning the ropes, so thanks for your patience!

"Hey fellow Liberty natives! This article reads like an advertisement, not an encylopedia article.

Frankly, this is unacceptable. I'm new to actually editing Wikipedia, and I have yet to figure out exactly how to get it to say that thing about not meeting standards for tone at the top, but it needs it. Badly.

No ill will towards whomever wrote this - there's a great deal to be proud of in this corner of the world, but there's a lot of ugly stuff too.

More to the point, an encyclopedia should be neutral, and I hope that somebody with more time on their hands than I will rectify this issue post haste. Because all I see when I read this is a small town desperate for new people to move in. And not to assume authorial intent here, but that's counterintuitive.

Thank you in advance, anyone who takes this on (assuming anybody will.)" NapkinGhost (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good article reassessment for ShrewsburyEdit

Shrewsbury has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]