Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Cities and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23: 190 days

State of city-oriented WikiProjects

While working on bringing Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville back to fully active status, I've noticed that many other city-oriented WikiProjects, particularly in the US, have become largely inactive. And this is despite all kinds of work left to do (in my project alone, I can attest to this). Is this a matter of there being much fewer active Wikipedians in general, or is it something else? At any rate, maybe there should be some effort to reawaken these projects. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 21:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects in general are not very active, it's a common problem no-one has really found a solution to (assuming one is desired). CMD (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be akin to desiring getting more editors involved generally, and I definitely desire that. That's where it seems the problem lies. I haven't witnessed any particular antipathy to WikiProjects. We just have much fewer active editors. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 00:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think that some city-oriented WikiProjects should be a task force under this if they are not alive. Some people here may be able to help. Arhan D (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox style for city related articles

Hi everyone. I invite you all to participate in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#City related articles infoboxes to come to a common interpretation about the infobox image format for the city related articles. It would be of a great help. 456legend talk 02:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical population figures

Has there been any discussion about whether village and town articles should include historical population data? I think it is absurd for an article about a village with a population of 500 to include a lengthy table of historical population figures. Obviously the current population should be mentioned, but I don't see any general interest in changes in populations over time in the vast majority of articles. 167.98.155.153 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP[reply]

It's not any more absurd than high percentages of UK village/hamlet articles not having any population data. 98.164.0.128 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not like a telephone directory. A telephone directory shows current information only. But Wikipedia is (or aspires to be) an encyclopaedia, so past information is worth retaining. If it is worth having articles on places like Hovingham, then it is worth recording that the population of Hovingham in the past was nearly double what it is now - and being specific and quoting dates and numbers makes it verifiable. So yes, tables of historical population figures are a good thing, providing that they can be supported by sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific article you mention does not contain a table of historical population. It certainly can be worth mentioning significant changes to populations, but consider a specific case: given that UK census data from 1841 onwards can be obtained, should the article for every town and village in England contain a table showing its population at every census? I see absolutely no value in that. I see it as counter to the very idea of an encyclopaedia, which is not a repository of data, facts or figures, but a body of work which explains and provides context to data, facts and figures. A couple of relevant excerpts from policies:
A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.

To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources... merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

If you think there a policies or guidelines which would support the idea of lengthy tables of population data as encyclopaedic, I'd be interested to know which ones they are. 167.98.155.153 (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP[reply]

Minneapolis has an RfC

Minneapolis, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rural settlements & rural localities?

Should "rural settlements/localities" categories (e.g. Category:Rural settlements in Ukraine / Category:Rural localities in Russia) and subordinate cats & articles be tagged with {{WP Cities}}, or are they too small? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since they are significant enough to have articles written about them, and numerous enough to be categorized, I think they meet the spirit of WP:WikiProject Cities#Scope, even though they're not explicitly mentioned. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:İskenderun#Requested move 22 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:İskenderun#Requested move 22 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Manpool#Requested move 2 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Manpool#Requested move 2 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Póvoa de Varzim

Póvoa de Varzim 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. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Macau#Requested move 24 June 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Macau#Requested move 24 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Remsense诉 14:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional input about "Municipal pop." used on Template:Largest cities

Hi there, I'm engaged in a discussion at Template talk:Largest cities regarding the usage of the adjective "Municipal" in that template, and I'm confident editors here have had that sort of discussion about defining "city" before. I'd love if we could get some addition input from any experts that watch this WikiProject. Thanks! -- Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 14:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Davenport, Iowa

Davenport, Iowa 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. Z1720 (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I regrouped the fields in the infobox. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 21:49, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on consistent naming of German municipal subdivisions

I have requested input on a proposal to stick to a consistent naming schema for first-, second-, and (where applicable) informal third-level subdivisions in German cities. If you would like to participate in the discussion, please add your comments on the RfC subpage. Thank you! --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for York

York 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. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Ascalon#Requested move 20 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ascalon#Requested move 20 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Nusantara (city)#Requested move 16 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Nusantara (city)#Requested move 16 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Alamogordo, New Mexico

Alamogordo, New Mexico 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. Z1720 (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Ann Arbor, Michigan

I have nominated Ann Arbor, Michigan 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. Z1720 (talk) 16:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User changing settlement-type to "Capital city"

An IP user, User:35.151.61.31, has been changing the settlement type of a number of capitals to "Capital city". Two of these edits were made through a registered account, User:ThaGreenlander. I've explained to them on the talk page of the registered user that I don't believe this is correct because the fact that a geographical entity serves as the capital of a greater entity is a separate matter from the classification of the entity itself. It occurred to me that I ought to bring this to the attention of this WikiProject for feedback and consensus on the proper use of the settlement field in these cases. Largoplazo (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Been almost a week editor simply WP:NOTHERE still at it dispite being ask to give input. Have reverted Canadian related articles with edit summary wrong use of parameter ......type of city etc not political standing Template:Infobox settlement - settlement_type - such as Town, Village, City, Borough etc. . That had ..hidden note - Consensus see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario/Archive 1#City infoboxes: "tier" or "conventional" municipal statuses (or both)? Can we get a bot to revert the rest? and a short block to get their attention ?Moxy🍁 06:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#‎User changing settlement-type to "Capital city"

Good article reassessment for Lincolnshire, Illinois

Lincolnshire, Illinois 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Galveston, Texas

Galveston, Texas 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. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Key Biscayne

Key Biscayne 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. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official name in first sentence

Your input would be appreciated at Talk:Minneapolis#City of Minneapolis regarding including "officially the City of Minneapolis"...to the first sentence of the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Chittagong#Requested move 28 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chittagong#Requested move 28 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Nouakchott

Nouakchott 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. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]