Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Birmingham

Birmingham 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) 10:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is the data for the 2020 census not being added to articles?

Back when the 2010 Census came out, people were quick to get the data written into the articles. Not this time; It's been 3 years now and many articles still only have paragraphs describing the 2010 Census. Why? Alexysun (talk) 02:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

The Census Bureau is not done releasing their data from the census. I think most are waiting for a complete 1:1 replacement set, which would require more detailed releases, before doing mass replacements. SounderBruce 03:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Community articles for some states have been converted to 2020 census. I updated almost 700 community articles for state of Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Becuase that was done in an automated way by User:Rich Farmbrough, who has unfortunately been banned. If someone can make a bot that can scrape census data while editing it would be great. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Archive_22#US_Cities_-_Census_info for the last discussion on updating the paragraph format. Reywas92^Talk 15:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Wait why was he banned if he was so helpful. Also, what else is automated? Alexysun (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

What's the source for the Historical population table of US municipalities?

Hey all! 👋 I'm currently in the process of translating lists of municipalities in the USA from the Wikipedia in English to the one in French, and preparing a demography template (it's already widely used for French communes) in order to lower the needs of maintenance of our own Wikiproject USA.

While reading Red Creek, New York, I've noticed that the "U.S. Decennial Census" reference link of its Historical population table is broken. What's supporting such numbers in the various tables shown in every article about a community in the USA? I've only found the "QuickFacts" tool on the Census Bureau website, and it seems very limited to communities with a population over 5,000 and the two last censuses. 😓

I would very much prefer if every data point of the tables had a reference that I could verify instantly online. Can anyone point me to historical US Census ressources and current data for US communities please? I'll welcome any easy-to-process data tables and ways to find them. 😃 J. N. Squire (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"I could verify instantly online"... LOL, LOL, I don't know if old historical data is available for "instant lookup". Over a decade ago, I seem to remember that I had to manually read through numerous census decade PDFs from census.gov (one per state per decade) to manually create the census tables that are currently found in city articles. Today, I recommend that you ask someone at census.gov to help point you at where those old PDFs are currently located, and ask if any old historical information has been imported into digital tables. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I looked through old edits to find this old census.gov webpage. Thoses PDFs use to be located at http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/ but I don't know where they are currently located. Look at the archive at https://web.archive.org/web/20130116045830/http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/ • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

For 2020 census, you can manually search for census of each city at https://data.census.gov/profile • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Minneapolis Featured article review

User:SusanLesch has nominated Minneapolis 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox images discussions

Please could editors participate in discussions about the images in the infobox for two cities: Hyderabad and Varanasi (Benares). Part of the issue is whether there should be a change of images, but part is whether they should be displayed as a montage (i.e. a caption under the montage) or gallery (i.e. captions under each photograph).

• Talk:Hyderabad#Infobox images change with new pictures & latest features
• Talk:Varanasi#Infobox images need change for representation

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Manhattan has an RFC

Manhattan 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. 18:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for input on inclusion decision about an incident that occurred in a Boston neighobrhood

A City councilor from Boston reported her phone was snatched out of her hand while visiting an encampment in a neighborhood. The discussion is about whether to include this into that neighborhood/subdivision article. Talk:Mass_and_Cass#Tania_Fernandes_Anderson_cell_phone_incident Graywalls (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Gornji Log, Slovenska Bistrica#Requested move 28 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gornji Log, Slovenska Bistrica#Requested move 28 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 22:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Manhattan has an RFC

Manhattan 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. 00:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion: Zakhi

A discussion is taking place here if Zakhi meets WP:GNG. Please feel free to weigh in. Annwfwn (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Odesa#Requested move 7 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Odesa#Requested move 7 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment The discussion has been snow closed. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Problems at all Czech town and city articles

Near enough all Czech town and city articles currently have a problem: a couple of years ago, a user added a section called "Administrative parts" to them. These sections have the following problems:

• In every case, the user put this section immediately after the lead section. That is in violation of the style guidelines laid down by this wikiproject.
• In every case that I have looked at, they did not provide any source for the material they added.
• The English is often dreadful.
• The text they've added is simply of no encyclopaedic interest. London does not even contain a list of its 32 boroughs, even though they are a major aspect of the administration of the city; instead, in decent encyclopaedic style, the article describes how the city is administered and mentions that it is divided into 32 boroughs. For a small town in the Czech Republic, an unsourced list of supposed "administrative parts" is just not useful to anyone.

An example article illustrating all these problems is Skalná.

Unfortunately, the user who added this text will invariably revert its removal from any article. So I am raising the issue here to see whether people agree that the issues I've listed are problematic. 217.195.251.12 (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

A user under different IP addresses deletes sections with administrative division and galleries, which was reverted by different users (see the history of Brno and Ostrava in July 2023) and led to pp-vandalism. Some his IP addresses have been blocked for this behavior.

The layout is in a uniform form within all Czech municipalities. Although it is possible to add a reference, it is overkill for this kind of information. For example in neighbouring Poland or Germany, these sections also have no reference, there is no controversy. And btw., London has this section separated on its own page (London boroughs). The problems the anonymous user has with it are purely subjective. FromCzech (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The layout is in a uniform form within all Czech municipalities

That's because you, and you alone, have done it to all of them.

Although it is possible to add a reference, it is overkill for this kind of information

No, that's not how WP:V works. The onus is on you to provide a reliable source. Anything without can and must be removed. But even if you could provide a source, verifiability is a necessary, not sufficient criterion for inclusion. A mere regurgitation of data, in badly-written English, violating style guidelines, is not useful to anyone. It is especially ridiculous that you have put these sections immediately after the lead section in every case. What exactly led you to decide that you should add sections like this en masse? Did you not read Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure at any point? 217.195.251.12 (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not see that this kind of information is cited, for example, by Italian municipalities or by the already mentioned German towns and Polish gminas. I don't see other similar essential information such as postal code or vehicle registration plates being cited. If it really was a problem, it is pointed out with a tag, not a deletion.

The order and range of sections will vary according to need per the guideline, there was no style guideline violation. In other countries, I sometimes see more fundamental differences from the proposed order. Villages that are part of municipalities are sometimes referred to in the text in the Geography and History sections, so the order is a logical sequence.

You repeatedly went against the consensus, committed WP:EDITWAR, insulted me in the edit summary, and are a convicted WP:SOCKPUPPET. As a result of these facts, I have to consider your post as trolling. Until your radical views are joined by trusted users, there is no point in further discussion. But any potential discussion must also include the administrative division of municipalities in other countries, not unsystematically in just one. FromCzech (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You are wrong. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. And, as I said, verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. If it is not verifiable, it must be removed. If it is verifiable, it could be retained. But these sections have no encyclopaedic value. No articles, other than the Czech ones you have spammed, have similar sections. Anyone removing the sections is not acting against consensus because you are the only person who ever added them to articles. You do not get to claim that you have consensus for something you did unilaterally. What exactly led you to decide that you should add sections like these en masse?

Also, don't make personal attacks. 217.195.251.12 (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"No encyclopaedic value..." "...must be removed..." = you're the only one who thinks so. Your edits have been reverted by various users = consensus that the content should be preserved. FromCzech (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• From WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia"
• From WP:V: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable.... Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."
• And you still didn't answer the question: what exactly led you to decide that you should add sections like these en masse? 217.195.251.12 (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's WP:PEDANTRY. I have not come across municipalities in other countries citing this kind of information – but I'm just repeating myself, I hope for the last time. If there is a consensus here that it is necessary to add references to this type of information, I will take care of the Czech ones. So far, your point of view is not shared by others.

  And as for the last question – I thought it was obvious. This information appears on the pages of municipalities in other countries and was already with some Czech ones, I just added it to the rest. But my motivations are irrelevant to this discussion so I don't know why you are asking about them. FromCzech (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

References are a necessary but not sufficient criterion for inclusion. No similar sections exist at any articles other than the ones you have added them to, save perhaps for one or two isolated cases. That is because they are not encyclopaedic. 217.195.251.12 (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Only one article has been posted here, Skalná. Looking at that one, the information should have a source and the wording and placement could be improved, but I don't think the material is inherently a poor fit for the article. CMD (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Only one article"? As stated, the problem affects pretty much every single article about a Czech town or city. Equivalent sections do not exist in articles about towns in other countries. They exist only in Czech articles, because one single Czech editor decided for no apparent reason that they would ignore the style guidelines and two decades of precedence, and simply do their own thing. As you may see above, this user does not believe that they need to follow the core content policy of verifiability. The sections they have spammed across all Czech town articles are badly-written, unsourced, context-free, and guideline-violating. What argument do you see for not removing them? 92.68.182.169 (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I can see the argument for removing the current unsourced text, but the core question of divisions or smaller communities seems relevant. CMD (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I will add the source to the sections in the near future, depending on when I have time. It is already available in the source in the Demographics section referring to the census. FromCzech (talk) 04:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Why not rewrite the information in the Demographics section then, if it is about demographics? CMD (talk) 02:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

They do not extist only in Czech articles. Here are some random examples from other countries:

• Poland (section Villages): Gmina Andrychów, Gmina Andrespol, Gmina Alwernia;
• Germany (part of Geography under various names): Aalen, Ahlen, Altenburg;
• Portugal (various placement): Alcobaça, Alcoutim, Aljezur
• Italy (as frazioni in the infobox): Avola, Albignasego, Albenga.

FromCzech (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Peer review request for Fez, Morocco

I have opened a request for peer review to receive a broader perspective on how Fez, Morocco may be improved. Any feedback welcome. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Taskforce proposal

A task force on African settlements could be established in conjunction with WikiProject Africa. Tens of thousands of communities are found across Africa. Since many African countries have very little information about their settlements, I believe a task force that might help with the construction and upgrading of African settlement entries would be beneficial. CROIX^talk 22:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)