Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 8

message: 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)
thread_title:  San Jose, California FAR 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Former cities 

message: 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)
thread_title: Auto-generation of missing city articles

message: 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)
thread_title: Articles to be included or excluded in city wikiprojects

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Johannesburg]] FAR

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Minneapolis, Minnesota]]

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleveland, Ohio FAR

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Counties are not part of WikiProject Cities. Epbr123 23:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Scope of project 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-tagging of categories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non-tagging of templates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Importance of [[Eidsvoll]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: City list?

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good_article_review#Duluth, Minnesota|Duluth GA/R]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Charlotte, North Carolina]]

message: Someone deleted  from Talk: Mokum. Isn't this article within the scope of this project? – Ilse@ 10:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I re-added the project template. – Ilse@ 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mokum 

message: Hi. This has been the subject of some recent controversy at Gibraltar, where various editors have very strong opinions on whether  or  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)
thread_title:  Flag icons in twin towns sections 

message: 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)
thread_title: Project page update

message: Or do they have to be incorporated? Brian Pearson 00:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can any town be listed under "list of towns" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Postal codes 

message: 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)
thread_title: FAR notice

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Marshall, Texas FAR

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ashdod - peer review 

message: 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)
thread_title: zip codes & area codes in city infoboxes?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Geolinks discussion affects Cities/Guideline 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More contributers needed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent changes on New York City article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A Question

message: Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Streets --NE2 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New project: U.S. streets

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Redirection of census-designated places 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Omit Barcelona, Spain from project 

message: 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)
thread_title: Project name

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Your front page... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[List of cities and towns in Tennessee]] nominated for Featured List 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Presentation of economic statistics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Article assessment guidelines, for both class & importance, are outlined here. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance of an article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Altrincham]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Adjusting participant table

message: Although I'm not fond of "Prominent Native" sections for city pages, at the very least each notation should bear a source. I went through the list for Inglewood, California  [], adding sources for the natives where I could find them and just deleting the names that couldn't be sourced. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Its really prevalent in smaller cities, where there are typically laundry lists of C-list celebrities and athletes with unreferenced ties. Is it really important for those researching Binghamton, New York to know that Ota Ul\u010d may live there?  \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccwaters (talk \u2022 contribs) 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well. I think these lists should be referenced and the significance of each person included should be discussed. Most of these lists as they currently exist are trivial. There was a proposal to delete these sections awhile back, and some talk about writing a guideline, but there was no consensus on the matter and no guidelines exists, as far as I know. I think a guideline should be discussed in an effort to make these sections less trivial and more useful. Strobilus (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UKCITIES recommends that "Notable people" should be in prose, and have citations like any other material. This seems to be working for UK articles like Stretford and Neilston. --Jza84 |  Talk   21:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Born in" should be cited . . .  

message: athinaios and I are having a discussion about the use of pronunciation in Brussels. We are not reaching an agreement, and I was about to take our discussion to the talkpage of Brussels, but felt that it is relevant enough for a wider Project discussion. There is a guideline - Help:Pronunciation that pronunciation on Wiki should be in IPA. However, I can see the usefulness of having the local pronunciation for articles on cities. asthinaios and I are not in disagreement on that issue, however asthinaios feels that there should be a pronunciation for each official language in Belgium because Brussels is the capital city. My view is that German is not the official language of Brussels and would not be heard in Brussels any more than in any other non-German European city. There is an argument that we are not WikiTravel and all pronunciation should be in IPA, however the German article is a FA and has both German and IPA pronunciation. I feel where it makes sense it's fine, though where it doesn't we wouldn't be pushing too hard against Wiki convention. Is there something we could write up to put in the guideline on the use of names in different languages and pronunciation in city articles?  Something like: Names of the city should be given in each of the city's official languages. Pronunciation of the city name should be in IPA as per Help:Pronunciation, though can also be in the main local language(s) if thought helpful. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to stress that this thread appears to be a misunderstanding. Brüssel is not a variant local pronunciation of Brussels, but its actual name in German, one of the three official languages of Belgium, of which Brussels is still the capital. All three official Belgian names of the city have been in the article since January, 2003. Whether we remove the pronunciations is one issue, but this really seems to be about removing the name as a whole. If anywhere, this thread should be on the Brussels talkpage, in my opinion. athinaios | Talk 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put a note on the Brussels talkpage linking to here. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 20:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Hi I`m currently working into expand Panama City, I would ask everybody as a favor, please see Panama City, Panama page, and leave any comment or suggestion about how to improve it in the Talk page. If posible it would be nice if someone make a To Do List as a guideline. Thanks. Nando Cdl (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: 2008 marks the 250th year of the city of Pittsburgh. I was thinking that it would be really nice to get the city's wikipedia article up to Featured Article status; it's currently a B-class article, having never even been a GA or FA, or even nominated for peer review.
Anyone willing to help with this? Please leave comments over at Talk:Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 250th anniversary of [[Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania]]

message: Are there any userboxes for users who are participants in this project 
anyway  , if there arent here's a proposition 
 --Bindicapriqi (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  userbox  

message: Would the members of this project object to having the project banner equipped with additional functions which would allow your banner to assess for the various extant geography (national, regional, etc.) WikiProjects and subprojects as well? I believe that this project probably has more information available on how to construct city articles than most national projects do, and combining the banners would help to reduce the banner oversaturation problem as well. John Carter (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential adjustments to the project banner 

message: Just to let you know that Tel Aviv, a current FAC currently has a copyedit request. If you are able, please contrinute atWikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Requests.--Flymeoutofhere (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reviewers of the article want another copyedit so if anyone could help, itd be much appreciated. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tel Aviv 

message: Hi, I think this belongs to you. Please note that I am continuing to collect and add relevant templates to the page. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Templates with red links/2008-Jan-Cities]] 

message: At Nyttend's suggestion I have placed remarks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Guideline#Notes, Footnotes, References about following the Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout headings suggestions and Wikipedia:Citing sources#Section headings guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes, Footnotes, References

message: I have nominated a picture of the Prinsengracht in city center of Amsterdam as a featured picture candidate. If you agree that this picture is among the best pictures on Wikipedia, please support the nomination on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Prinsengracht by night. Thank you for your help. \u2013 Ilse@ 11:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture candidate 

message: I assume that when neither country is involved, whoever gets there first uses their countries standards? I'm editing a city in the old USSR. It currently has UK-like features and nomenclature. I don't think there's been any spelling mishaps (!) but the real problem is structure and nomenclature which seems very very British. "Motorways," "Civil society," "Sport" (instead of Athletics), etc. Since they were there first, this prevails, right? One problem here is that cities within a country will not have the same structure at all since the structural differences (which I just messed up!) are substantial. I imagine this has been discussed before. Student7 (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try changing it to the English style you prefer. If nobody complains, then you're good. Only if there is a dispute do we fall back to that "policy" of defering to the original style. Yes, this policy would sometimes result in variations within a non-English speaking country, but in the end that is better than some non-productive dispute about whether to use US- or UK- English. --Polaron | Talk 14:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: US vs. UK English is really just a matter of semantics, and officially, the manual of style has no preference here. Articles on more US-based topics should use the US-based English, and UK-based topics should use the UK English. Editors are discouraged from making major changes strictly favoring one usage over the other. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: UK vs US standards for outline

message: The walling off of public domain text as quotations is again being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Return of PD text style.  Forcing public domain text to be wrapped inside quotations would affect many city/town articles.  -- SEWilco (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  You're going around to how many wikiprojects, to try to raise an alarm not well-related to the discussion you raised about Bathhouse Row.  By the way, Bathhouse Row is a very nice set of historic buildings in Hot Springs, Arkansas, that is a National Historic Landmark of the united states. doncram (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two wikiprojects, as I mentioned in that discussion, due to city/town articles having sections (or being since creation wholly composed) from Census and other government descriptions, and many ship descriptions coming from public domain sources.  They're quite susceptible to a requirement of locking PD text inside quotation marks.  -- SEWilco (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you point to a specific city/town article, or two, which includes public domain text, and which has (or for which you could provide) a link to the specific public domain source of that text?  That would help focus the discussion here.  If you're talking about very generic short descriptions of places edited by anonymous Census department staff, then I think the correct treatment would be different than for long quotations written by Harrison, that are copied into the Bathhouse Row article.  For other readers, Bathhouse Row is a set of buildings that a woman named Harrison nominated for U.S. National Historic Landmark designation.  I think it would be more productive if we could talk about the issues you see with the use of public domain text in City/Town articles here, and talk about the Bathhouse Row article in the discussion section you opened about it over there.  Sincerely, doncram (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The first two towns I clicked on are :Bartlett, Illinois and :Ephrata, Pennsylvania.  I suspect the Geography and Demographics sections are from Rambot; you'll have to ask him what his sources were and what other parts of articles were created from PD text.  You might want to ask others before asking him to rerun the bot to wrap things in quotation marks.  -- SEWilco (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Neither of those articles mention use of a public domain source for text in the article.  Can you provide a link to the specific PD text that you think was copied into either of these articles?  And if you are telling me that there is PD material copied into these articles, which is not attributed, then i would indeed have the opinion that the articles would be improved by at least mentioning the source.  Don't you agree?  Or, do you think there are other issues with these articles?  Also, it would help the discussion if you would clarify whether you have an issue with these articles' use of PD text, or if you project that someone else does, or what.  I think it would help if you would own up to your own complaints, if you have them.  Sincerely, doncram (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public domain text style again 

message: As this project would be involved, I wanted to place a notice here that a question was posted at WP:External links about the listing of a city's official website in multiple places in an article, as well as multiple listings of the coordinates. --- Barek (talk \u2022 contribs) - 00:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replied to the EL question over there.  As far as the coords, it helps to have them in multiple places: at the top so we can easily find them when accessing the article; in the infobox because it's a summary; in the geography section because they're geography; and in the ELs because they're external links.  This already came up some time ago in discussion about .  Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have a problem with having this information in multiple places in the article, as a little bit of redundancy is good. But I'm not crazy with what the template puts in the external links section (e.g. "City is at coordinates lat/long"). This looks rather boring and trivial, and doesn't really stick to the 'external links' thing very well. The template used to actually have more details about what site (google maps) that was being linked to here, which was better. But this new template design really sucks, IMHO. Other than that, I have no problem with the other redundancies. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, it's not my favorite either, but they've done so much battling about it that bringing it up again would likely be pointless.  Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant entries for city's website and coordinates 

message: I'd like to draw everyone attention to vote here, It is about how the name of the kosovar capital should be like , with s,sh or \u0161 --Cradel 16:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'd like to remind everyone that an RfC is most definitely not a vote, comment and discussion is indeed welcome. Happy\u2011melon 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll on Kosovar City name 

message: It has been suggested that a discussion that started at here and here on the appropriateness of Chamber of Commerce and official tourism external links be continued here.  My feeling is that Chamber of Commerce links are boosterish, bordering on advertising and low in encyclopedic content, but are borderline acceptable (http://www.chemungchamber.org/ was the original point of contention).  However, official tourism sites (http://www.orlandoinfo.com is an especially egregious example) frequently cross the line into pure advertising with little or no redeeming value, and should be avoided.
Comments, guidelines, advice?  TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all C of C sites are equal. I don't think there is any basis to categorically exclude all C of C sites. At the same time, I don't see any reason to give them an automatic pass either. The more egregiously commercial should be omitted. older \u2260 wiser 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chamber of Commerce Links 

message: The articles that were in the above Category now have the new Banner WPCities. Kathleen.wright5 13:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re:[[:Category:Deprecated Banner WikiProject Cities articles]] 

message: Hello to all.  I am interested in joining this WikiProject in order to standardize the templates that shows the top 20 cities of the countries.  I have already helped out by making three others (after the original on of Mexico, but they are all beginning to separate from being standardized and a "war" is beginning to be fought over them.  I wanted to know if (along with me joining) these templates, and future ones, can be standardized as part of this project.  Please tell me what you think, and if this could be possible. — NuclearVacuum 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Templates of city populations]] 

message: Gangtok 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. Amartyabag  TALK2ME 03:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gangtok]] in FAR 

message: Having many small municipalities included on my watchlist, I have seen an astounding number of municipalities being tagged as part of the Cities Wikiproject, including places with barely hundreds of residents. Is it the intention of this project to tag every single article for every municipality on earth as part of this project? Is there manpower to do all of the tagging and why shouldn't this be done by bot? Is there any expectation that the tens or hundreds of thousands of such articles will be updated in any meaningful manner? Alansohn (talk) 16:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What is to be included here?

message: Hong Kong 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. --Joowwww (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Kong FAR 

message: Hi, 
I noticed that cities in USA, such as Boston, have images of their position in their state. I don't know much of the position of the states in the USA. Shouldn't someone add a image of a city's position in the USA as a whole? That's more friendly to readers such as myself. Thanks Mallerd (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the US is so large geographically, I think that the location within the state is a better option. One can easily see where in the state the city is, and if they're interested, they can click on the state link to find out where that state is in the union. Putting a dot on the USA map wouldn't be as accurate as putting a dot on the state map. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is done for Russia, Australia and China. Brazil and Canada don't seem to do this however. Mallerd (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to agree that a map showing the location in a country is helpful. I rather like the pushpin maps that are on some U.S. places, such as Egelston Township, Michigan, that show both the location within the state and a smaller inset showing the location of the state within the nation. older \u2260 wiser 21:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, that's useful. Mallerd (talk) 00:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities in the USA 

message: I've just requested a peer review for this article. I've never really commented on this WikiProject, but the page is in it. If anyone would be willing to participate in the review, suggestions would be helpful. I'm trying to get the article to GA or even FA status. Thanks to all! --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review for [[Meridian, Mississippi]] 

message: Question for you folks. Is there a useful standard way to measure the road traffic density in a city, for both local streets and highways? I suppose one could take the population and divide by geographical area as an estimate, but I was thinking there might be a more scientific way of measuring the actual traffic (e.g. provided by municipal surveys). Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic density 

message: I live in a city where our inner harbour has been remade for recreational use, in the Old Port of Montreal. This redevelopment was in part inspired I think by Baltimore's Inner Harbor. I see that the Auckland waterfront is being redeveloped. And here in Canada, the Harbourfront is a bustling concern, as is HarbourFront in Singapore, False Creek and many others. I'd like to create a category, to group them in a way which is distinct from the categories for parks and places in their respective cities. I'm sure there are many such areas and I've only scratched the surface. Any thoughts on this prospective category and my proposed name? Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the parent category for this proposed cat, :Category:Ports and harbours, uses Commonwealth spelling and I will too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm now thinking that Category:Redeveloped harbourfronts is the way to go. "Redeveloped" is broad enough to include all use, and the category page would explain that this is a cat for historic ports that have been developed for recreational, touristic, residential and other post-industrial use. cheers, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: (A belated comment) The category seems a good idea. It's now been moved by User:Cyde to :Category:Redeveloped ports and waterfronts which also seems a suitable name as its not the harbour that's redeveloped so much as the water frontage of it. There's a host of articles on the old London docks which can also be moved into this subcategory from the parent. I'll have a flick through them and do this over the next day or so. Euryalus (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Redeveloped harbourfronts

message: I wanted to inform this group about a new bot currently in development, User:FritzpollBot, that will potentially create millions of articles for places that are missing on Wikipedia. See User:Fritzpoll/Geo categorical assessments for some statistics, 28000+ in Bangladesh and 78,000+ in Pakistan. I would appreciate it if members of this group add suggestions to the bot approval page. Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FritzpollBot  

message: Hi there. Fritz bot has been approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot for filling in a possible 1.8 million articles on cities and settlements across the world. Now dabbing needs to be done for links which aren't sorted as the bot will bypass any blue links. and I need as many people as possible to help me with Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Places to prepare for the bot. If you could tackle a page or two everything counts as it will be hard to do it alone. Thankyou   \u2666Blofeld of SPECTRE\u2666      $1,000,000?  12:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bot approved: dabbing help needed

message: Although this article is listed as a Featured Article, it no longer meets the criteria. For the most part, it looks very good. There is a lack of references throughout the article, though. If the article can be thoroughly referenced, I have no problem with it remaining as a Featured Article. I wanted to mention this to the relevant WikiProjects to see if anyone is willing to work on the sourcing for this article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: San Francisco, 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. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article status for [[San Francisco, California]]

message: You are specifying multiple counties in info boxes.  I am doing genealogy work and need to know what county the city is traditionally/historically a part of to list in my genealogies...not all the counties that it has spread into.  For instance Tullahoma, TN city website lists iteself as Coffee Co., TN but Wikipedia lists its as two different counties.  Please figure out a way to specify which county is primary county and which ones are secondary. It would prevent genealogists from having to pick around multiple websites to figure it out. Thanks if possible.  \u2014Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.27.67 (talk) 00:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Request: Counties 

message: Please note that there are current move requests for Cancún, Mexicali, and Torreón. Please share your opinions if interested. Thank you. --Polaron | Talk 01:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexican city article naming 

message: Currently, 1869 articles assigned to this project, or 15.8%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: Hi there, I'm working on the WP:AFC backlog and I came across this request: Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/2008-06-15#Stokes.2C_Pitt_County.2C_North_Carolina. I can't tell if this is worth it's own article. Any advice/taking care of the article would be appreciated. I'm going to cross post this to Wikiproject NC also. Thanks! CredoFromStart  talk 14:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistance Requested at AfC

message: What is the reason behind having multiple redirects to the same article, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, in the demographics sections? I was just looking at Golden Beach, Florida and there are seven links to the same census article in one sentence, which seems like overkill. Shouldn't the first line after the section header be  followed by the ethnic groups being unlinked or linked to the relevant article about them? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 11:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Demographics section of US cities

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

message: hello
recently i undertook a major revamp project on the Kirkcaldy article by re-building the content and my work has been praised by a couple of users. however, i want to request a copy editor to look at my use of words and sentence structuring, now all my work is doneKilnburn (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Kirkcaldy article work

message: Hello folks, 
Just a nudge that Greater Manchester is up for FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greater Manchester. Your input and feedback would be most welcome. --Jza84 |  Talk   02:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Greater Manchester]] 

message: I have filed a request to add functionality to my bot, specifically to update the various US city and town articles per the updated, official Census figures.  The folks over at BAG suggested I would need more input from the community given the potential scope (there are approximately 19,500 incorporated places in the US), so I am bringing this up for attention here, and will likely also make mention of it over at the village pump.  You may want to chime in here (I will link to this discussion) if you have any thoughts on the matter.  Specifically, what the proposal entails is updating the "population_total" field in the infobox to match current Census figures, and tacking the appropriate citation in the "population_footnotes" field.  Thanks, Shereth 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot proposal 

message: The list in Category:C-Class WikiProject Cities articles is empty. All other class lists have some items. Some articles - eg, Aarhus, Aberystwyth and Abington, Massachusetts - are shown on their talk pages as "C" but they're included in Category:Unassessed-Class WikiProject Cities articles. What's the explanation? Folks at 137 (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The  template does not cater for C-class articles. If you wish to use the classification then the template needs modifying first. Keith D (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:C-Class WikiProject Cities articles 

message: Due to the upcoming Republican and Democratic Conventions in August, we might want to focus on improving the articles on Denver, Colorado (currently GA-class) and Saint Paul, Minnesota (currently B-class). Also, not to be too US-centric, does anyone want to take a crack at Beijing (currently B-class), with the Olympics coming up? Dr. Cash (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles to focus on for collaboration

message: Hi. I've just come across an article Kai Nani at Makakilo - although it would seem to be a neighborhood in Hawaii, it's actually a community run by a board of directors (i.e. a business). So, do these types of community come under this project, or should they be regarded purely as businesses ? CultureDrone (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the article in question is about a non-notable apartment complex and should probably be deleted as advertising spam. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Managed neighborhoods 

message: Hi there.  Recently some reliably sourced material I added to the Corvallis, Oregon page was reverted because "WP:CITY requires that it be only US Census Bureau data for population".  Is this an accurate statement?  Can I get a link to this requirement? It should be noted that I left the population as sourced by the US Census Bureau in the infobox, but simply added (in one case more up to date) info on population in the section discussing population.  My problem with this reversion is that this is reliably sourced material, and no objection other than "WP:CITY forbids it" is the justification.  I understand that population figures may be a hotly contested issue on some pages but I don't see how any Wikiproject can justify superseding WP:V by disallowing some reliably sourced content based on essentially personal preference. The issue here is the Census Bureau numbers are significantly different from both an academic study and the city's official website, and I think we should allow the reader to decide rather than forcing the USCB numbers on them.  That seems reasonable enough, no? VegaDark (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The guideline in question is WP:USCITY.  My personal preference is that the demographic information for cities remain as consistent as possible, hence the use of Census data rather than using local estimates.  This is because, in my experience, local estimates tend to be rather generous while Census estimates are more cautious, and I'd rather have the numbers slightly understated than overstated.  That said, it's not a terribly important issue in my opinion, and as long as the Census numbers still appear on the page and it is made clear that the non-Census data is clearly marked as such, it doesn't bother me. Shereth 13:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problems with allowing non-Census data: (1) like Shereth said, local estimates tend to be more generous and (2) inconsistent methodology because it's a different source than that use for every other city.  The only one agency that's estimated all local populations is the Census Bureau and not the City of Corvallis or Oregon State.  All other cities use Census data, as does List of United States cities by population, Table of United States Metropolitan Statistical Areas, and Table of United States Core Based Statistical Areas.--Loodog (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If reliably sourced, local estimates I would argue are more likely to be accurate.  The US Census Bureau has a ton of places to estimate the population for, while local estimates obviously devote a lot more attention to their specific location in order to get the most accurate they can be.  As long as it is reliably sourced, I see no reason to remove population estimates from other sources as long as the USCB numbers are also mentioned. Finally, WP:USCITY says "it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing", I think this is one case where this needs to be applied. VegaDark (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That misses the point.  It's completely inconsistent with the methodology used in every other American city.  We're not going to us USCB data for every American city.--Loodog (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It is perfectly acceptable to mention population estimates from any reliable published sources so long as the census estimates are also given. Kaldari (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliably sourced information on population reverted

message: I've put in work, and I'd like to see what you guys think. It's still missing several sections that could be inputted (specifically Infrastructure and Government) but I plan to fill those in as soon as I can. The peer review page can be found at this location. Any comments would be appreciated.
--Starstriker7(Say hior see my works) 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Lincolnshire, Illinois]] for PR

message: The image KeizersgrachtReguliersgrachtAmsterdam.jpg is a featured picture candidate. You can support/oppose the candidate on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Keizersgracht in Amsterdam. Thank you. \u2013 Ilse@ 20:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FPC Keizersgracht in Amsterdam 

message: Is there a total number of announcements that should be present on the WikiProject home page? It seems like 20 would be a good limit, but I wanted to discuss it here first. Best, epicAdam(talk) 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been keeping a set number on the page at any given time. I've been sorta trying to keep it going back about three months, archiving older announcements. But it's been kinda fluid, and I really just eyeball it -- if the announcements gets to be a long list, I archive some,... Dr. Cash (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What would we do without you, Dr. Cash? :-) I figured having a number or procedure in place would be a good idea, just in case you weren't around. -epicAdam(talk) 00:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcements 

message: I don't know a whole lot about the history of this wikiproject and whether or not this has already been debated (it doesn't seem to have been debated in the active talk page) but how come US city infoboxes don't contain a range of ZIP codes in which the city is located? I came to a city page for an American city looking for the zip code and then noticed that it doesn't exist for any city (at least not the five or six I searched for to verify). Is there any particular reason, or just an oversight? I'd think it would be pretty useful to include, if not in the infobox then somewhere in the article.  Betterusername (talk) 05:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify I mean including a range of zip codes, not a list of them... I realize that many American cities have way too many zip codes to list out individually. What I'm suggesting/asking about would look as simple as "26713-28223" or something (it wouldn't take up more than one line). Betterusername (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is anything that would prevent you from entering a range where appropriate. older \u2260 wiser 13:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

text: A range of zip codes is not always accurate for many cities, since zip codes are allocated in a different manner than simply by political boundaries. So, most major metro areas will have several zip code ranges instead of just one. Most decent-sized cities will also have way too many zip codes such that listing them all in the infobox is a bad idea. Zip codes are also rather trivial and pointless information to include in an encyclopedia article, and isn't really needed. But I can see why some editors might want to put them in, since they can be added mindlessly by someone needing something pointless, trivial, and ridiculously simple to do. It would be much better if editors actually contributed to the useful content of articles than this mind-numbing, worthless crap. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: US city ZIP codes

message: Hi, I was hoping someone could help me out with my peer review request for the Davenport, Iowa page. I worked really hard to get it to a GA in March, and am hoping to get it to an FA by the end of this year. Any help anyone could provide would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! Ctjf83Talk 02:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for WikiProject Cities 

message: "Any postcard first published in the U.S. before 1978 without an explicit copyright notice is PD." What does PD mean? Questioningly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's common Wikipedia shorthand for public domain. --Wikiacc (¶) 22:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does PD mean? 

message: The image RedLightDistrictAmsterdamTheNetherlands.jpg is a featured picture candidate. You can support/oppose the candidate on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-light District. Thank you. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FPC Red-light district in Amsterdam 

message: I am planning one, and if all goes well it should be up and running in no time. I expect at the least ten of the eighteen cities within the scope to ultimately reach FA status. If you would like to help out, come and tell me.
--Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 12:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, I was wondering who is running WP Cities now? it fell silent for a long time last I recall. Anyway I just recently revamped Alaskan cities with the cities template since they've been getting so much attention via Sarah Palin. davumaya 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed so as well. No one is really actively pushing the WikiProject forwards now, so I figured I might as well break some ground here. BTW, thanks for getting to me, and good work with Wasilla. --Starstriker7(Dime algoor see my works) 20:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think anyone is officially "running" the project. I've been trying to keep the review lists updated on at least a weekly basis for the past year or so. I've also tried to organize some of the suggested topic areas into a suggested article outline/template (WP:USCITY); one previously existed for UK cities (WP:UKCITIES). I'm pretty familiar with the WP:GAN procedures, so I can help move articles through that process. WP:FAC seems to be a bit 'anal-retentive' for my tastes; most articles I nominate there get shot down over the most miniscule crap,... but if folks want to push for FA, I'd help out -- in my experience, moving towards FA is best done by a collective effort by more than one editor. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also began a Top 25 Canadian Cities Classes page in the same vein as the Top 25 US Cities Classes  SriMesh | talk 02:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Featured article drive|Featured article drive]] 

message: Waterfall Gully, South Australia 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) 20:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterfall Gully, South Australia FAR 

message: Does the abandoned monastic settlement of Glendalough qualify for inclusion? The scope isn't clear: does the project include or exclude settlements that have ceased to exist? This would affect those where occupation became untenable, eg Pompeii, Dead Cities, or where the site ceased to exist (eg Dunwich). I note there is a project Wikipedia:WikiProject Ghost towns, but this doesn't seem to apply (although might be linked to the Cities project). Comments, plz. Folks at 137 (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the sheer number of populated cities included in this project, I would say not to include abandoned settlements. If there is a wikiproject for ghost towns or archaeology, that would be the appropriate place for them. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I tend to agree, particularly since I have argued the project's scope needs to tightened or sub-divided. Perhaps this could be included on the project page. "wikiproject for ghost towns or archaeology": ghost towns are a particular sub-group of "extinct settlements", archaeology is a much broader topic. I've raised the issue elsewhere, although there are commonalities with WPCities. Folks at 137 (talk) 20:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Abandoned settlements

message: The article move wars continue and there are now three proposals get US city articles moved from the long-standing standard of city, state to city, going against the WP:MOS. Three separate debates are currently ongoing, one at Talk:New Orleans, Louisiana and Talk:Boston, Massachusetts. Seattle, Washington was also previously moved to Seattle despite a clear lack of consensus, and without following proper procedures. I have re-initiated discussion on moving Seattle back to Seattle, Washington, since it was improperly moved in the first place. Please go to the talk pages of each article to participate in the discussion threads. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a preference for "city, state" names, but it's not apparent to me that that form is required by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#United States. Am I missing something? --Orlady (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not explicitly required, and exceptions to certain cities are allowed, if consensus allows it, for cities based on the AP Stylebook. Although, IMHO, I think if we shouldn't selectively apply the AP Stylebook to some cities without applying it to all cities that it mentions (e.g. if the AP Stylebook says that there are like 20 cities that can be called 'city' instead of 'city, state', then let's apply it uniformly to all cities instead of just ones that we want to? Dr. Cash (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Could you tone down the "move nazi" rhetoric, it's not helping your argument any.  Calling the folks who want to move articles about nazis or facists or other such names accomplishes nothing except to inflame the debate and is getting kind of tiresome. Shereth 20:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Um, no. I believe that you are wrong here. There is no evidence of canvassing. Sorry. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the naming convention AND the AP style guide support Seattle per the longstanding exemption, the only other consensus that would decide this is at Talk:Seattle. Posting here seems to be canvassing, especially as your tone indicates that a move done in compliance with the naming convention is wrong. Wikiprojects have no authority over articles or naming conventions so posting here was unhelpful in the tone you did it in. rootology (C)(T) 15:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

text: It isn't canvassing to alert a WP of something relevant to the WP. Occuli (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A neutral tone, sure. But this project has no special authority and his tone was not neutral. rootology (C)(T) 15:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The move debate continues ...

message: If we look at what's been happening with respect to city names in the past two months, Seattle, Washington has been moved to Seattle, New Orleans, Louisiana has been moved to New Orleans, and Boston, Massachusetts currently has a discussion that's leaning in favor of moving the article name to Boston. The rationale for moving this is based on the current naming convention for US cities, which allows exceptions for cities mentioned by the AP Stylebook as being eligible to be referred to by 'city' instead of 'city, state'.
I don't think we should be following the AP Stylebook selectively, and debating and voting on this every few weeks or months. Rather than that, let's just move all of the cities mentioned by the Stylebook to their 'city' name. The cities that would be affected would be:
Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York City, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle (cities highlighted in bold text do not need to be moved).
Discussion on this is currently taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). Dr. Cash (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: City name proposal

message: A user recently changed the racial demographic data in the Denver article to reference a newspaper article which is in turn based on US Census data.  No big problem so far, but the secondary source (the newspaper) reported "Hispanic" as a race and used "White, not Hispanic" as a racial percentage.  The Census Bureau includes both numbers (depending on where you look) but as far as I can tell doesn't consider "Hispanic" a race.  Is there a consistent guideline used in Wikipedia for this? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Census Bureau's definition of Hispanic and Latino status says that H/L status is not a race, any newspaper article of this sort is incorrect.  A newspaper repeating statistics not inconsistent with Census Bureau data, derived from Census Bureau data, wouldn't be incorrect (in my mind) under any situation, but anything that misrepresents (even accidentally) the Census Bureau isn't reliable in that situation.  I know I've seen Census Bureau figures for H/L Whites and non-H/L Whites somewhere, but I don't know where to find them; this basic fact sheet for Denver doesn't include it.  I've never been able to find my way around the Factfinder too well; I'm going to ask Omnedon, who plainly understands that website better than I do.  Nyttend (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the fact sheet you refer to does include these numbers, just not in the "Race" section.  In the H/L section there's a total non-H/L white percentage.  I believe what the newspaper did in this case is report that as the "white" number, then the total H/L percentage (of all races) as the H/L number misidentifying this as a race, and then the other races (so the percentages add up to more than 100%).  If a Wikipedia user did this it would be WP:OR, but the user has simply changed the numbers to match what the newspaper said.  I'll revert this change on the grounds that we use Census Bureau data directly.  It might be helpful if this were written down somewhere in a guideline or MOS entry.  Thanks.  -- Rick Block (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographic data 

message: Many infoboxes (some editors have created their own) have "metro" figures in them in addition to city figures. The trouble with this is that there is usually a metro article already with the same info. 
We are starting to see "article creep" here with people unable to place proper boundaries on geographic articles. There is no need for a city reader to know what any metro figure is - s/he can go to that article which has its own editors. They would maintain the figures in one place and one place only. They are "metro specialists" just as some of us are "city specialists." Why not let editors (and articles) comprise whatever they are named to do and not try to "creep" into the next higher level. I don't need to know who the president of France is why I read an article about Caen. I am happy to go to the one article that has that information by pressing the standard links from Caen to "France" where they will most likely have that info.
This opens the door to still other people who claim as "nearby" resources transportation and tourist facilities that are far away from the area which is sometimes an insignificant part of the metro. The idea seems to be to make it "more important." What are we trying to accomplish with these metro figures anyway? Student7 (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are clear metropolitan/micropolitan area distinctions: any state has a list of its metro/micro areas, whether huge like Texas and California, or minimal like Vermont and Rhode Island.  It's quite helpful to include the metro population, especially for the principal cities, but also for other communities in the metro area.  Nyttend (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article creep and metro figures

message: I have proposed moving Harrisburg (disambiguation) to Harrisburg, which at present is a redirect to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.  Discussion of this proposal is on Talk:Harrisburg.  --Una Smith (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harrisburg disambiguation 

message: Kalimpong has been nominated for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey  (bananabucket) 05:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kalimpong 

message: Portal:Shreveport and Portal:Baton Rouge, Louisiana are up for deletion at WP:Mfd (Shreveport & Baton Rouge, Louisiana).  The project's input would be welcome. §hep  •  ¡Talk to me! 07:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of City portals 

message: Should the project banner be placed on the talkpage of every hamlet, town, city, and village article? Cheers. Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab 18:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: nominated Dhaka for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey  (bananabucket) 05:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several city articles currently up for featured article review. Please click here to see the list. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dhaka