Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 6

message: I'm new to Wikipedia so I apologise if this topic has been covered before.  I searched and didn't find anything.  I'm working on an article on the neighbourhood I live in, Sunnyside, Calgary and I was wondering if there is an infobox I can use for it?  If not I'd like to try making one but was interested in getting some feedback first. Mark 22:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neighbourhood Infobox 

message: Hi, I'm working on the Hamilton, Ontario article and I'm not sure what joining this wikiproject does for the Hamilton related articles.  I thought joining the project would attract a group of other City article editors to take a look at the Hamilton article.  Could someone please help me understand how I encourage group participation from outsiders on our local article? Alan.ca 22:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed.  I made a couple of small edits to it yesterday. I'll take a second look at it and if it can't be cleaned up a little. —MJCdetroit 23:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Much appreciated!  I will try to get by to visiting the Detroit article.  Alan.ca 06:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject participation -- Hamilton, Ontario 

message: I have been spending some time attempting to clean up the main project page.  I used some examples from the WP:BIO project.  Most importantly, I would like to define departments and start setting some project goals.  I am presently working to establish a template that supports article rating similar to other WikiProjects.  I would appreciate any support any interested party could offer.  Alan.ca 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of a collaboration-candidate.  —MJCdetroit 17:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, however, I think an important first step will be to start using a new talk page banner that categorizes project covered articles by their current class rating. I would like to start a rating project in the assessment department. Alan.ca 18:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revitalization of the project 

message: I have begun the development of a new talk page template: .  I am new to template development so I would appreciate the assistance of experienced editors.  The new template features a shorter name and the ability to rate articles within the scope of the project. Alan.ca 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer using one of Wikipedia:Featured pictures whenever possible. What do you think of the new picture? I also modified the assessment page a little. Badbilltucker 19:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Due to the size of the picture, I think we should select something that is more of an icon.  I tried to find a building icon, but had no luck.  The globe may serve us better than a picture, in lieu of a better icon. Alan.ca 19:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point taken. I can see that the size might be problematic. There are the Sears tower , the Empire State Building , and others. The one objection I have to the global picture is the fact that it implies centering on one part of the world, that part shown. Badbilltucker 20:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the pictures from New York and Chicago imply centering on a specific city or country.  Again, I would prefer the globe picture until a better icon can be found or created. Alan.ca 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing a new project talk page template: WPCities 

message: Alan.ca and I have been discussing the use of the new template, and of ratings. Also, we should develop a scale of importance. 
===Importance ratings===
I would propose that the following criteria (at least) should be part of our assessment of importance.
*Population
*Historical importance of the city (Hiroshima, Alexandria)
*Cultural or religious importance of the city (Jerusalem, Mecca)
*Economic importance of the city
*Whether the city is a county seat or state capital (or the equivalent in its country)
*National capitals should almost always be of high importance
*Demand for the article ("what links here")
I think these would be a good start to determine how critical an article is, and also to evaluate its current state. What are everyone's thoughts on these? Seraphimblade 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: City article ratings

message: I would propose that the following criteria (at least) should be part of our assessment of importance.
*Population
*Historical importance of the city (Hiroshima, Alexandria)
*Cultural or religious importance of the city (Jerusalem, Mecca)
*Economic importance of the city
*Whether the city is a county seat or state capital (or the equivalent in its country)
*National capitals should almost always be of high importance
*Demand for the article ("what links here")
I think these would be a good start to determine how critical an article is, and also to evaluate its current state. What are everyone's thoughts on these? Seraphimblade 23:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance ratings

message: WikiProject Cities is rather misleading. Wouldn't it be better as WikiProject Settlements? Simply south 23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it matters. The scope of this project is clearly stated for those who don't immediately realise its purpose.--cj | talk 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I would propose that a section of "Noted Places" is added to the general template.  This fits with geography section quite easily and makes sense
This would allow contributors to add things like:
Local Places of Interest,
Famous Places,
Hard to find locations,
Etc.
Format should be like:
Name of site, UTM Coordinate North-South, UTM coordinate East - West, a brief site description, brief significance.
Coordinate system must be universal in nature and geographic degrees minutes and seconds are difficult to enter into a personal GPS system.  I vote for UTM coordinates.  OR both to be totally flexible.
By establishing a standard system of waypoints for each geography, these coordinates could be published and easily downloaded into a personal GPS system for use by the public at large. See: city geographic coordinate already shown.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wwporter (talk • contribs) 13:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal - Add a GPS coordinate section to each city template. 

message: There are a few things which the template lacks:
*Arts and Culture.  It may say something about the demographic of Wikipedia editors that we have a section on sports but not on culture.
*Recreation.  Sports seems oriented to professional sports; most communities do not have them.  Recreation is of equal or greater importance.  Suggestion:  Change to Sports and Recreation.  Right now it is suggested that major parks be included under Geography; I would move them to Sports and Recreation.
*Climate.  Under geography, or in own section?
I am a latecomer to this page, so please excuse the duplication if these suggestions have already been dealt with and buried in the archives. Kablammo 16:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What the template is missing 

message: Is there any consensus on what demographics should be used for city articles?  I know rambot used United States Census 2000 and many users have added demographics from the 2005 American Community Survey.  There are some city pages that use third-party demographics, like the opening paragraph of Riverside, California, from 2006—which seems odd since the city's website itself quotes the 2005 ACS data.  What do you guys think?  Brien Clark 20:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to clean up the article.  The 2005 ACS data seems legit since the U.S. Census Bureau's American FactFinder data quotes both the 2000 census data and the 2005 ACS data.  I'm not sure how legit any data past 2005 can be, since it would not be officially sanctioned by the Census Bureau.  Brien Clark 04:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics Source

message: Ann Arbor, Michigan 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) 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article would look much better if the crime statistics section of Demographics didn't have an empty space for "Comparison with national averages". --orlady 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ann Arbor, Michigan FAR

message: I bring this article to your attention so that someone familiar with this topic might be able to fix the article and possibly bring it into the fold of your project: Westside San Bernardino, California.  Thanks.  --G1076 14:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article in need of attention

message: Curiosity ... Is there a recognized protocol about adding or removing WikiProject tags from city articles?  There's an interesting experience going on over at WikiProject California, and WikiProject Southern California.  
Some time ago, WikiProject California members had placed their project tags on all articles about California cities.  Those tags have been in place for some time.  Recently certain members of WikiProject Southern California, after discussion on that project's talk page (only), decided to remove the WikiProject California tags for (almost all) Southern California cities, and replace the tags with WikiProject Southern California tags - only.  
That is, the WikiProject Southern California members didn't simply add the WikiProject Southern California tag to Southern California cities, the WikiProject California tags were completely removed.  This was done apparently without consultation with the WikiProject California members.  
It would seem at first glance that all the cities in Southern California could appropriately remain as part of both WikiProject California and WikiProject Southern California - it is after all one state!  There are many articles across Wikipedia which have multiple WikiProject tags.
I don't know what the answer is if there is a recognized protocol about the following:  
* Is there a consensus here about who can add and who can remove WikiProject tags from city articles?
* Is there a consensus here about when a city article can have more than one WikiProject tag?
Are there any observations that anyone in this group has about this situation? Spamreporter1 15:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like some kind of odd gaming going on. Any article can be under the auspices of a number of different projects; it's not an exclusivity thing! The yanked tags should be restored, and the offending people should be gently chided. Is there anything on the talk pages of either project? --Orange Mike 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There was some discussion on the Southern California page, but none on the California page.  I don't think it was gaming; it appears that some of the Southern California editors have a good faith view about which WikiProject tags should appear.  The question is whether their views regarding this removal reflect consensus.  Each of the other people who have chimed in so far have felt that having both tags is appropriate.  Spamreporter1 15:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: We had a similar situation at WikiProject Kentucky, which spawned several child projects, including WikiProject Louisville, WikiProject Bluegrass Region, and WikiProject KYOVA Region. In particular, the Louisville (perhaps more appropriately, the Louisville Metro) project began changing WPKentucky tags to WPLouisville tags. At first, I also resented that change, but I came to realize that it does help get the best editors for a particular topic on those articles. We list good and featured articles from the child projects on the WPKentucky page and generally try to work in partnership with the child projects. And, in cases of significant overlap, we leave both banners. For example, Frankfort, Kentucky is located in the Bluegrass Region, but is also the state capital. Acdixon 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to say the same thing, basically, but Acdixon beat me to it.  WPLou and WPKY get along quite well, and oftentimes in the few cases where we have a jurisdictional question, we just keep both project banners on the talk page.  It's all good.  There's normally no need for dual city/region and state project coverage. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Note: All the comments above has been copied by Spamreporter1 to the SoCal WikiProject's talk page.
The precident on the Wikipedia has always been to use only the most specific category for articles when there is a very clear hierachy between categories. This is true for Stubs and for Categories, and should also be true for WikiProjects as well.  For further discussion, please see The argument for the migration from California to Southern California banners for SoCal articles on the SoCal WikiProject's talk page. BlankVerse 16:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What precedent?  Categories, Stubs and Wikiprojects are quite different. Alan.ca 22:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with BlankVerse.  The Southern California wikiproject did the right thing technically, but apparently they should have provided better courtesy to the state-level project. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The views of each of those Projects was solicited because each is affected by the topic.  I have requested that any responses be condensed, and have assisted that process.  People are going to respond where they want, and I'm trying to avoid disputes over where the conversation is going to take place, by performing the clerical act of copying responses.  If anyone has a suggestion of a single place that all interested parties are comfortable watching and responding there, that would be a good solution. Spamreporter1 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment at California was moved to SoCal, not copied.  I copied it back myself.  Although this issue did not really grab me at first, I'm begining to wonder if somebody should be drafting a WP:Hubris policy.--Hjal 08:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that another editor moved your comment (not me).  It was exactly this type of action that I was trying to avoid by copying comments to a condensed location. Spamreporter1 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious Question about removing WikiProject tags from city articles 

message: To try to follow all discussions on this issue, you have to look at the talk pages for at least four different WikiProjects (California, SoCal, CITIES, and COUNCIL), as well as the talk page for Wikipedia:WikiProject, because the sockpuppet  Spamreporter1 has been copying different comments to the different pages without telling the different WikiProjects or the authors of those comments, and without identifying where the different comments came from. BlankVerse 14:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The views of each of those Projects was solicited because each is affected by the topic.  I have requested that any responses be condensed, and have assisted that process.  People are going to respond where they want, and I'm trying to avoid disputes over where the conversation is going to take place, by performing the clerical act of copying responses.  If anyone has a suggestion of a single place that all interested parties are comfortable watching and responding there, that would be a good solution. Spamreporter1 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My comment at California was moved to SoCal, not copied.  I copied it back myself.  Although this issue did not really grab me at first, I'm begining to wonder if somebody should be drafting a WP:Hubris policy.--Hjal 08:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I see that another editor moved your comment (not me).  It was exactly this type of action that I was trying to avoid by copying comments to a condensed location. Spamreporter1 21:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: I have to wonder if some of the extreme hostility and incivility that has been part of this discussion on this project's talk page, and some other project's talk pages is the result of some editors assuming that the SoCal WikiProject has been 'undoing' some editor's hard work. In reality, the tagging of almost all the article talk pages (on over 10,000 articles!) with the  banner was done by a Bot, User:MetsBot. At the time, the bot's owner received quite a few complaints, and because of that quit doing any bot-tagging for WikiProjects. It really wasn't the bot's fault, but the fact that that some articles had been miscategorized (such as a couple of Oregon cities that probably some waggish vandal had categorized as California cities). BlankVerse 14:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All done by a bot

message: There seems to be a Template:WikiProjectBanners which is able to combine multiple wikiproject templates into one. This seems to work quite well for city articles that fall under multiple wikiprojects. Dr. Cash 04:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProjectBanners

message: :In reality, subprojects of WikiProject Australia are their own autonomous group with their own sense of community. Sub-projects of WP:AUS generally maintain themselves, however fall under the parent WikiProject Australia for WP:1.0 assessment purposes. Some Australian sub-projects fall outside of the parent project and have decided to assess their own aticles (an example is Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia, leading to the situation where a talk page becomes cluttered with many unneccessary templates. We're about to combine assessments for sub-projects into the master  template so that sub-projects need not create their own assessment scheme. The benefit of this is that sub-projects can assess their own articles, and their assessments contribute to provide an overall look at the state of Australia-related articles without fragmenting the results. You may want to look at WP:INDIA which has already adapted what we require. -- Longhair\talk 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're try to change to adapt to editor's needs. Check back often, you never know what we've been up to until you take a look ;) -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Longhair (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Your question to [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia]]

message: :Our response will be similar to the Australian one above. I had initially copied their template and improved upon it.
:1) Sub-projects work autonomously and have their own community. They have seperate project pages and discussion pages. See WP:KERALA.  
:2) COTW still works at the parent level since participation is low. 
:3) All sub-projects use the same project banner. For example,  for an article that falls under the scope of India and Kerala.
:4) The project banner creates assessment categories at individual project level as well as at the parent. Class tag is shared across projects. Since Importance could differ between sub-projects, we have separate importance tags for each project. For example,  will put the article under Top importance for Kerala project and High for the India project.
:5) Sub-projects are identified as workgroups on the talk page banner. For a few of our projects (Indian cinema), banner displays the sub-project in a separate box. For example,  will generate two boxes, one for India and one for Cinema. This way, the sub-project gets more ad-space. See Talk:Aishwarya Rai. This is needed for topical projects that loosely integrate into the national project. Indian cinema has both India and Films as parents. 
:6) The parent project's menu bar is displayed on all sub-project pages. This will give visibility and help invite more participants into various sub-projects. In topical projects such as Indian cinema, the menu bar is trimmed down to a small box. The menu bar displays assessment statistics table of the project currently displayed. See WP:KERALA and WP:INCINE.
:7) The automation department at the parent level supports all sub-projects. They help with automated talk page tagging.
:This type of integration avoids redundancy and helps sub-projects concentrate on the article improvement than worry about templates and technical stuff.
:Hope that helps. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your question to [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India]] 

message: Recently, I am having a disagreement with Alan.ca concerning sub-sections in city articles. I was told that it is preferable that such sub-sections not be used for city articles (see Gangtok). At the same time, I am of the opinion that there are several topics that are broad enough to cover several other topics (e.g. culture covers events, sites of interest, media, and sports), and hence warrant sub-sectioning for organization purposes (see Canberra).
Instead of continuing to argue this matter, I am asking for more input on this matter, which cover the following:
#Should sub-section formatting be considered for city articles that are FA or are trying to achieve FA?
#Should sub-sections even be used, and if so to what extent?
Feedback is appreciated.
PentawingTalk 03:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sub-sectioning - call for opinions