Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 4

message: I was wondering if anyone would be interested in creating a wikiproject on U.S. metropolitan areas.  At present, the articles are a mess, and mostly use obsolete definitions, rather than the new ones (the new ones being the Metropolitan Statistical Area/Micropolitan Statistical Area/Combined Statistical Area rather than Metropolitan Statistical Area/Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area/Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area).  For instance, we still have an article Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area, even though Baltimore and Washington are now in separate Metropolitan Statistical Areas (although the same Combined Statistical Area).  It seems to me that it would be nice to try to bring some order to the chaos, and to have articles on the officially defined metropolitan areas, as well, perhaps, as on the officially defined urbanized areas, information about which is also available. Anyone interested? john k 04:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metropolitan Areas WikiProject? 

message: I like to propose a revised general city template based on:
*Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/Indiacityproject
*Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities#Wikipedia featured articles for 
**Seattle, Washington and 
**San Jose, California
Current Template of a U.S. City based on WikiProject: Cities - Structure
*History
*Law and government
*Geography
*Economy
*Demographics
*Sites of interest
*Colleges and universities
*Sports teams
*Notable natives
*(Miscellaneous topics and similar lists)
*External links
Proposed template for any city
*Wikipedia:Lead section
*History
*Government and politics (name change from Law and government)
** Notable mayors and officials
** Crime
*Infrastructure  (NEW)
** Transportation
** Utilities
** Medical centers, hospitals, health
** Social services (Social welfare?)
** Media
**  Print,Television and cable, Radio, Internet
*Geography (expand subject - includes older Sites of Interest)
** Climate, geology, Flora and fauna
** Neighborhoods
** Housing
** Landmarks and architecture
** Parks, gardens, and other recreational sites
*Economy
** Industries, Companies, shopping centers
*People and culture  (NEW -- expansion of older sections Demographics and Notable natives)
** Demographics
** Annual cultural events and fairs
** Performing arts
** Museum and art
** Libraries
** Sister cities
** Notable natives, residents
*Education (name change from Colleges and universities)
** Schools, Colleges and universities
*Sports (name change from Sports teams)
*(Miscellaneous topics and similar lists)
*Sister cities
*References
*See also
*External links
*Further reading
Please comment Petersam 07:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed revised city template

message: The WikiProject should devise two or three types of "outline" templates.  One for big cities that are considered as "Metropolitan": Such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and others for small towns and small urban cities.  Small urban cities don't have the same area or land space as large cities and therefore can not provide the same amount of information.  Some small urban cities are not large enough to have their own stadium and sports team. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The template is only a guideline or suggestion as stated at the top of the project page. So smaller cities which do not have a section can leave it out. No need for more templates.  Petersam 22:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: If you are a resident of Chicagoland or just someone with an interest in the city, come join Wikipedia: WikiProject Chicago. This project is seeking to coordinate efforts to expand the coverage of Chicago-related topics on the English Wikipedia and to finally make Chicago a Featured Article. This is a brand new WikiProject, and members are needed, so please come and contribute anything you can. We plan to bring the Chicago article up to the standard set by this WikiProject, which by the looks of things is no easy task, so please come and help out.
 03:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation from WikiProject Chicago 

message: There are category changes being voted upon.  I support the CITY NAME, STATE NAME pattern discussed on the project's main page.
* CFD Honolulu, Hawaii
* CFD Category:New York City, New York
* CFD Washington, D.C. related categories
(SEWilco 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories for Honolulu, NYC, D.C. 

message: I was so happy to read the information regarding this section of Richmond, Old Manchester, which is too often avoided in these texts.  It was a vibrant little community across the river from the city, Richmond.  I would assume that the retail industry along Hull Street and its surrounding neighborhoods would reveal the differences and similarities of the two communities upon both banks of the James River. And one never reads about the slave market once here.  I also know of its very old African American community with its business and baptist roots. 
It has been mentioned to me that retail in downtown Richmond was once bustling and a leader throughout the south.  When I share old and new photographs or even bring friends from Boston, New York or Paris home to my Richmond, they are surprised and overwhelmingly assert their appeal for its natural beauty.  "Why would you want to leave Richmond for Harlem, New York?"  Just the 5th district itself, so centrally located geographically, with neighborhoods like Woodland Hts, Swansboro, Carytown, Carillon, Byrd/Maymont, Randolph, Hollywood and more, has great monuments, grand homes, small homes, the ornate Byrd Theatre, a stadium and lots of trees with sounds of falling, rushing water over rock along the river.  Oh so Richmond; so unique for a city, which has a country feel just as well. 
The text about Richmond, including Old Manchester, captures well the facts and romance of this historical real city.  I look forward to how it will develop for the casual reader. 172.144.13.112 01:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Manchester) Richmond, Virginia 

message: People working at WikiProject Argentina have created a generic, customizable set of templates to characterize populated places, following the model of the composite Taxobox of WikiProject Tree of Life. Please take a look at Template talk:Placebox-begin. Suggestions are welcome. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Composite Placebox 

message: produces links to Geographic references with the same appearance as Wikipedia:Footnotes, a numbered link.  But this conflicts with Wikipedia:Footnotes links within the same article in several ways due to these reserved GR numbers not being within the same article.  Could a different notation (maybe GR1) be used by ?  (SEWilco 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any approval or disapproval over using [GR1] or GR1 so as to avoid conflict with other references?  (SEWilco 07:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to any formatting of the references, so long as I don't have to run the bot over every 30,000 article and change anything. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Change completed.  (SEWilco 05:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GR links 

message: I've revised the infobox template a bit, using a slightly different format than some of the other cities. Personally, I really don't like the existing infobox, which does not include the city skyline within the infobox. Most city pages prefer to add a skyline image directly above at the top of each page, which makes sense. But without this included inside the infobox itself, it tends to draw lots of problems. First, several city pages include the infobox further down on the page, with the first text section in between the infobox and the top skyline image - this just looks bad. Secondly, other city pages seem to have a problem with the image width and infobox width being different sizes (see the San Francisco, California article on this one). Third, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to have the city name HEADER at the top of the infobox (as standard), yet below the city skyline image (e.g. not at the top of the page).
Please take a look at the discussion and VOTE on the Talk:Los Angeles, California article. Dr. Cash 01:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox Template Revision: Vote

message: There are currently two major infobox formats, with examples shown below. I believe that we should decide on a single version which would supersede all of these formats. Any suggestions is appreciated. Pentawing 05:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the option #3 (far to the right; Boston, Massachusetts example). The primary reason is that many city pages include a city skyline image at the top of the page, and I don't think it looks very good or professional to have the city skyline image outside of the image box. Using the skyline image with one of the other two options, looks like bad form, as well as makes some of the opening paragraph text appear between the image and the infobox, forcing the infobox further down on the page. I also think that the text is clearer and easier to read on this option as well. The other two infobox examples have smaller text that might make it harder to read for some people. Data is also better organized and the table definitions are more visible, though option #1 (far left) is organized reasonably well, too, with the major heading areas marked. Option #2 (middle) appears the worst, as data is not separated very well and stuff just appears thrown in there. Dr. Cash 06:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that someone has figured out how to place an "optional" entry for skyline images into the Infobox City template. Because of this template's cleaner appearance, I am beginning to target city articles with the US City Infobox template and replace those templates with the Infobox City template version. However, city articles with the version on the right above will remain for now. PentawingTalk 07:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this decision need sto be redone, a it is strongley biased toward the box toward mr cash, not all of the infoboxes in user are displayed on this page for discussion. Secondly i strongley disagree with any use of an image outside of the map, seal and flag to be used in the infobox. As faras i stand i see nothign that say that a prroved design has beeb issued in the use for city infoboxes, and that any attempt to force a standard as cash has done will be rejected with out an clear discussion on all alternatives being used or that are to be proposed.  --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am merely suggesting a single general city infobox format (to me, it is redundant to have more than one format, though I am aware of infoboxes for cities exclusive to Florida and New Hampshire). Nevertheless, for the :Template:Infobox City, the skyline image entry is optional (if no image is specified, the entry does not show up). If you could suggest another format, please do so. PentawingTalk 02:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My standing is NOT to include any image other then the map, seal, and flag, in the box. Include an photographic imge, all bu degrades the image in quailty and size, by limiting the size of an image to the size of the infobox, which for the majority of images that are used in city articles as the top image shrink them, thus degrading the guailty of the image, or it would leave the determining of the size of the infobox, particular in width, on the size of the infobox, which is not perfered fore the reson that it will at times overly distort the infobox size. Even setting the image as an option only goes to perterpuate this problem, The photographic image should be outside of the box,. Also the examples above do not accturcaly reflect the alternatives aviable, but basically is modified version of the the cashman version, which he has decided to impose as the staandard based on the disision of the infobx to be used only on the LA page. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 03:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your arguments, though as I noted before can you suggest other formats other than the two that are listed above so that at least others can see what alternate styles are being considered? Thanks. PentawingTalk 03:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to say that i do find this dissapointing, you say their are three versions yet you only list 2, and you did not take the time, if you only listed the two, to examine if their were other boxes in use, i doubt that now, considering that cash has imposed his standard, i could be given equal consideration for an alternative. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 03:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I have a problem with the styling of the U.S. city infobox (to me, it isn't a clean design). On the otherhand, the styling of the infobox on the right is equally problematic (border lines are clearly visible). As a compromise, I reinserted the original U.S. city infobox and removed the skyline image from the infobox on the left (whose visual style I prefer the most). PentawingTalk 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like i stated above, "i doubt that now, i could be given equal consideration for an alternative.". --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 04:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Due to the exchange above, I must clarify what the true intent of this discussion is: it is to come up with a single format and style for city infoboxes to (theoretically) replace the myriad city infoboxes (especially for U.S. cities) so that there is a uniform appearance throughout all city articles. There has not been a final decision concerning format (though it is informally leaning towards the infobox on the left, which has several optional features not displayed on this page). Every attempt by me has been made to ensure that nobody is being ignored on this issue. Actions that appear to ignore other people's opinions have been mostly unintentional, and for that I apologize. Hence, if you do have a formatting/style idea for the infobox, please list them here. PentawingTalk 04:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh give me a break with your proffessionalsim bs, it is far mre unprofessional to have the imge be degraded in quailty in size by forcing into a box, then it would ever be including it in the box, But apparently you  support the maiking an photo look more unprofessional then you box. But what ever this argument was baised by not providing an accurate respresentation of all alternatives being used in favor of the nominators perferd versions, and a de-facto standard was issued on the standared decide on one article now being imposed on all articles, what a joke, i guess the collbatrave effore is dead. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 05:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly have no clue where to even begin to respond to your comments. Dr. Cash 06:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems that Dr. Cash has begun to replace the now none-existant third option with the the first infobox style. Hence, I have removed it. PentawingTalk 03:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox - suggestions needed for single standard format

message: Shouldn'e elevation be in the infobox? Around here (Colorado), city limits signs tell that more often than they do population.
70.218.186.253 19:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template:Infobox City. The entry has been added. PentawingTalk 07:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elevation? 

message: I left some comments at Template talk:Infobox City regarding use (map size problems) of the infobox for cities in certain states that are oriented n/s (e.g. New Jersey).  To solve my problem, I created a modified version of Infobox City, which also incorporates some other changes (e.g. added "Founded" date).  If these changes are acceptable to you, I suggest the changes be merged back into Infobox City, to create an infobox that's useful for more cities. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map size

message: Discussion and edits to the modified Template:Infobox City have slowed down.  I think it's now time to vote on the following:
# Deprecate Template:Infobox U.S. City by adding Template:Tdeprecated.
# Place Template:newinfobox and Template:infoboxneeded on all articles that currently include Infobox U.S. City.
# Include a commented-out copy of the Infobox City empty syntax with the infobox notices along with a note to copy values, uncomment the new template and remove the old.
* Strongly Support - A uniform infobox, when practical, is preferred.  I believe we've captured all of the elements from the U.S. version in the new Infobox City while still keeping it flexible enough for international use. harpchad 03:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *This template has 41 variables, but quite a few are mutually exclusive For other very widely used templates shock-ful of potential variables, see (28), (also 41) and (Over a hundred potential variables). Circeus 14:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Done and Done, See the Philadelphia example above (the values are obviously bogus, just an example).  I added two optional rows for Urban and Metro area, both use metric units with optional English units. harpchad 15:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately Boothy443 seems intent on starting an edit war.  He's made un-summarized reverts on several of the city articles I updated yesterday.  He also removed the deprecation notice on the US Infobox.  It seems that consensus doesn't matter, Boothy443 will do whatever he pleases regardless of our work here.  Does anyone have any suggestions on how to resolve this dispute, perhaps a straw poll would help decide the situation, though based on his comments I don't get the feeling think Boothy443 is interested in the community's opinion?  harpchad 11:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would recommend you nominate the template for deletion at Templates for deletion. —Jnk[talk] 12:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I placed the deprecated tag back.  I added some examples and left some comments on the U.S. City infobox talk page also.—MJCdetroit 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the suggestions, I'll go ahead and make the nomination.  I was hoping we could do the cleanup first so that we could avoid substing or breaking any articles, but I guess that's not going to be an option. harpchad 15:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I am not in favor of this, but shouldn't all the articles be switched first? I'll attempt to switch some but this would have to be a community project in order to switch over to the Infobox city standard before U.S. city infobox is deleted. —MJCdetroit 17:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a "holding cell" at the bottom of the TfD page for templates that have met the guidelines and process for deletion, but need to be removed from other pages before they can actually be deleted. This may not be ideal, since a lot of work has yet to be done before the template is deleted, but since there seems to be some disagreement with Boothy443 over the deletion this will allow a broader community concensus about the deprecation of the template to be formed. (And as a side effect, if the deletion is successful you may attract more editors from the TfD page to help in the conversion of pages still referencing the old template.) —Jnk[talk] 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot about that (probably because I have never had to used it before).  My concerns were met. Delete it. —MJCdetroit 20:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote 

message: I just updated the list of descendent WikiProjects, but the list should really be on a separate subpage (much like the list of US State WikiProjects is at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states/List of state WikiProjects). That would make it so that there was one single list that could either be linked to, or transcluded, at each of the descendent WikiProjects. BlankVerse 12:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descendent WikiProjects subpage? 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would grade Nashville, Tennessee as a B-class article. Kaldari 22:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

message: I've noticed a dearth of ZIP codes in U.S. town articles. In New York City, zip codes aren't mentioned until the section on Government, and they're absent completely form most towns' articles. Would it be a good idea to train a bot to insert zip codes into U.S. city articles (and other zip codes for other countries, if possible)? Even just inserting a sentence like "CityName has the postal codes foo, bar, and zed." would be a good improvement. Postal and telephone area codes are both pretty important information for an encyclopedia to have. Phoenix-forgotten 19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a point to include zip code information in the first paragraph for everyone of the 80+ neighborhoods of Pittsburgh though the city site doesn't have them listed.  I think it is a good idea to include them Hholt01 18:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ZIP (or other postal) codes 

message: Can you please help me get this article to featured status?? --Sunfazer | Talk 15:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Birmingham]] article 

message: An anon User:59.95.12.175 keeps removing the the Urdu spelling of the the name, quoting that there are not many Urdu speakers in Mumbai so it is not required. I would appreciate any outside intervention. Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 11:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say the most de facto guideline is to follow the example of the navigational signs (not the advertising signs) that are found around and within the city.  If all the traffic signs are bilingual, or if the signs are in different languages in different regions of the city, this indicates that the city acknowleges and has accommodated the cultural differences within the city. If, however, there exists a unifying language that everyone understands to get around the city, then the title of the article can be in this language, and the translations given when minority groups are discussed. GUllman 20:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mumbai]]