Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
September 2002 November 2004 (partial) April 2005 (partial) June 2006 (partial) December 2006 February 2007

Contents 1 Sister Cities 2 Question regarding media 3 Peer review requested for Madrid 4 City Infrastructure 5 Progress chart 6 Adding Template:Infobox City to all U.S. Cenus Areas (41,903 cities/towns/townships/villages/etc.) 7 City template

[edit] Sister Cities

On articles such as Washington, D.C., the list of sister cities does not match what is provided by Sister Cities International. In this example, the portion of the article even says itself that only 10 of the entries are listed on that website. I understand that agreements may be signed outside of Sister Cities Intl., but where can that information be found? Is there another general website that I am missing, or is this something that should be referenced for each city not listed at Sister Cities Intl.? My particular concerns is the trend of new and/or anonymous editors of adding new sister cities to numerous city articles without any indication of whether such is true or not. Sláinte! --Thisisbossi 16:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

When lack of a local source is unable or hard to find, I've found that Sister Cities International's website is a good definitive source for these. But I have noticed that there can be some discrepancies. For example, looking at Los Angeles, California, and there are some cities not on the SCI website that are on the Los Angeles Sister Cities website. In this case, I've gone with the local source as the better one and removed SCI from being referenced. Dr. Cash 20:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why do we consider Sister cities notable? Are we sure it passes WP:NOT? The information seems trivial at best. Alan.ca 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think they're definitely notable. But I still wouldn't put the priority very high. They show some interesting symbolic relationships between two cities internationally. Many cities have public displays of their sister city relationships as well (see Los Angeles, California, Louisville, Kentucky as examples). Dr. Cash 04:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sister Cities are "notable" since they are cities, and all cities are "notable." The Sister City relationship doesn't have to be "notable" to be appropriate content for an article, it just needs to be verifiable. It seems like it would be good information to include in an enclopedia article, since it is interesting (to some of us) in itself and because it provides a useful research lead, both to the local Sister City committees and the frequently "notable" people involved and to news articles about the Sister City relationship. For example, one of San Jose's sister cities is Dublin. It started because our Irish-American mayor made friends with the Lord Mayor of Dublin; they both ended up leading delegations to the other's city, which generated lots of news coverage (plus, I got to meet the LM and his entourage, since they were interested in garbage and wastewater treatment); the Lord Mayor became Taoiseach of Ireland, which meets just about any notability standard that could be thought up here. Similar exchanges involving "notable" personages are typical of sister city relationships, depending on the size of the cities. Regarding pairs that aren't listed on the SCI website, I think that some were affiliated with the organization, but dropped off when the local committee didn't manage to sustain itself. Others might have been products of the People to People Program.--Hjal 06:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding media

What is appropriate for inclusion in a Media section for a city? Local newspapers, radio, and TV stations seem like locks, but recently, users have been adding online news sources dedicated to covering a particular area in the Media section of several cities on my watchlist. (For example, OwensboroReport.com for Owensboro, Kentucky and MuhlenbergNewsOnline.com for Central City, Kentucky.) Some of these look like blogs to me. A link was also added to a local classified ad paper in one instance. What guidelines can I cite in terms of links in the media section? Acdixon 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Consider reviewing WP:EL and WP:NOT. Alan.ca 01:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review requested for Madrid

A Peer review has been requested for Madrid, the article about the capital city of Spain, and an article within the scope of WikiProject Cities. Please feel free to edit the Madrid article to improve it and/or leave a comment at Wikipedia:Peer_review#Madrid. EspanaViva 18:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! There was a list of concerns provided quite some time ago at Talk:Madrid/Comments. Alan.ca 11:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've started to peek at it too. —MJCdetroit 13:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy the comments referred to above directly onto the peer review page. Thanks again! EspanaViva 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City Infrastructure

I would think that a city's infrastructure - water, electricity, sanitation, transportation, parks & gardens, cemeteries - are essential to its operation and say a lot about a city's region/culture. I see great use in adding this category to the Wikiproject:Cities - does anyone else share this opinion, or see logic in this suggestion? THEPROMENADER 08:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Could you provide an example of an article where you have included this content that you feel exemplifies the inclusion in other city articles? Alan.ca 03:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for ThePromenader, but I can offer examples I've noticed around here:

• New Haven, Connecticut
• State College, PA

--orlady 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the New Haven article doesn't sway me either way. However, the State College, PA article is an example of a list bringing down the quality of the article. Do you know of any FA class articles with such a section? Alan.ca 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't claim those were good examples; they are merely examples I had run across recently. I agree that the State College content is poor. Also, I am dismayed to see that the New Haven article does not mention shipping facilities in the city's harbor. --orlady 16:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

San Jose Utilities includes the "infrastructure" for water and wastewater, plus garbage & recycling services, gas and electricity, and cable. Transportation is in the section just above this one. Since cities were frequently founded because of their water supply (and have sometime failed when their water supply failed), this seems like enclyclopedic information. High tech firms look at the price and dependability of energy, availability of clean water (having Hetch Hetchy water may mean not having to purify much or at all before use in manufacturing), and treatment plant capacity and discharge restrictions, just as they look at highway access and rail spurs when they choose new locations. OTOH, not every city has cemetaries in town—San Francisco evicted almost all of theirs 100 years ago.--Hjal 05:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems the San Jose article is 73 kb in length. My main concern when considering these options for official coverage is that we may be creating huge articles that are overwhelming to read and maintain. Do you know when San Jose was reviewed for FA class status? Alan.ca 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone unfamiliar with San Jose, I find the utilities info in that article to be informative. However, the list of stuff that the city recycles could stand to be trimmed: "The list includes all plastic categories 1 through 7; aerosol cans and paint cans; polystyrene including "packing peanuts" and hard foam packing, such as in electronic and computer products' boxes; aluminum furniture; small metal appliances; metal pots and pans (including cast iron); and clean cotton, linen, polyester, rayon, and wool fabrics (for example, blankets, clothes, cloth diapers, rags, and sheets)." (I will go trim it.) --orlady 16:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progress chart

I replaced the featured article listings on the page with a progress chart, similar to progress charts that have appeared in other wikiprojects. The progress chart was originally put together by the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Team, and I just updated some of the numbers. They should be correct as far as I can tell.

So, it looks like most of the articles tagged for this Wikiproject are unassessed and unrated. So I guess there's a lot of work to do with the tagging. But on the bright side, we've got 36 articles that are currently rated as Featured Articles, so that's great! Dr. Cash 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, I created that chart/bot process and it is included in our Assessment Department page. Changes to the table are documented in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Assessment#Assessment_log. Alan.ca 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Template:Infobox City to all U.S. Cenus Areas (41,903 cities/towns/townships/villages/etc.)

I am considering adding the Infobox City template to all place articles in the United States (41,903 of them, mostly from the Rambot). Please read and contribute to the discussion at the template's talk page: Template talk:Infobox City#Adding to all US Cenus Areas (41,903 cities/towns/townships/villages/etc.) --CapitalR 11:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City template

The page says "There are 3 proposals for a revised city template, see talk page", but the talk page doesn't list any. Are there still proposals, or is there a standard template? In particular, was there resolution on the "notable natives" section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eostrom (talk • contribs) 06:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Wondering this myself. The main page itself is a mess. There are two different city templates on the main page... Mahanga^{Talk to me} 22:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the archives. I did a quick check and found a brief mention here and the first few discussions here. As far as I can gather (it was before my time here, too) there wasn't much discussion or consenses. Brien Clark^Talk 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)