Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

City Function?

An essential part of a city's existence is its function. How operate its street maintenance, parks, water & sanitation, cemeteries, communications, and civil constructions? These bring invaluable information about everyday living conditions of any given agglomeration. Shouldn't these be included in the WikiProject_Cities definition as well? THEPROMENADER 12:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working to bring Dallas, Texas to featured article status too and I'm putting all of this into "infrastructure"... drumguy8800 - speak 19:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, just kidding, apparently that isn't even in the template list. I'm not taking it off the article though -- i have it placed underneath Education and its subsections even have their own subarticles (or at least some of them do). There also isn't a notable natives section on the Dallas page.. it seems like any notable native should be talked about in the History section or subarticle. At the bottom or top of the subarticle, there can be a 'see also: list of important people from ___' drumguy8800 - speak 19:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If I understand the original posting correctly, you want to note what services exist and who provides them -- correct? If so, why not put that in the "Government" section, perhaps as a sub-sub heading? These seem to be government functions, and if they are performed by either the municipal government or some other authority, I think this would be the spot that a curious person would look for that information. If the section gets too big, it can always be calved off into its own article. That's my two cents, anwyay.Noroton 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Spell out source units in text for demographics and geography

In the main text, units like "/km²" should instead read "per square kilometer", etc. See also WP:DATES#Units of measurement. Can we get a bot to do this? -- Centrx 21:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that most of the pages for the U.S. cities were created by Ram-man and his bot Rambot. That is why most of the demographics and geography sections all have a cookie cutter look to them. I have been editing the articles to fix some of the short comings. Some things that I have been fixing in the U.S. cities articles when I have been converting them from the old infobox to the new Template:Infobox city are: swapping unit order in text—US customary spelled out and metric in parenthesis (with non-breaking spaces) and placing an mdash to make one sentence. I did not major in English, but I don't think a sentence should ever start with a number. Also, population density should read persons per square mile/kilometre. Here is an example of what an updated sentence should look like.

Original:According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 28.3 km² (10.9 mi²). 27.7 km² (10.7 mi²) of it is land and 0.5 km² (0.2 mi²) of it (1.92%) is water.

Updated: According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 10.9 square miles (28.3 km²)— 10.7 square miles (27.7 km²) of it is land and 0.2 square miles (0.5 km²) of it (1.92%) is water.

I agree with Centrx about spelling out the units in the text of the article. I think it looks better and makes it easier on the eyes to read.—MJCdetroit 01:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we know which of the measurements is the original and which is the conversion? In general I agree that for US-related articles US-style measurements should generally be listed first, but per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement the original should be listed first. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the U.S. census bureau, its quickfacts reports values in U.S. Customary and I believe that its TIGER data base reports figures in both systems.—MJCdetroit 01:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it is necessary to specify how much is land when that is implied by how much is water? —Centrx→talk 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, how about:

According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 10.9 square miles (28.3 km²), of which 10.7 square miles (27.7 km²) is land and 0.2 square miles (0.5 km²), or 1.92%, is water.

This has two separate changes, one getting rid of the mdash, which is not grammatically necessary and is problematic right after a parentheses. The other putting the percentage in the text, without parentheses. —Centrx→talk 23:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I saw some of those changes being made and the % in parentheses looked a little funky to me. —Mike 03:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I found this on one of the pages I was updating and thought it was a great way to specify the geography:

According to the United States Census Bureau, the town has a total area of 116.1 square kilometers (44.8 square miles). 114.3 square kilometers (44.1 square miles) of it is land and 1.8 square kilometers (0.7 square miles) of it is water, comprising 1.52% of the town.

I love the phrase "comprising x% of the town." The only thing I don't like about that phrasing is starting the second sentence with a number. Just thought I'd share :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

new cat to helpcotrol city infobox templates

I have begun to split up category:Infobox templates, starting with Category:City infobox templates, which is, of course, of particular interest to this project. Circeus 00:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

GR1, GR2 etc?

What do these links mean? They all resolve to the same place - Geographic references. Given the # in their links I imagine that they're supposed to go to footnotes. They don't. Loganberry (Talk) 15:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

They used to be section id's (see this revision). It looks like the update at 20:31, 4 February 2006 broke the links. It's now just a numbered list rather than linkable sections. --harpchad 16:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that editor partially reversed self immediately after that edit. The break appears with this edit. older ≠ wiser 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sarajevo

Sarajevo is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with "town"

What is wrong with calling an unincorporated community a town? I understand that in some areas a town is an incorporated place but the dictionary also defines a town as something smaller than a city and larger than a village. Just because the word "town" has a legal definition in some places, does that invalidate the common usage of the word?

It really rubs me the wrong way to see a community that the average person would call a town called a census-designated place. Not only is it demeaning to reduce a community to a three-letter acronym but not always geographically accurate. For example, Bostonia is a neighborhood in El Cajon, California. The USGS locates Bostonia inside the city limits of El Cajon. However, the Bostonia CDP only includes unincorporated land and includes little of the area that people around here call Bostonia. So, starting the article with "Bostonia is a census-designated place" is just plain wrong (I fixed the article). Another example is Lakeside, California. The area that people identify as Lakeside is as large as the neighboring city of Santee. However, Lakeside is split into two CDPs called Lakeside and Winter Gardens. How can you start an article with "Lakeside is a census-designated place" when nearly half of the place people call Lakeside is not even within the CDP boundaries? On top of that, in the next census the CDP boundaries may change.

What's wrong with calling Lakeside an "unincorporated town"? It looks like a town and people call it a town. Calling it a town gives the impression that it's bigger than crossroads with a gas station and a convenience store but not as big as a full-blown city. I think it is more informative and much better than "Lakeside is a census-designated place". Rsduhamel 03:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason, could it have been a result of importing demographics? —Centrx→talk • 05:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue might have to do with thefactnumerous article were originally automatic generations by a bot using US census data? Also, Wikipepedia:Verifiability is involved. How do we source what is defined as part of "Lakeside, California"? The census has the advantage of being relatively authoritative. Circeus 05:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is important to distinguish that whatever statistical data given about the CDP applies ONLY to the CDP. The local understanding of the area described by the same name as the CDP may differ in significant ways. This is especially true where a CDP adjoins an incoporated municipality. A portion of the area that is locally known by a name may lie within the incorporated municipality, but the statistics for the CDP do not include that portion. So, in sum, it is OK to edit an article and include details about the area as a community, but it is still important to explain that the place name is used by the Census to describe a CDP and that the statistics may not exactly correspond to the local understanding of the community. older ≠ wiser 11:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with calling a community a "town" as long as it's very quickly made clear in the article that the "town" is not a place incorporated as a town. Perhaps we could even say "unincorporated town". I don't see anything demeaning in that, and it lets you use the word you want. Let's not confuse anyone however -- a newcomer to a community may be wondering where to find local services, for instance, and be confused by talk of a "town."Noroton 19:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd call it a "neighborhood," "area" or "district," especially if it straddles legal boundaries; "town" often implies a specific identity, with or without a governmental entity, and thus should be avoided. To use Rsduhamel's original example, we could have two articles, one about Bostonia, California (Census Designated Place) and one about Bostonia, California (neighborhood), with cross-references. --Orange Mike 00:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Dawson Creek FAR

Dawson Creek, British Columbia is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable natives question

Am I correct in assuming that, if you are going to add a "notable natives" section it should be limited to only the most notable natives, and should not omit anyone as notable as the people on the list (in the interest of NPOV)? Am I also correct in assuming that, in the interest of article balance, these lists should be relatively short? I would rather prefer not having such a section, but I am in a dispute with a new user who wants to insert several minor celebrities into an article. Guettarda 04:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The more people there are in the list, the less useful it becomes. Sometimes the people are extremely minor, and sometimes they have no relation to the town beyond being born there and moving out at 10 years old, if that. There is a long discussion about this above, but there was no conclusion except status quo. There are uses for the list (see Concord, MA, which also has an extreme case of adding a minor person to a list of major persons), but in general it is just people adding favorite people to otherwise non-notable towns. —Centrx→talk • 06:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes, specifically Infobox City

I've proposed a change to the appearance of Template:Infobox City, see Template talk:Infobox City#New look, more similar to template:Infobox Country which has generated hardly any comment. This relates to my proposal at Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes, which has also generated hardly any comment. Feedback on both would be appreciated. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Cities in Ireland

The current text of this article is disputed, comments and views are welcome and requested. See Talk:Cities in Ireland. Djegan 15:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Proper format/structure for a city page

What is the proper format/structure/template for the section titles for a U.S. city? I see two templates listed on the project page. Sorry if this is a stupid question.--Daveswagon 00:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I must be missing something because I only seen one. Unless you are confusing template and infobox. I think if you follow the format for section titles set up in Template for a U.S. City starting with History though External links, you should be fine. San Jose is usually the example that is given for the infobox and it appears to have the section titles setup in a similar fashion. There are no stupid questions; only stupid answers. Hopefully that's not a stupid answer. MJCdetroit 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Piccadilly Circus

Piccadilly Circus is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Why I joined

I just wanted everyone to know that I'm most interested in helping to establishing best practices for city and city-related articles, and also recruiting more major cities to start their own projects. I'm currently very busy with WikiProject Louisville and WikiProject Kentucky, but if there's any efforts along the lines of what I'm interested in, please let me know about them and I'll try to carve out time for them. Thanks! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

ZIP Codes?

ZIP Codes...so do they need to be added to the cities' pages, if so where? Based on Ram-Man's talk page. I have all the data complied, I just need to know where on the page to place it. -- Vanvleit Talk 15:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who doesn't know already, there was some previous discussion here. Wmahan. 20:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also here -- Vanvleit Talk 16:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the discussion on the other pages before and just checked them out along with a cursory examination of ZipCodeStats.com. It's kind of interesting, but based on how it misrepresents basic statistical information, I'm really not sure how much confidence I have it the site in general. For example, The short description for Albion, Michigan [1] (which happens to be where I live states:

Mostly comprised of thirty somethings (median age 34) with a strong lean of 4.2% more females in the population. Where as the top ethnicity is combo some other_race (1%), this area's second largest ethnic population is combo african american (23%), but it is not very inter-ethnically diversified (97.4% of the population is of one race). The average per capita income is $17,452, where families earn $12,265 more when accounting for two household bread-winners.

I can say with confidence that Albion is most certainly NOT "mostly comprised of thirty somethings". This seems a very elementary misinterpretation of median age. The other sentences are nearly unintelligble. Now, the site does say it is "beta", so perhaps it is unfair to be overly critical at this stage. But like I said, such basic mistakes don't do much to inspire confidence. older ≠ wiser 01:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Bkonrad, but that is sort of strying from topic, which is contributing ZIP Codes NOT Census data. I explain this exact issue on the Spam page (bottom). And yes, that is one of the reasons for the "Beta" moniker, but as I explain on the Spam page, the ZIP Code data should be correct. -- Vanvleit Talk 16:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

My view is that it might be nice to have ZIP code information, although I can't really think of a practical example of when someone might want a list of ZIP codes when reading an article about a city.

Assuming that there's a consensus for adding the information, there's the question of where to get the data. I think Vanvleit had a good point when he raised the issue of keeping the information updated; ZIP codes change and we would need a plan to prevent the information from becoming out of date.

Wikipedia has a general policy of using public-domain or otherwise freely available information when possible. For example, User:rambot used public-domain information such as census data (see Wikipedia:Geographic references). The same is true for external links; we tend to favor links to the Open Directory Project or Project Gutenberg rather than the various commercial sites in their respective genres. So I think it would be better to get the ZIP code data from a noncommercial source rather than Vanvleit's commercial site if possible.

I realize that finding public-domain data might be a challenge. After a brief search it appears that the official source of ZIP code data is the USPS.[2] It also appears that they say sell the data commercially, so presumably they won't allow it to be shared freely. Wmahan. 20:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is my proposal. I will be doing ongoing crawls the USPS with my little ZipBot to compile the list of ZIP Codes for ZipCodeStats. I will also be crawling the Wikipedia city pages. Why don't I just insert the ZIP Codes from the USPS into the Wikipedia page, and cite the appropriate query at the USPS? (i.e. http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_1_results.jsp?pagenumber=0&city=MADISON&state=WI). This would let the Wikipedians fact check and edit the data directly from the USPS. This way there will not be any links pointing to ZipCodeStats. Additionally, I can also update the ZIP Codes in the Wikipedia when I update the ZIP Codes in ZipCodeStats (though this could get a little tricky if people are modifying it manually) -- Vanvleit Talk 14:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer. That might be the best course to take, but ensuring that we have continued access to the information could be an issue. To quote the link I mentioned above:

Look-Up is intended for interactive use, not automated script processing. Although we do not intend to impose a limit on the number of address inquiries we allow a customer to request in a given session. If we determine that our open-access policy is being abused or overburdened, we will have to review it. Regardless, we do not intend to offer batch processing capabilities via this service.

I also wonder about the possibility that taking the information from the USPS in bulk could be considered a copyright violation. But my initial impression is positive. I'd be interested to know what others think of the idea. Wmahan. 22:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That has the ring of the USPS's policy to prevent abuse of their servers. As all are aware, I am sure, access abuse of a service can be costly (if not crippling) to the service provider. Nobody wants their servers slammed. The way I crawl data, it takes a little while because of wait intervals in between requests. This is out of consideration of the service provider. A good example of this is how the GoogleBot crawls a site (which is one request at a time) vs. how the MSNBot crawls a site (stuffing it with a bunch of requests at once). This also means that it takes a little longer to analyze the data (about two days @2sec/request). I also start my ZIP Code requests from 00001 and climb all the way up to 99999, this way I know that I have thoroughly looked at ever possibility. And these same practices would be applied to the data insertion and analysis of the Wikipedia. -- Vanvleit Talk 16:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do we want to clutter articles with zip codes? This seems to me to be in the category of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So the following example would be for Madison Wisconsin (Please enter talk items above this line):

ZIP Codes For Madison (Example)

53593, 53701, 53702, 53703, 53704, 53705, 53706, 53707, 53708, 53711, 53713, 53714, 53715, 53716, 53717, 53718, 53719, 53725, 53726, 53744, 53774, 53777, 53778, 53779, 53782, 53783, 53784, 53785, 53786, 53788, 53789, 53790, 53791, 53792, 53793, 53794 ^[1]

References (Example)

1. ^ USPS: Madison, Wisconsin

City / County Overlap

I know this is a project just concerning cities, but I thought this might be a good place to ask anyway. I've been working on the articles for the cities in my home county. The county has an article unto itself as well. How much redundancy should be included between the county article and the various city articles. For example, the combination of the Notable Natives from each city would necessarily comprise the list of Notable Natives from the county. Same thing with Points of Interest. Should these be omitted from the county altogether? Should I just include them word-for-word in the county article? Something in between? Acdixon 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as the entry on notable natives is concerned, there's another discussion on this talk page. I think references to notable natives should be limited to villages/towns/cities, and these references (see my contribution to the discussion) I think should not be explicit (by creating a subsection).

Points of interest (I prefer an other category) of a county I think should be put in detail in the city article and superficial (only the most notable objects, so not word for word) in the county article. Brz7 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Taichung City

All, I am working on my first city to try to bring up to the standards expected for cities on Wikipedia. This article has come a long way from the time I started working on it. However, I would like some feedback. Could other project members please leave feedback on the Taichung City talk page so I can improve the page even more.

Thank you. Ludahai 05:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fairly new at this myself, but it looks good for the most part. I corrected the wiki link for the sister city Makati as it does have article. I only had time right now to give it a quick look. I will read the whole article once I have moved and settled in my new place. The History heading is usually the first heading instead of Demographics and Economy/Education are both usually before sports, but these things are not a big deal. It looks good. --Abernaki 07:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move: Los Angeles, California to Los Angeles

Only 2 1/2 months after the last failed requested move, and after the failure of a bunch of other requested moves at San Francisco, New Orleans, and other cities, there is yet another request to move the article on the City of Los Angeles from Los Angeles, California to Los Angeles. I have emphatically stated my position. I think it is important that editors involved in this project also express their opinion on this requested move. This is at least the third attempt to move the Los Angeles, California article. Please go to talk:Los Angeles, California#Survey #3 to express your views.

There needs to be a well-designed survey of editor's views on the naming of city articles in the United States because there is a small group of editors who are determined to overturn the long-standing Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements)#United States guideline, even if they have to do it a city at a time (succeeded at Chicago, but recently failed at San Francisco, California, New Orleans, Louisiana). ^BlankVerse 10:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada. --Serge 05:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit requested

The city of Dundee is currently up on WP:FAC here, but its been requested that it gets a final copyedit from someone unfamilar with the text. Is there anyone here with the skills who would be willing to pitch in. I'd hate to see an article that otherwise appears so close to being promoted fail.  YDAM TALK 21:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

List of city squares by size

Prato della Valle

This list includes the largest town squares of many cities.

You may want to contribute more cities or improve existing entries (many articles on city squares could need references on the area). -- User:Docu

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Satellite images

Does anyone know where I can find high resolution satellite images that can be used on Wikipedia? From what I understand all of NASA's work is in the public domain but where do I find the images and how do I capture them? --Krm500 00:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple nice websites with NASA satellite images are http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ (although not all the images there are NASA, I'm not entirely sure about how to tell which are ok to use), and http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/gallery/ (which is a "near-realtime" archive of imagery from the MODIS sensor on the Terra and Aqua satellites; ..the site takes some time to figure out, but is chock full of imagery). Pfly 05:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

How about the satellite images from the link "this location with Daily Terra, NASA" on the coordinates link in the top right corner?--Krm500 02:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey on proposal to make U.S. city naming guidelines consistent with others countries

There is a survey in progress at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements) to determine if there is consensus on a proposed change to the U.S. city naming conventions to be consistent with other countries, in particular Canada. --Serge 05:50, 28 October 2006

This proposal would allow for articles on American cities to be located at Los Angles or Boston instead of Los Angeles, California or Boston, Massachusetts, bringing article titles for American cities into line with articles for cities such as Paris and Toronto.--DaveOinSF 18:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

However the proposal would allow U.S. cities to be inconsistent with the vast majority of other U.S. cities and towns, which (with a few exceptions) all use the "city, state" convention. -Will Beback 23:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Berlin

You are very welcome to comment on this city-article. Is it already mature enough to promote it towards FA-candidate-procedure? Thank you !Lear 21 13:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for new sections on cities

I think a useful addition to the Cities pages would be:

Animal / insect life - what type of wild animals are around the city? Might you find deer in your backyard? A cougar? Pigeons? What type of insects are there? Are there tons of mosquitos? Flies? Are there lightning bugs?

Natural disasters - does the city regularly experience tornados? Is there a volcanic history in the area? Is it prone to earthquakes?

I haven't a clue as to how to add this myself, to my city let alone all the ones I don't know anything about. But I think it would be useful information, especially for someone who was thinking about moving there. It's not the type of thing that's really mentioned unless you specifically ask residents.

Bath

Bath is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 19:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

ThumbOfMI.com

I would like to propose adding the web site http://www.thumbofmi.com (ThumbOfMI.com) to 4 Michigan counties - Huron, Tuscola, Sanilac and Lapeer. Those 4 counties make up a region in Michigan called the "Thumb of Michigan". (Look at a map of Michigan, it resembles a hand, those 4 counties are in the Thumb.) The site itself is a collaboration of news headlines, from all 4 counties, on the main page along with a forum and chat room for residents. It is a fairly rural and agricultural area, and even though the residents are spread out, they all know what's going on elsewhere in the Thumb. Ultimately, I think the addition of the link to all the cities and villages in those 4 counties would be great, I'm going slow and am requesting the site be added to at least the 4 counties. Thanks. Stasmi 20:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Spamming by a unit of Journal Communications?

Please look at the note of mine on Talk:Journal Communications, and see whether they are doing this to places you watch, or if Talk:Jackson, Tennessee was an exception. --Orange Mike 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Traffic Generation Protocol

I am wondering whether it is unkosher to place the following on the Chicago page to generate interest in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago. I am going to be WP:BOLD and see if anyone has a problem with it. Let me know if others have encountered difficulty with this sort of trafffic generation or if it has already been deemed inappropriate. TonyTheTiger 19:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

	Chicago Collaboration of the Week
List of Chicago Landmarks update is the current Chicago COTW Every week, a Chicago-related article that is in need of substantial improvement is selected to be the Chicago COTW. Visit CHICOTW to nominate and vote for future COTWs. Please help improve this week's article to a higher standard of quality. See the To Do List to suggest a change or to see a list of open tasks. See past CHICOTWs. Note our good articles.
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago

Linking to city pages

I looked for this in the MoS but couldn't seem to find it anywhere. Is there any sort of convention about how to link to a city when the state is also being included. Would it be Corpus Christi, Texas or Corpus Christi, Texas, Richmond, Virginia or Richmond, Virginia? —ShadowHalo 11:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Depends on your purpose and the context. If you want to send people to the city, I'd say use Richmond if that's clear enough, or Richmond, Virginia if you want to leave no doubt which Richmond you speak of. --Orange Mike 16:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the list of projects and requested editions?

Per the above question, where do I add new projects to this wikiproject?--Sefringle 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Geography Section and Citing Sources

I am having a difficult time citing sources in the sections/articles related to Geography. I have searched many other cities around the world and it seems to be a common problem. If anyone has any suggestions on how we can overcome this problem I would appreciate their assistance. Further, is the Geopgrahy section supposed to include climate data? Alan.ca 12:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Open questions

• How should Metropolitan Areas be categorized? (Census data is available for them.)
• Does anyone else feel that many city articles become too long and difficult to maintain and read? Alan.ca 01:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)