Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Priority Ranking

Proposing ranking as follows, please comment. Alan.ca 23:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Top: National Capital
  • High: State or territorial capital
  • Mid: A population greater than or equal to 100,000, but not a capital. International event or disaster.
  • Low: Not a capital, population less than 100,000. No international disaster or event.


Does that mean cities, which aren't capitals, but are well known, like New York and Hong Kong don't recieve top priority? Jentile 19:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue with well known is that we are biasing our coverage to North America. It is my opinion that a small national capitol should have a higher priority than New York, Detroit, Toronto or Vancouver. How do you propose we define the High criteria? Alan.ca 21:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
One concern I have is that a town of 2000 people with no notability can be in the same group as a city with 180,000, under the current scheme. This new proposed rankings is better in that way. Casey14 02:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Territorial capital can be unclear in an international setting. I tagged "Stavanger" High, but I am uncertain.

  • It is the 4th largest city in Norway overall.
  • It is the administrative center of "Rogaland". (dunno if that makes it a "territorial capital"
  • It is reasonably internationally well-known. European Capital of Culture in 2008 for example.

It doesn't though, have more than aprox 110.000 people, population as indication of importance does however suffer from overemphasizing densily populated areas. --Eivind Kjørstad 10:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions and suggestions re article assessment

class = Dab/Template/Cat/Stub/Start/B/GA/A/FA
priority = Low/Mid/High/Top
needs-infobox = Yes
needs-photo = Yes
peer-review = Yes
old-peer-review = Yes
collaboration-candidate = Yes
small = Yes

Class and priority are well described. needs-infobox and needs-photo are pretty self-explainatory. What of the others though? What exactly is meant by the variable peer-review. Is this yes if it has had one, or yes if it needs one? collaboration-candidate - is that where more than one WikiProject have tagged any given article?

The small function doesn't seem to work.

A question about the city infobox. Is its layout handy for towns and cities which are not located in the United States? See York, Dublin, Eindhoven etc for examples.

Frankly, its a mess. It works, but its a mess. I'd say we should identify all the variables needed for the differing countries and regions, and then make a generic template that all towns, cities and villages etc use. Articles on areas that include more than one settlement (counties for example) are presumably outside the scope of this project, and should therefore use a different infobox. It needs standardised. People using the encyclopedia for research about cities or whatever, shouldn't have to work hard to get the info they need. They should be able to very quickly ascertain info from an infobox that looks quite similar throughout Wikipedia.

So who's good at coding.. whatever 'language' this 'pedia uses..? --Mal 05:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Please provide an example where the small feature did not work. As for the peer review and other unused fields, I just haven't coded them in yet. I placed them on the definition page because I intend to implement them soon. They could be moved to the talk page for the template. Discussion about {{Infobox City}} should probably take place on that template's talk page. Alan.ca 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expert Template {{expert}}

I ran across this template tag in Palmersville, Tennessee. This is apparently a tiny unincorporated community that the Census Bureau does not treat as a CDP. Two templates dominate the short article. It's not clear to me why this article (or any similar article about such a tiny community) was flagged as requiring expert attention from this project. Any way to figure that out? (The tag was added by an unregistered user.)--orlady 18:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • No idea why it was tagged this way. Do you have a date from which it was tagged and by which editor? I personally don't use that template. Alan.ca 19:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The tag was added 23 July 2006 by unregistered user Special:Contributions/69.55.132.61 (who I suspect is a registered user who was not logged in)--orlady 19:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
There are only 5 pages worldwide flagged with that template ( in Category:Pages needing expert attention from Cities experts). I'll just delete it from Palmersville.--orlady 20:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject let me know. Alan.ca 20:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Contradiction

The sections Requesting an assessment and the assessment log seem to contradict each other. Could someone clarify for it (not only for me but on the page as well)? akuyumeTC 21:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The assessment log, is a list of articles where the bot has detected a rating change has occurred. The section to request an assessment is for editors to request an assessment from the team. Feel free to propose wording here that you think might help visitors to better understand this difference. Alan.ca 21:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Request an assessment below those words, but above the assessment log :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. To think after all this time here I still confuse the various levels of heading emphasis. akuyumeTC 03:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] How the Hell Is That Wikipedia Works

I Dont Understand Wikipedia anymore..i Feel Really Mad because i posted A City to Assessment and it's already a week and no job has been Done yet..Can any body to re-assest Santo Domingo EdwinCasadoBaez 07:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessments

As I noted in the edit summary to Talk:Bellefontaine, Ohio, I am of the opinion that assessments are a truly dumb idea, and one that takes editors away from the primary mission of furnishing this encyclopedia with knowledge and even important secondary missions of maintaining the encyclopedia and guarding against abuse. That said, assessments simply will not work-- and thus, are a complete waste of our time-- if those assessing the articles do not leave comments explaining how they arrived at the assessments. Not every article can be a Good Article Candidate (GAC). Not every editor uses the GAC process, for whatever reasons. These editors' works, then, should not be penalized by some random editor who, seeing only that the article has not been through GAC, decides to effectively deface the article by leaving what amounts to an unsourced assessment. We don't allow unsourced claims to remain in the main article space. Why should we allow it in our assessments, especially while they are in a prominent spot at the top of the talk page? -- SwissCelt 11:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Priority scale issue again

What about population less than 200,000 but DOES HAVE international news coverage by media agencies? Small towns and cities with school shootings would be a good example.. Pearl, Mississippi (21,000+ pop.) or Columbine in unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance ranking

So, i've been thinking about the importance ranking a bit. The current situation is that "State/Provincial/Regional capitals" should be rated as High importance. This led to me rating Yellowknife, Northwest Territories as High importance, because it is the capital the Northwest Territories, even though it's only got a population of approximately 19,000.

Norway is divided into 19 counties: Hordaland, Nordland, Vestfold, etc, each with its own administration centre or capital, such as Stavanger in Rogaland, Moss in Østfold and Bergen in Hordaland. As Norway is a thinly populated country, none of the county capitals except Oslo (which is both a county and a city, and also the national capital, which gives it a Top importance ranking anyway) have a population of above 240,000, and in fact most of them have a population of less than 50,000. This leads to most of them being ranked as Low importance. The same seems to be the case in England, where the county towns are also not rated High (unless of course they have a high population or international recognition). Also, it seems capitals of country subdivisions named "province", "region", or "state" are getting special treatment just because they are named that and not "county" or similar, and it also doesn't make sense that in country subdivisions where the largest city isn't the capital the largest city could potentially be rated Low while the capital could be rated High.

However, i'm not going to ask for the Norwegian or English county capitals to be rated as High importance just because they're county capitals, rather, i'm going to ask for every city with a Wikipedia article to be treated the same no matter if it's the county capital or not; they should be rated purely based on their urban area population (important, as some cities, especially US ones, seem to have incredibly small city municipalities (or similar) while the urban area population could be up to 5 times larger) and/or international recognition/news coverage.

Now, this is of course not a big issue but i was just a little annoyed when rating Yellowknife, Northwest Territories as the only thing that makes it High importance is it being the capital of an insignificant Canadian territory, thus giving it the same rating as Toronto, which has a population of 261 times Yellowknife's population in its urban area and is overall a far, far more important city. Anyone agree? --Aqwis 16:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)