Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Guideline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Proposed template

Actually, I've been getting into a bit of a scuffle with the folks over in the Houston article about this one. I want to add a note about not including local schools unless the city is otherwise so unnotable that it would not be known except for them.--Loodog 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I am happy to see work toward an outline. A few comments. Curious, where is Art? (Not exactly applicable to cities, but on the English Wikipedia main page we have, in alpha order, Arts, Biography, Geography, History, Mathematics, Science, Society, Technology -- Culture is a second level part of Arts and of Society.) In an outline, "there can never be an A without a B," so maybe call out Climate rather than subordinate it to Geography? Under Culture, wouldn't one expect physical things before events and popular culture? My ideal city is Mumbai, not for the names of sections but because there is no second level at all. What is yours? -Susanlesch 02:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with both the thrust of the suggestion by Derek.cashman and Susanlesch' comments. In fact I proposed something similar before: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Archive_6#What_the_template_is_missing but did not get much response. Given the low level of participation in such proposals, it is hard to treat any formats set forth in this project as anything more than suggestions. It makes no sense to ignore culture in a template while including professional sports; it makes no sense to include sports while either ignoring parks or subsuming them in a geography section. The new proposal addresses some of these concerns, although I would order the subjects differently. We must keep in mind that city articles are often a portal through which new users enter Wikipedia; we should not initiate them with too many rules, and should be somewhat tolerant of variations. Kablammo 19:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm beginning to see that second- and third-level subsections are rather annoying in articles, but in some cases, I still think they're useful. Mainly, I still feel that climate is best done as a second-level heading under geography, since it is clearly related. It just doesn't look right to put climate in its own section entirely. I also think that many aspects under the culture section are best done as subsections, since there are quite a few different aspects of culture. I did edit the template to move media & sports to their own sections, as they are only marginally related to culture, and in some cities, sports can be quite a big topic unto itself. I still like putting parks & outdoor recreation under culture, since parks are generally part of the cultural activities available in the city, and it doesn't really seem to fit right under a general description of geography, nor under it's own main heading.
I also added a brief description at the beginning of the proposed template that states that is is only a guideline, and it is completely optional. I also added some links to the GA & FA pages, and a statement that the template should be used to assist editors in bringing their articles to GA/FA status. Dr. Cash 03:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The proposed template is much better than the one used before Dr. Cash started this process. Some suggestions:
  • Put transportation in with, or next to, geography. See Duluth, Minnesota as an example. Many writers will locate cities by their relationship to known roads, especially in smaller communities.
  • Have Sports follow Parks and recreation, which will enable transitions. I would take parks and recreation out of Culture and put them with sports in a section entitled Sports and recreation. Culture would transition from fine arts to festivals and entertainment, followed (in a new section) by spectator sports, participatory sports, and recreation. Again it would enable smooth transitions.
Kablammo 12:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello. A few notes in part based on what I find in Minneapolis, Minnesota and sorry to not yet know enough to have a wider view.
  1. Kablammo's suggestions above for sports, recreation and parks all jive with my reality except I'd put participatory before spectator sports. I tried these ideas after reading them here, thank you, and they worked. So I support them.
  2. Thank you, Dr. Cash, for including Arts. But transient culture (events and popular culture) first is a bizarre emphasis. Would stressing those trained in the arts first (artists, performers, curators, directors) be more respectful?
  3. Can the "shoulds" and "mays" in the instructions be omitted? If for no other reason than to remind the reader the template is optional and flexible.
  4. I read somewhere Wikipedians dislike lists except in articles named "List of...." After fooling with notable natives in a list in columns, I found that prose works. [In Minneapolis that prose is a template consisting of paragraphs of text, moved a level away from casual additions--and that template has citations and criteria for changes, in part I confess because I don't know how to nest cite inside another template.]
  5. After looking a bit, I remain convinced that with fewer than two dozen topics, no second level is necessary. Also Climate alone under Geography has to go somewhere else. Where it is, it breaks the rules of outlines. In Minneapolis, after parks were moved out of Geography, "Geography and climate" works fine.
  6. For a large city, consulates would come before informal arrangements like sister cities and gamma ratings. Someone somewhere has used "Diplomacy" for the heading. I truncated "International" from "International connections" on the City of Minneapolis Web site.
  7. Maybe sometime there will be thoughts on templates at the bottom of the template? I made a few for Minneapolis, here. User:Zyxw has some nice recent work on states (they now optionally collapse and that helps to put the focus on the city rather than state or country). -Susanlesch 08:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. I moved Transportation under Geography and climate to see what happens. My impression is Transportation was better at the end near Health and utilities (both how one uses the city), and Geography/climate made more sense above Demographics (background about the city). What do you think? -Susanlesch 17:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of the comments look good so far, but I still don't think 'sports' and 'parks' really fits together in one section. 'Sports' sections in articles usually deal with the professional and team sports in the city, and 'parks' are parks and recreational facilities used by the general population. In many large cities with lots of sports teams, the sports section will tend to be larger anyway, so lumping all the recreational parks into that section is inappropriate. Maybe have 'parks' as its own main heading, and put it right after the 'sports' section. In smaller cities and towns, with few or no major league sports, there probably will be more overlap here, and maybe a single 'sports and recreation' article is more appropriate there.

I also strongly disagree with separating 'climate' in its own section, as it's clearly related to geography. While it is related, it also stands a little separate, so I think it works best as its own subsection within 'geography', and I don't see a major problem with limited use of second-level subsections, as long as their used properly. But putting climate in with geography with nothing to separate the two a little is not a good idea. Dr. Cash 23:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

  • My thought on putting sports next to parks is related to transitions; sports transitions into recreation. See Minnesota#Sports_and_recreation for an example of a state article doing this. Whether they are separate sections or subsections within the same section is probably not important. I am interested is in making sure the template fits smaller communities, most of which do not have pro sports, and in those smaller towns sports are clearly part of parks and recreation. Therefore I agree with the good doctor. Having recreation follow sports accommodates both large and small towns.
  • I agree that climate and geography are related.
  • The treatment of transportation may differ depending on the size of the town. In larger communities with public transit the section may well be located in or near the sections on government, public utilities, or economy. The developed articles on smaller towns often use their proximity to roads as part of geography. This may be an area where there is no "one size fits all". Kablammo 15:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks. I tried to accommodate this WikiProject but am starting to doubt the wisdom in using a template. Maybe some other time. Good luck. -Susanlesch 02:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC) Hi again. I am giving myself a headache, not your fault. :-) I tried to adapt Minneapolis to the present proposal and failed, thus the comments that I need to bow out. Are any changes to the proposal in the offing? Here's roughly what I would propose at this time. Please feel free to rearrange, rename, reorder a copy. -Susanlesch 18:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  1. History
  2. Geography and climate
  3. Demographics
  4. Economy
  5. Education
  6. Arts
  7. Parks
  8. Sports and recreation
  9. Government
  10. Religion and charity
  11. Health and utilities
  12. Transportation
  13. Media
  14. In popular culture
  15. Famous people
  16. Attractions
  17. International
  18. References
  19. Further reading
  20. External links
My suggested order:
  • History
  • Geography and climate
  • Demographics
  • Economy
  • Health
  • Education
  • Religion and charity
  • Arts and entertainment
  • Sports and recreation
  • Parks
  • Public utilities and transportation
  • Government
  • Media
  • Attractions
  • References
I've tried to put in proximity social aspects (Health, education, religion, charity), recreational pastimes (sports, recreation, parks); and public services (Utilities, transportation, government). This of course is not the only way they could be ordered. I'm not sure where Attractions goes; I think a well-written article would address them in other sections (Parks, a Tourism subsection in Economy), but perhaps an optional catch-all section at the end would work. I've omitted a few optional categories, which in any event would go toward the end. Kablammo 18:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I would put 'sports' in its own section (particularly in a large city with many professional sports). Change 'parks' to 'parks and recreation'.
I would promote the 'attractions' section. I think the reason it's so low on the list in the Minneapolis, Minnesota article is that its content is just a couple of photos with no real text. I think it would be preferable to write some prose on the significance of the attractions, and probably move it close to the 'arts and culture' section (either include the text within the section -- not necessary as a subsection, but integrated within the prose of that section, or a 'points of interest' section that immediately follows the culture section.
I'm not sure what is meant by a section in the TOC entitled 'international'. In the Minneapolis article, the sister cities are listed here. I think most articles you'll see on the wiki have somewhat established a consensus for a separate 'sister cities' section located near the end of the article, with just a listing of that. A sizable minority includes 'sister cities' as a subsection under 'government', although IMHO, I think it should be separate. Things like consulates might be better off mentioning under government, though (sister city relationships are really informal cultural connections to the city; consulates are official offices by foreign governments in the city set up for organizing trade and other governmental functions.
The order of sections, IMHO, is really the least important. The purpose of the template is more to provide guidance on how to organize information within the sections. Every city is different, so a different ordering might be necessary depending on unique circumstances. The only ordering I would think is pretty solid, and should be strongly recommended, is the first four:
  1. History
  2. Geography
  3. Demographics
  4. Economy

Beyond that, the rest might be merely recommendations, and editors should have pretty free reign. After all, one of my favorite rules on Wikipedia is ignore all rules. If you have a better idea on how to organize something, go for it. ;-) Dr. Cash 18:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Attractions: some cities are known for their history, some for culture, some for parks-- so I don't think there should be a hard-and-fast rule of where they belong.
I am in complete agreement with Dr. C's last paragraph dealing with order. It allows for needed flexibility. Kablammo 19:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Pleased to see so much progress. Any strong feelings on which order, #1 or #2? I realize order isn't everything and that prose will be needed to make this work. Thank you. -Susanlesch 20:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd probably opt for #2 in that example, with arts and entertainment, media, & pop culture preferenced over health and education. Health and education seem to be more infrastructure-related, IMHO, so would be better near the end of the article. Dr. Cash 21:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks I tried it. I am willing to use it if that is the consensus, but I see only one vote in favor and am concerned about emphasizing media and popular culture by placing them so high in the list. I am curious where the order of topics originated on Wikipedia? Here are two English encyclopedia's orders for comparison.

Encarta

  1. Introduction
  2. Economy
  3. Population
  4. The Urban Landscape (includes Geography)
  5. Educational and Cultural Institutions
  6. History

Britannica

  1. Introduction (includes Geography)
  2. History
  3. The contemporary city (Economy, Transportation, Education, Arts, Sports)
  • I like how this template presents possible sections and what the contents would be. But bottomline: the form of an article should follow its function. So we should not debate any order and naming requirements. However, I agree with the history, geography, demographics, and economy, as Dr. Cash proposed above but beyond that let each city form their own optional sections. Also, I think climate should be part of 'Geography', though exceptions can be made it can hold its own as a sub-section. The 'In Popular Culture' section should be removed (it would never survive an FAC nomination). I've never been able to figure out the purpose of the 'Notable Residents' sections. --maclean 19:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I have modified the template to de-emphasize the 'media' and 'in popular culture' sections (mv to near end of list). I left 'arts and culture' where it is, because IMHO, the overall cultural aspect of a city is quite important, though it's not one of the four 'crucial leading sections' discussed above, so it could be moved anywhere.
I disagree with removing 'in popular culture' completely. True, these sections do tend to look like trivia sections, randomly listing every instance that a city appears in movies or television, which is bad. But I do believe the section can be done well, and to FA standards, in some cases. For example, the 'in popular culture' section in the Flagstaff, Arizona article is well-written and well-referenced.
As far as 'notable residents' is concerned, the template does recommend not putting it in the article and instead linking to a separate list. True, this section is pretty trivial, but removing it entirely is going to be difficult, just due to the nature of the wiki (random people are constantly going to edit it and put lists of random celebrities that live in the city). That's going to be a serious 'uphill battle', and can largely be solved by just putting the lists of celebs in another page. Dr. Cash 21:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't like 'in popular culture' because it is peripheral to the discussion about the city. That is, they spend more space setting up the context than analysis of how the city is portrayed in the work. In the Flagstaff example, the first two paragraphs are about the film industry which should probably go into the 'economy', 'Arts and culture' or 'media' section. 'Media' is an important topic that should be covered. Perhaps this "template" would make a better "guide" to covering important topics. --maclean 23:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
With respect to comparison of the order to encarta and brittanica, I think the four major sections (history, geography, demographics, and economy) agree fairly well with the other two encyclopedias, other than encarta's de-emphasis of history to #6 on their list. But the other three are covered early in the articles. I'm not sure how the order originated on Wiki, but I've noticed that most articles (not just cities) on wikipedia seem to emphasize history as one of the first, if not, the first, sections. Dr. Cash 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the revision which moved "Media" down. I breathed a sigh of relief immediately. Based on my limited experience with only one city, what you have is working very well. I also took Maclean25's suggestion to remove the "In popular culture" section and distributed those mentions throughout the article which worked great. So thank you very much Dr. Cash and Maclean. -Susanlesch 21:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The proposed separate section on notable natives (or famous people) is disputed: the discussion was archived this February and can be found here. --Brz7 19:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture references

I'm still trying to decide what to do with the popular culture reference, mainly the material in the 'in popular culture' section. maclean suggests removing the section and putting the material under 'economy', 'media', or 'arts and culture'. It doesn't seem to fit into the 'economy' section too well, with the exception of possibly Hollywood, California, or maybe New York City. Putting it under 'arts and culture' seems to just put it into the same place, with editors evolving it into an 'in popular culture' subsection, or worse, a section like, 'films made in xxx city', which would really just support the section going back to a list format, which I don't think we want. So far, the best place I can think of, is to put it under the 'media' section, but I also don't think we want this to become a subsection under there, either. I'm open to suggestions from others on how better to deal with this. Dr. Cash 21:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] City template vice versa templates of other Geographical entities

When proposing a template for a city, a geographical entity, it is desirable to have a template that can be applied to other geographical entities. These are listed here (needs expansion!). Best regards --Brz7 19:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other proposals for city templates

Please also consider previous archived discussions on city templates, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Archive_4#Not_happy_with_the_project_.28Indian_city_template.29 If anyone knows more previous discussions on city templates please add them here and here. Thanks! --Brz7 19:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions about these lists of notable people that live in town X

Wikipedia articles are about notable subjects, not about trivial links between subjects. More and more, the lists of people born in town X or residing in town X don't rise above the level of trivia. Only in relatively few cases is there a notable link between a town and a resident as, for example, between Key West and Jimmy "Margaritaville" Buffet. Question: In the past, has there been any discussion about what to do with the loads of triviality carried in these lists? Shouldn't we have a guideline that says to limit the contents of these lists to the cases where the link between town and person is notable beyond birth or residence? I'm ready to write such a guideline. -- Iterator12n Talk 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

  • In the past I've considered them to be trivia (like Edmonton#Notable People's 'list of names'). I'm ok with the Shaw and Crompton#Notable people-style prose. In general, individual people living there can be important/interesting to the city. So I don't object to their inclusion as long as the section is written like Shaw and Crompton's. --maclean 02:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Government finance

I will add something about finance under government. The article should mention total past spending for a recent year, a footnote to a past spending report and/or one to a proposed (near-term) budget. This should be brief but the article on government is nearly irrelevant without it. The article should address taxes in some brief manner. How raised, for example (income tax?).
Also should contain total number of government employees. Student7 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The concept of a city as a local government organization is something I noticed is lacking in many city-related articles. Most city articles go to great lengths describing their history, social, and cultural aspects but few address governmental side. When I tried to include this information it was opposed at the Feature Article stage as "going into unnecessary detail" as they call it. --maclean 03:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Notes, Footnotes, References

Nyttend has brought it to my attention that some members of this project may not be following the guideline at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Section headings. At her/his suggestion, I am mentioning it here. In particular the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline#References may need to be realigned with Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout headings Notes, References and Further reading. --Bejnar (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

"Recommended section names to use for footnotes in Wikipedia are:

  • ==Notes==
  • ==Footnotes==
  • ==References==

Many editors use "Notes" as their preferred title for the footnotes section, as the same section can then hold both source citations as well general notes." from Wikipedia:Citing sources#Section headings

Addition explanation is at Wikipedia:Footnotes:

Place the <references /> tag or {{reflist}} tag in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article—the list of notes will be generated here. (The choice between {{reflist}} and <references /> is a matter of style; Wikipedia does not have a general rule.)

For more detail see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout headings Notes, References and Further reading. I note that the heading "References" is an ambiguous heading being used for either footnotes or general references or both. Personally, I don't use the "Reference" heading except for "an alphabetized list of the books, articles, web pages, et cetera that were used in constructing the article". I hope that this is considered as a constructive comment. --Bejnar (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the guidance for this project is not in synch with the general guidance at WP:GTL. There is no requirement that the section containing citations can only be labeled as "References". older ≠ wiser 02:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree completely here! The guideline is in compliance with WP:CITE, and there's no set standard that the section has to be either 'notes' or 'references'. I actually prefer the 'references' header, and don't really like footnotes. I also don't see the point in having references in order of cite in a 'notes' section and a completely duplicated alphabetical list under 'references' -- that's just stupid, IMHO. If you look at professional publications, you almost always see a single 'references' section, and it's never called 'notes', so the MOS pages you're citing here are just completely wrong. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually in many professional books you will find the notes collated by chapter in a Notes section, and a separate Bibliography at the end, with no References section. Also, most of the professional articles do not put notes in the References section. --Bejnar (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the publication. ACS publications do not have 'notes', and only 'references'. But you're right, there are no footnotes embedded within the references itself. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that in almost all articles a section with an alphabetical list under 'references', like many professional publications, is unnecessary. There are a few long Wikipedia articles that have multiple citations to different pages in a short list of sources. In that type of situation it makes sense to short cite the sources in the notes, but provide the full enlongated reference only once. --Bejnar (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if Wikipedia had a way to separate footnotes & citations into separate sections into two separate 'inline' methods, but I think that's beyond the capability of the current implementation of the software. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer that this Guideline be kept as simple as possible wrt the mechanics. Writers should be referred to WP:CITE for this general-WP stuff. This Guideline should only be about City-related content. --maclean 18:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "general references"

I still remain strongly opposed to the use of so-called "general references". There simply unacceptable, especially in the case of a wiki that "anyone can edit." While it is ok to use a reference to back up an entire article in the early stages of the article's development, as articles are edited by many people, and more sources are used, the article's content rapidly diverges away from said "general reference". So stating that the article is "cited" "as a whole" by a given reference is thoroughly inaccurate, and very misleading to readers. I still have absolutely no problems with these being under the 'further reading' section, since these sources may, of course, still be used to help edit the article, but they're not explicitly citing content, so they can't be confused with a true "source".

It should also be pointed out that, despite what the manual of style says, most articles that I see on wikipedia, at least at the GA and FA stage and above, do not use "general references", either, preferring to cite things directly as inline citations, with any additional sources listed under 'further reading'. So really, we're just putting into words what's already largely being done in practice. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're strong opposition is noted. However that alone is not sufficient to warrant making changes that are not supported by WP:CITE. If you have a problem with general references, I suggest you take it up there. 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkonrad (talk • contribs)
I already have. But I will continue to revert you because you're just plain wrong here. Sorry. You lose. Play again next time. Dr. Cash (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Ta, well if you want to play that game, you've already lost -- until you gain support for your change you are more plainly wrong than I. older ≠ wiser 12:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Now, you appear to be playing with a sock puppet account. Sorry, I don't listen to socks,... Dr. Cash (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
You might want to gather some evidence before tossing such accusations about. And you might want to avoid inserting your preferred version that so far has had no support whatsoever. FWIW, I agree with the suggestion by maclean above that there is really little point to have such detail in this guideline when the guidance at WP:CITE is far more comprehensive and subject to far more scrutiny that this page. older ≠ wiser 17:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Not too sure about some of the latter remarks, but I support specific in-line references for all post-baseline material. "General references" are just too vague. You can't tell, particularly for controversial articles, what pertains to which comment. Or sometimes, people slip stuff in that is spam or pov and come back with the "general reference" when you ask. Not really acceptable IMO. I can appreciate, having done it myself a few times, that to start an article, the references are sometimes a bit vague and you almost have to play along with the "general reference" for a little while til things get going which is usually soon. Easy enough to allow for even controversial topics but certainly for place articles. Student7 (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Student7, yes I think most would agree that in-line references are preferable. However, it is quite another thing altogether for someone to unilaterally decide to change this project guidance to state that general references should not be listed as references despite the conflicting guidance at the overarching WP:CITE guideline. older ≠ wiser 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I still strongly disagree with you, and I don't appreciate you reporting me as a 3RR violation; as far as I know, I did not violate 3RR, but went to the line. So I don't like your tactics and I don't like your strong-arming of your ways here, which I think is wrong. But I am not going to use this page as a vehicle to eliminate general references; I've initiated a discussion on this topic here. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying that you don't like my "strong arming" ways here is rich irony coming from someone whose edits were based primarily on their certainty with regards to their own correctness, despite having demonstrated no support for their changes on the talk page here or in existing guidelines.
As I've said elsewhere, it is indisputable that you (and I) were edit-warring over this page, which is what 3RR is about. Getting legalistic about technicalities is a poor excuse for continuing to revert without any clear support for your change. And I don't appreciate being accused of sock puppetry. I think we both went over the line in this interaction, which is unfortunate because I can see that you are a good editor and valuable contributor to the Wikipedia. I don't agree with you about general references, but that is a matter for further discussion. I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources‎. older ≠ wiser 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for referring to you as a "sock puppet"; looking at your user name and nickname, I see now that you are not. I think we still disagree on the issue, but I won't get hostile any more about it,... Dr. Cash (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Separating Notes from References

It is easy, and simple to separate notes from references. Put the notes in a "Notes" field with the reflist template and list references, if any, in a "Further reading" field. I don't think that that is too complex a notion for this guideline, but if it is preferred that editors seek guidance from WP:CITE or Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout, then don't confuse them here, but have this guideline send them directly there. It appears that a number of editors of articles about cities and towns only come here, and don't understand how to deal with in-line citations in an appropriate way. Can we give them guidance either directly or through linking without conflicting with Wikipedia guidelines? --Bejnar (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've adjust the title of the section from 'references' to 'references/notes'. Either title seems to be acceptable here, and I don't think we want to favor one over the other. I do think that this guideline should focus more on the actual meat-and-bones sections that are important to city articles, and largely leave the finer details of semantics to the manual of style. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Dr. Cash is, of course, correct. We (me!) should leave off lecturing people here. Already covered in a higher level reference. Not an appropriate topic for us. Already "settled." I hope. :) Student7 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See alsos

Probably another question covered by a higher level article. I just don't know where to look! Editors are summarizing links mentioned already in the article. Shouldn't these instead be links that haven't been mentioned in the article?Student7 (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is covered by the manual of style. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Geo city template

Can anyone point me to the actual template for Geo City? Rutland (city), Vermont has a slight display problem that I can't seem to easily fix. Can anyone help? Student7 (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where do libraries go?

Many cities have notable libraries, either because the library is exceptionally good or sometimes in small cities because there are few other cultural features besides the public library. Where in the template should libraries be placed? New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago put theirs in Education, which makes sense. Boston spreads their around under Geography and Culture. Seattle uses Landmarks. San Francisco doesn't mention theirs. If there is a consensus on this I would like to have it noted in the guidelines. Thanks. --Uncia (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)