Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

I agree, the lists of notable people that I've seen are trivial, uncited, and a magnet for vandalism. I'd like to see Iterator12n's guideline proposal. Strobilus (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, they are very popular. Readers like to add to them. What must be done, however, is to make sure that the names are truly Notable and Sourced. What ever happened to Iterator's proposal? Querulously, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the listings of notable people associated with given towns are popular – although it seems that their popularity is limited to the editors that happen to live in the particular town or village, and to local readers. I haven’t seen much enthusiasm for these listings outside each circle of local editors and local readers, so it seems the listings satisfy our provincialistic urge. On the subject of provincialism, note that articles about large-scale entities such as New York City, Los Angeles, Beijing, Tokyo, Berlin, and London don’t feature the listings. Good for them. Finally, in the year since I suggested a guideline I have learned about the useful-but-limited quality of Wikipedia. Useful? Yes! However, an encyclopedic quality, in the sense of not only enumerating pieces of knowledge but also laying out whatever substantial connections may exist or be seen between the pieces? No way! From the perspective that Wikipedia's ways and means of editing determine the quality (I'm writing this trying to avoid expressing an appreciation or a lack of appreciation of the present ways and means, just an observation) the present listings of notable people are not better or worse than the rest - realistically, you can't do much better. Happy editing! -- Iterator12n ^Talk 17:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Popularity should not be limited to the town or region in which they live. They must be notable outside the geographic limits of the article. So a mayor, if only that, cannot by definition be "notable" to that city. Other people should be compared to the city (or whatever) most notable mayor, to determine whether they should be included or not. Their accomplishments must exceed his/hers!

While a guideline has been given above, it is (alas) not widely followed. My thought about the material that gets listed with the notable should be brief. I was hoping to limit phrases following. For example, "X, professional swimmer" is too often changed to "X, swam for the Miami Dolphins in 2002, and the Hawaii Sharks in 2003" I don't think we need a running resume. Interested people can go to the notable's article. Student7 (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Cities like Los Angeles are not exempt from this phenomenon. Numerous articles on its districts and neighborhoods (~20% of them) feature this type of "information." ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal [of Notable natives and residents]?

There's not much in the way of support for lists of notable people either here or in the Notable Natives discussion at the project page's talk page. I'd like to propose replacing the section in this guideline with wording indicating that people who are not directly related with the founding, establishment, or government of the city not be enumerated. That is, that these lists are, as a patter of guideline (and eventually policy) not to be included in city articles. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A city consists entirely of people. Omitting notable individuals who have resided overlooks the most important element of any kind of settlement. —EncMstr (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

EncMstr is absolutely correct. Omitting notable individuals would be a serious error. However, the debate is not whether people should be omitted but rather if a separate list or section is the appropriate way to include notable individuals in articles. I think there first has to be some recognition that long lists of people generally do not aid the reader's understanding of a city. If individuals are truly notable, then it should be easy to weave mention of them into the article's prose. Therefore I agree with removing separate "lists" of such names, especially within the main articles. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 17:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Listing athletes and entertainers seems farcial to me, too. Saying that lists should not be presented as lists is fine but unworkable. I've seen a few well-written non-lists in various cities. This writing is simply beyond most editors including me. It requires literary talent relegating editing to literary majors rather than a people-written encyclopedia. It has not worked in the past and people will ignore it, because they have no real choice when it comes down to it.

While it is true that 80% of the people (and therefore notables) in a nation come from 20% of the (larger) places, there is an important collorary. 20% of the people come from the other 80% of the places that are tiny and have nothing else of significance other than they produced a Horace Tabor, or a Henry M. Leland, or (in a small state) a US Senator or a Governor. In these cases (most of the place articles), there are but a few people in the list and it makes the article more interesting. The place did produce the people after all. It wasn't a coincidence as it often seems with athletes or musicians. Maintaining lengthy, unfootnoted lists of people from cities (usually forked, mercifully) has gotten completely out of hand. A few people voting here cannot be taken seriously. This is a fairly big proposition IMO. For many editors, this is the only section they look at! Student7 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Another problem arises from the fact that lists are ubiquitous. Remove them here and they will creep back from other areas, like schools, for example. I tried to maintain Order_of_St._Gregory_the_Great#Notable_members by allowing only people I had heard of! Editors tired of me owning the article and fired me!  :) Unfortunately, the Vatican gave these medals out like cocktail peanuts. There were probably several thousand awardees over the years, of which at least several hundred will wind up with articles.

We may wake up some morning and some bright guy has written a bot that extracts "born in" from every bio, and dropped each name in a list "someplace" corresponding to the birthplace. There's a nightmare for you!  :) 00:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A city is a location. It contains natural features because of that location (resources, physical geography, and so on)--and secondary aspects related to that location (relationships to other cities and land features; climate, and so on). It also contains a government as a set of laws. There's a ton of man-made aspects to cities, such as parks, notable buildings, and so on. It's clearly false, then, to say that a city "consists entirely of people". I'm not sure how to entertain a discussion based solely on this falsehood. One way might be to suppose that it were true. Then what? If a city is what it is because a certain professional athlete lives there, then what happens to that city when he moves? Or dies? Even if it were true, it seems like this aphorism is too weak to actually support the inclusion of lists of people resident in a city. -- Mikeblas (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

A city has a location: true. But if the people leave, it is no longer a city. A few cities have been relocated, so even "location" might be a transitory attribute. I've been in a few so-called "third world" areas where the cities—better called "communities"—have no permanent structures. It's narrow thinking to assume all cities have buildings, parks, monuments, etc. —EncMstr (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If the people leave, the city is still there: List of ghost towns. A group of people is not a city; as you point out yourself, it's just a community, or a tribe, or a gathering. Those people might not even share propinquity, as the Internet has shown us. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

College towns

I have been wondering if there is, or should be, any type of policy regarding notable people who are connected to a town or city because they went to college there, particularly in college towns where the notable alumni of the school greatly outnumber notable natives/residents. The general rule I have followed in a notable people list for a city is to not list people who only lived in a particular city as a student at whatever school is located there (see List of people from Kent, Ohio). In the notable people section (as prose), I have a "See also" to the list of notable alumni for the school and make mention of a few, specifying that their connection is that they attended the school (see Kent, Ohio#Notable people). I guess my feeling is that unless an alum decided to make their home in that town or was already from there, you'd never say they were from that town or even connect them with it without first mentioning the school. I'm not saying my way is correct, but would like to see what others think or if there should be any type of further explanation in the guidelines. It has come up as I have looked at the Stillwater, Oklahoma article, which mixes Stillwater residents and natives as well as those who are exclusively Oklahoma State University alumni like Bryant Reeves and T. Boone Pickens. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I agree. No notable college people "reside" in town. Or "notable" professors either. Having said that, I am usually not monitoring the town with every college. While I like your "text" way of mentioning "a few notables", I am amazed you have succeeded so well. Any article I have ever had, if you mentioned any notable, you would soon wind up with all of them, placed there, as usual, by well-meaning newbies, who have to be argued with for a week to convince them. Best to fork all notables anyway, as soon as possible. Can't be monitored as easily, on one hand; on the other, nobody really reads it either!  :( Student7 (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"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)

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)

Can the Guideline recommend that?

• "Footnotes" or "Notes" section be limited to using the Template "Cnote" and "Cref"

to provide footnotes clarifying or elaborating specific material in an article.

• "References" section be limited to using the Template "Reflist", along with "Refbegin" and "Refend" for general references; and

using the tag "ref name=" along with the Template "cite" to provide footnoted citations within an article.

LeheckaG (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Apparently there is no consensus. Which makes sense. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have an admin in San Diego who claims that the decision has been made to include them in "education." Many of us have a soft spot for libraries having spent a bit of time in them. Nevertheless, they are threatened since everything they have today is downloadable. In ten years, who knows what will happen to them. Despite the fact that they lend mostly fiction and discard classics (no one wants to borrow them), some people want to include them in "education." This smacks to me, of politics more than organization. Yes, politically, libraries would be better off being supported by a gullible and awash-in-money education system, but they have historically been associated with "cultural" in the past. Putting them under a tent where other institutions are supported by a school board, it seems like promotion to me. Student7 (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think "no consensus" is probably appropriate - and there is not a need for consistency on this point. Libraries could play different roles in different cities, as Uncia's research indicates. I have also seen them lumped together with Parks in a kind of "public facilities" or "public infrastructure" section. To me the biggest argument against putting them under education is that they are not funded or administered as education. I know of no city where libraries are under the jurisdiction of the school board. So the position that libraries are not a form of "education" is not simply a matter of opinion - it is how they are treated by outside authority. Very Wikipedian.

But meanwhile, the change was abruptly made on the San Diego page by an editor who stated flatly "libraries belong in education." They had been under "culture". Any thoughts about that? --MelanieN (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

I disagree that libraries belong in education as they have nothing to do with local school boards, for the most part, but instead are administered by the city government. Depending on how complete the rest of the article is, I think it makes more sense to put libraries into either "Government" or "Infrastructure". "Museums and other points of interest" could also work, especially if the library building itself is historic. Since libraries are standard equipment, if you will, in most cities, however, I wouldn't necessarily think of them as any more of a "point of interest" than any other government building. Katr67 (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I put them under "Education" in Minneapolis, administered by the county who found some money from a new stadium for the Twins to keep it open. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, libraries funded by something other than the city certainly may have more options for placement. I noticed while looking at a State of Oregon website of a city profile that they list media (print, radio, etc.), Internet providers, telecommunications providers and libraries under "Communications Resources". That might be a good addition to our WP:USCITY guideline. Just call the section "Communications", of course, because as we all know Wikipedia is not a guidebook. Katr67 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm waaaaaay late on this, but where a library mention is made can vary by state and country. Here in Ohio, libraries are very much connected with the local school district. The library's "district" often coincides with the school district. That may or may not be true in other locations. While I included it in education in the main article I edited, it could easily be justified in other locations. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a shock! I suppose it is not a "coincidence" that Ohios libraries coincide with the school district. Are they then funded by the school/education? For starters, this information, which I believe is unique to Ohio, should go into a general article on US libraries (or US subsection); into Education in Ohio, and probably several other places I can't think of right now.Student7 (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Most library money comes from a separate state library fund. In limited cases, libraries will go to their "district" and ask for a levy if needed, but most libraries in the state do not operate on any locally-funded levy. This happened in my hometown and it paid for construction of a huge addition in 2004. The "library district" isn't as rigid as a school district (anyone can use the library even people that don't live in the school district). Kent Free Library is classified as a "school district library" according to the history written about it by a grad student back in the early 1990s and at one point the high school library was considered a "branch" of the library. Like school districts, libraries also have their own "boards". So no, it isn't a perfect correspondence between the school district and the library, but there is still a strong connection. Like I said in December, I think there is justification for including it in Education sections (that is inherently the point of libraries), but it could also be seen as a function of local government. It really depends on how they're funded. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

In Florida, brand new libraries might be funded by the state, but I doubt it. The Library District is coincident with the School District. But this is true for the country outside the Northeast. The County Board is also coincident with the school district (really vice-versa). The County has nothing to do with the schools but appoints Library Boards and funds them. They do not get noticeable money from the state which is why they are pinched right now. Local money only. Nowdays you have chunks of money spent on Cds, DVDs, online subscriptions, web access for any reason. Shelves with Romance novels. Education?? Hmmm. Student7 (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Consistency issues

• What is the intent of the Guideline recommending placing a coordinates link under External links when it is already in the Infobox?

I forgot that that links was in there. It is redundant, since the coordinates are in the infobox and many times in the 'geography' section as well. Template removed. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, hopefully people will catch that change. LeheckaG (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The specific issue which I have been seeing is "City" (and other "Geo") articles which have multiple-different coordinates:

the Infobox has one coordinate, another coordinate may be in the text of the article (under Geography), and an external link may have yet another.

• Also there is often lack of consistency (DMS, DM, or Decimal Degree formats) between such separate occurences.
• They are often "unsourced". There should be a "one-click" link (in references or next to the coordinates) to retrieve the source of the coordinates (like the Gnis template does, and not the GR3 template which does not).
• While Decimal degrees may be "easier" (lazy?) to cut and paste,

Decimal Degrees do not readily convey the information which DM or DMS do:

• a DM/DMS "minute" approximates a Nautical Mile of latitude or longitude

(the latter, longitude, at least closer to the equator and not at the North and South pole).

One small problem is that there is often an (unexplained) conflict with the coord in the externals and the one in the info box. One has to be deleted to stop the overwrite of the second at the top right of the article. People have complained generally about this, probably to the wrong people because I don't believe it has been fixed.Student7 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the Geo template used, coord template has a display= parameter which can be set: "=inline" puts it in the text, "=title" puts it at the top, and "=inline,title" does both. coor template similarly has "at" and "title" sub-templates, coor normally places them inline, "title" places them in the title bar, and "at" does both. So in most Geo template cases, it is a matter of either setting a parameter or using a different template. Yes, for cities/settlements, one single set of coordinates is appropriate, though recently, I can point out several examples where a "name" refers to several entities: census-designated place, civil, populated place, ... with different coordinates (and correspondingly different boundaries/maps).

In the "unique" case of linear features (highways, railroads, rivers, ...), they potentially can benefit from having their two endpoints in the title bar (which does not work properly, now), and if Google or other Geo search engines could locate them by either endpoint. LeheckaG (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• If the intent of the External links/coordinates is to consistently place the article's coordinates in the "title" bar (so that Google and others find them), a better way would be to use a coord template within the Infobox and supply the display=inline,title parameters. While the coord template supercedes the coor and other similar templates; one can achieve similar results with the "coor at" template, which also places the coordinates in-line as well as in the title bar (so that they are searchable by Google and others).
• I have seen Wikipedians remove links from External links and/or See also because they were already elsewhere in the article (associated with a particular section of the text), in several cases "unnecessarily" removing "duplicate" links makes them much more difficult to find in the article text. My take on coordinates in External links is that the coordinates should already be associated with the Infobox and Title, and possibly under either the lead paragraph or geography if it makes sense there to disambiguate from a different similar coordinate. But also having coordinates under external links does not "add value" when it is already in the Infobox (and Title).

Thanks for straightening me out on placing the two coords. The advantage of two coords, I assume, is to put a dot on a map for the reader in the info box. The coord at the end, as I am sure you are aware, gives the reader many potential map displays.Student7 (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• While Wikipedia is not a "link farm": when a civil sub-division (city/town/village/borough/county/township) does not have a single "official" government web site with links to their various "major" agencies or departments. I see value if the "standard" ones can be enumerated under external links:
• Auditor/Taxes
• Court(s)
• Executive/legislature
• Law enforcement
• Recorder

I like to see elected officials named, and maybe one appointed executive (city manager, for example).Student7 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

... I have seen several instances where each of the above civil agencies/departments go off and establish their own "official" website because either their overall government has neglected to, or more often, that the design/hosting job was "bid out" to different private contractors separately by each department, resulting in the "hodge podge" of official web sites. For the "Wikipedia" consumer, I see value in providing their citizens/residents that "one-stop" umbrella (go to the Wikipedia article and select the appropriate major agency or deparment).

It's seriously unnecessary to link to every city department from the external links section when the link to the main government website will suffice. Wikipedia is not a directory, and the target audience of a wikipedia article on a city or town goes far beyond the residents of that town only. Some links are good to have though; for example, links to the official government site, chamber of commerce, and/or tourism bureau are perfectly appropriate, as they all serve different purposes, and often the chamber of commerce and tourism bureaus stand alone separately from government as it is. But specific departments, like public safety, assessors, and public works, should all be covered under the city government sites, and separate links are discouraged. For similar reasons, we don't list the corporate websites of every corporation or business that exists in a town, either. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

By no means proposing a link to every department, but where a local government does not have a "unified" official web site, at least the appropriate agencies/departments of value. Personally, I have often used county auditor, courts, and recorder sites to perform searches for information. LeheckaG (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have been seeing issues with ambiguous names. Contributors not checking first which other similar items might exist by the same name, or searching to see if an article already exists under a different name. With cities in the U.S., the "official"/long article name should be disambiguated by adding the appropriate Borough/County or Township to the name: "City/Town/Village...-name , Named-county County, State" (or similar with a Borough or Township), and then a Wiki redirect article(s) created with the appropriate common/short-names pointing to either a disambiguation page or the "most appropriate" article (provided such article has an "otheruses4" template at the top pointing to an appropriate disambiguation page).

• I suppose what is "gnawing" at me in particular, is many Wiki U.S. "city" articles "over-relying" on U.S. Census-provided data? and then not having any local "official" and background information. To me "official" means the local civil government's official web site (or levels of government above them) even if they are hosted on something other than .Gov (I have seen official U.S. civil/local government sites on .Com, .Gov, .Org, and .US).

For most cities and towns, the best source IS the US census website, and it is updated at least every year (usually in July) with estimates (the official census count is done every 10 years). If some of the larger cities and towns have better and more up-to-date sources for population figures, that's certainly allowed (as long as the source is provided, and reliable). But I think that's going to be hard to find for the vast majority of cities.

Census data only goes so far in being valuable information. Many civil sub-division have more (non-Census) information available. And if Wiki is only "parroting" what is already on the U.S. Census site as well as on several other sites which replicate it, then what is the added-value? LeheckaG (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Having read your thoughtful questions and answers, I am sure you mean something different than what I am reading here. What I mainly do with census figures is try to display them so they are readable. Parroting? I guess. But I don't editorialize though I may find a simple conclusion to draw ("smallest in the county"). So I'm sure your question was aimed elsewhere.Student7 (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Most city government's are actually found in .US, although some of the larger cities have a .GOV address. No official city government website should be in .COM or .ORG, as those are for commercial and non-profit websites; although I suppose there might be some idiotic city government workers that don't know better and buy a .COM for their government website. They probably are the ones that should be impeached. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are people in town governments who have "official" .com sites! I was annoyed too, but whaddya gonna do! These are not large cash-rich government entities BTW. Student7 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Especially with the smaller civil sub-divisions, I am guessing there are more .Com "official" city/county web sites than .US ones? LeheckaG (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• What also bothers me is people removing material rather than "dealing with it". I believe contributors spend a lot of time researching what they put in an article (even if they fail to include ref tags for each "fact") or format things "nicely". To have someone else come along and "arbitrarily" delete material or undo contributions to me is the "wrong" direction, especially on many articles which are little more than "stubs" which are otherwise copies of U.S. Census data. If an article is claimed to have "unsourced" material, should not such items be "flagged" with the "fact" template or another similar one rather than deleted/contributions undone? Such has only happened to me on a few contributions, but I have seen it happen to others more frequently, and even when they cited the source(s) for what they added (the issue mostly has to do with the scope of an "undo" - rather than manually fixing one or two problem or troublesome items, I have seen some "lazy undos" where several other contributions of value were also undone.

LeheckaG (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleting actual material without actually doing anything about it is actually a form of WP:VANDALISM, and should not be done, unless, of course, you're deleting vandalism or spam itself. If someone deletes something that you believe is valid material, feel free to revert them and initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article in question. You might even want to send a personal message on the talk page of the user that reverted you, inquiring why they did so? Dr. Cash (talk) 23:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of ideas here. If you would like broader input, you might consider breaking these out into separate sections/subsections. Student7 (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To a certain degree, "venting", my specific frustrations are with a few articles with different coordinates, especially when they are in different formats (DMS in the Infobox, and someone cutting and pasting decimal degrees from who knows where? into the Geography section and/or External links). Then when I check them against a reference source, the "cited" reference has different coordinates than the ones in the article (mostly happens when USGS and U.S. Census bureau have different definitions/views of a name potentially resulting in 4 or more coordinates: Civil, Populated Place, Census-Designated, (historical), ... and sometimes (rare) the USGS and U.S. Census bureau are not "in sync". LeheckaG (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break

Lehecka's references to frustrations are to my edits that have consistently been removing his/her unsourced changes: look at Lehecka's contributions, making very many edits just recently without sources, and saying that I'm deleting them without warrant — at the same time repeatedly undoing my edits (for example here), cutting an NRHP article link and undoing the formatting on the EL source. See similarly the previous edit, going against the source provided, a Census map. As far as the local government offices, see Talk:Lawrence County, Ohio — Lehecka is repeatedly adding a directory. Nyttend (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Please cite facts and get them correct! Specifically your link to Burlington updates:

• official_name=Burlington, Ohio versus "Burlington (CDP), Ohio"
• As the article is written, "Burlington, Ohio" is ambiguous; USGS GNIS and other sources say there are 13 places known as "Burlington, Ohio":

1. Burlington (Uninc.), Ohio in Fayette Township, Lawrence County
2. Burlington, Ohio in Fulton County
3. Burlington, Ohio a census-designated place in Lawrence County
4. Burlington Township in Licking County
5. Burlington, Ohio in Marion County
6. Burlington, Ohio in Stark County
7. New Burlington, Ohio in Clinton County
8. New Burlington, Ohio in Hamilton County
9. Bristol, Ohio in Perry County also known as Burlington[1]
10. Burlingham, Ohio in Meigs County also known as Burlington[2]
11. Florence, Ohio in Belmont County also known as Burlington[3]
12. Homer, Ohio in Licking County also known as Burlington[4]
13. Marseilles, Ohio in Wyandot County also known as Burlington[5]

So the "official" name needs to be something like "Burlington (CDP), Ohio".

In fact, go to Census FactFinder,

type in "Burlington", and select "Ohio"

and the Census record returned is "Burlington CDP, Ohio" and NOT "Burlington, Ohio".

Please get it accurate!

• You had and kept putting in:

| latd=38 | latm=24 | lats=36 | latNS=N

| longd=82 | longm=31 | longs=41 | longEW=W

with Wiki comment: "U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Burlington, Lawrence County, Ohio lat/long/elev above"

which is inconsistent. GNIS Feature ID 1048568 is for Burlington (Populated Place),

while the lat/long stated is for GNIS Feature ID 2393357 is for Burlington (Census Designated Place).

• So I replaced the Wiki comment with:

NOTE: CDP=coords above; PP=elevation above and GR3 below; consistency?

Burlington 1048568 Populated Place Lawrence 382426N 0823209W OH Catlettsburg 170 558

Burlington Census Designated Place 2393357 Census Lawrence 382436N 0823141W OH Catlettsburg 169 554

so that you would correct the inconsistencies,

i.e. update them all to be either Burlington (CDP) or Burlington (PP) and not intermix the two unless clearly disambiguated.

• Similarly, under Geography you had:

"Burlington is located at 38°24′36″N 82°31′41″W (38.4100106, -82.5281600)"

which I updated to:

"Burlington census-designated place is located at 38°24′36″N 82°31′41″W"

I agree that the census provides valuable population information,

but they do NOT legally ESTABLISH boundaries (See United States Code Title--13 Census)

Census has NO authority granted under federal law to establish a border or boundary.

Continuing to say "Burlington" rather than disambiguating it bothers me.

I agree that "Burlington" is within the boundaries of the Census Burlington CDP,

but to state things about the CDP and attribute them to "Burlington" is inaccurate.

The article says "Burlington" (the CDP) is 1.4 sq. mi.,

Whereas other on-line non-official Ohio historical information says Burlington was/is 50 acres.

The census maps versus USGS/GNIS and other Ohio maps appear to corroborate this

with a few other "towns" located within the Census Burlington CDP area.

The real legal/official answer to "Burlington" size lies with the Lawrence County Recorder or Ohio Secretary of State archives.

I added the link to the official Lawrence County Recorder site to the Lawrence County, Ohio wiki article and someone delete it (another story...)

• The (2) different coordinates:

• Burlington 1048568 Populated Place Lawrence 382426N 0823209W OH Catlettsburg 170 558
• Burlington Census Designated Place 2393357 Census Lawrence 382436N 0823141W OH Catlettsburg 169 554

are 1/6 th. of a Nautical mile (1 nautical mile=1.150779 U.S. regular/statute miles) apart in latitude ("vertically"), and

approximately (longitude distances "shrink" from the equator toward the poles) 7/15 th. of a Nautical mile apart "horizontally".

coords are approximately 0.57 miles=1.150779*sqrt(((1/6)^2)+((7/15)^2)) apart

which is a significant variation when you are talking about a small area of 50 acres (0.078 sq mi) or 1.4 square miles (900 acres).

• Which leads to my interest in the whole thing, Burlington article's and South Point articles conflicting/similar claims that:

"The southernmost point in the state of Ohio lies southwest of the community."

Which I updated to:

"The southernmost point in the state of Ohio lies to the South and West of the community."

In either Burlington's or South Point's case, it is "clearly" to the South.

So the remaining difference is whether it is "in" or "to" in either case.

"Burlington" by historical legal/official definitions (someone please check with Lawrence County Recorder/Ohio Secretary of State archives)

was "obviously" to the East of the Southernmost point.

U.S. Census has no legal authority to move the boundaries of any place called "Burlington",

so please do not attribute possible characteristics of the Burlington CDP to "Burlington".

To resolve the "Southernmost" point issue, someone needs a legal/official description or Plat map of the Southern Ohio border,

along with the Fayette Township and Perry Township, Lawrence County, or Ohio Secretary of State records

showing where the municipal boundaries were or are.

• For now, until the (2) conflicting "Burlington" versus "South Point" Southernmost claims can be legally/officially resolved,

it is most accurate for:

• "Burlington CDP" to say that it is South and West,

espcially since you continue to say "Burlington" rather than "Burlington CDP".

• Village of South Point to say that it is South and East.

Keep in mind that the Census has no legal/official authority to establish "boundaries" and

from USGS GNIS, it appears that the town of "Brookdale" (PP) was in between the Village of South Point (Civil), and the town of "Burlington" (PP).

The Southernmost point appears to be somewhere in between the Village of South Point (Civil) and the town of Brookdale (PP),

not "Burlington" (PP) which is farther East.

LeheckaG (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Census abstractions

• If you search through United States Code, Title--13 Census

   * CHAPTER 1--ADMINISTRATION
   * CHAPTER 3--COLLECTION AND PUBLICATION OF STATISTICS
   * CHAPTER 5--CENSUSES
   * CHAPTER 7--OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
   * CHAPTER 9--COLLECTION AND PUBLICATION OF FOREIGN COMMERCE AND TRADE STATISTICS
   * CHAPTER 10--EXCHANGE OF CENSUS INFORMATION

for "area", you will find no legal authority or basis for a Census "area" or "designated place" in United States Code.

Other Title 13--Census sections refer back to:

Chapter 5--CENSUSES, SUBCHAPTER V--GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE, PRELIMINARY AND SUPPLEMENTAL STATISTICS, AND USE OF SAMPLING,

Sec. 191. Geographic scope of censuses.

for any issues regarding area, geography, scope ...

Census Areas, Census Designated Places, Metropolitan Statistical Areas are "abstract inventions" of the U.S. Census Bureau and

have NO legal basis in United States Code or many states' statutes.

• I agree that the Census is a useful source of information,

and that CA, CDP, MSA, ... are useful in terms of understanding population or other legal statistics,

but they are not a legal/official civil-subdivisions.

• Regarding placing Census "abstract inventions" (Census Areas, Metropolitan Statistical Areas, ...) in an InfoBox:

All OTHER official U.S., State, County/Borough, Township, Municipality should be placed in the InfoBox.

Provided that it is properly footnoted, A Census "abstraction" item (CA/CDP/MSA...) can be placed among them

at the appropriate level (what official civil sub-division contains the census abstraction and which do the census abstraction completely contain).

Priority should be given to the official civil sub-divisions over the census abstractions.

• Census abstractions typically only affect local (State/Borough-County/Township/Municipality) laws for either federal electoral redistricting

or for federal financial assistance.

• I agree that the Census is a valuable source of information, but Wiki contributors are giving too much of peoples' sovereignty to the Census Bureau.

LeheckaG (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One-click link to GNIS Feature ID and other Citations-References

• Many "city" articles are including the GNIS Feature ID in the Infobox as:

blank1_name = [[Geographic Names Information System|GNIS]] feature ID

blank1_info = ID

Which enables a Wiki user to go to the GNIS search page, but then one has to type in the search criteria.

• Instead, can the Feature ID number be furnished as a more useful one-click link:

blank1_name = [[Geographic Names Information System|GNIS]] feature ID

blank1_info = [{{Gnis3|ID}} ID]]

so that the Wiki user can also go directly to the GNIS feature by clicking on the info number,

or to the GNIS search by clicking on the name label.

• Similarly, can a recommendation be made in the Guidelines to set-up other such fields similarly,

so that Wiki user's have a one-click link to get to the "official source" without searching again?

I understand when there is a "choice", for example which coordinate "map",

that they should be redirected to a page which allows them to select a choice.

• A "one-click" link also makes it easier for contributors and others checking-verifying facts,

I have run into a few disambiguation cases where the Feature ID did not match the other data in the article.

• While the GNIS search is relatively easy, just possibly less convenient,

I have run into many articles citing a reference source "search engine", and

being unfamiliar with searching the reference source:

in many cases, I receive different data back from my search than those cited in the articles.

When possible and appropriate, a citation/reference should take one to the "source" page and not a "search engine" nor a "general" page.

Similar to printed citations at least referencing a specific page in a book, and not general or non-specific reference.

LeheckaG (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss this. I don't think anyone would disagree with this idea, but the place to bring this up is at Wikipedia:Bot requests, where people who know how to write bots can write one to go and do these changes. Nyttend (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes to economy section

I've reverted the changes by Loodog to the 'economy' section. The changes water-down the section and emphasized usage of the 'city-data.com' website, which is not a reliable source. The site is mostly spam and advertisements, and the data that is provided is copied from elsewhere without providing any information of where that data came from. Recommend avoiding 'city-data.com' at all costs when editing articles. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

While the reference may not be used, I think I agreed with the rest of the edit. Sounded clearer IMO. Maybe the editor can find a replacement reference that would be acceptable or just leave it out. Student7 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Student7, so I have reverted, without city-data.com. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Census numbers

Per a discussion about a potential bot here, a question has arisen as to what constitutes "official" Census numbers. Some are making the point that the 2000 Census figures are "official" whereas the updated annual estimates are inaccurate. However, the use of the annual estimates for city populations seems to be rather widespread. This point needs to be clarified before I can move forward - when this guideline stipulates "US Census figures only", is this meant to say "Decennial Census figures", or will annual estimates suffice? Shereth 20:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as the source is the US census department, figures for the 10 year census or yearly estimates are acceptable. Every article should refer to the 10-year census primarily; yearly estimates are also acceptable to have in articles, but should also be included with the official census count, not replacing it. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Thinking outside of the box" ... Would contributors be interested in placing Census "raw data" in a database on either Commons, ToolServer or WikiSource and then embedding a "canned" SQL query in articles referencing Census data to retrieve a statistic based on some index or key. Then US Census annual or 10-year census data updates would be done by downloading and updating the "raw data" on the Wiki database server instead of manually editing many many articles. Currently, the "missing piece" is the ability to embed a canned SQL query within an article's WikiText (at least I do not know how) but the other pieces are there and both Special: pages and ToolServer exhibit similar functionalities to embedding SQL queries in a page. Thoughts? LeheckaG (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a fairly neat idea, although I am unaware of any technical way to accomplish the "canned SQL query" bit. It might be possible to do so through a bit of intricate template work, but it would require some retooling of the existing infoboxes, as well as create a few issues in specific, exceptional cases where an article might display a population figure somewhat different from that in the census tables (such as Louisville, Kentucky). I can look in to it. Shereth 21:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The (2) Wiki technical jumps are:

• Creating SQL database tables (apparently one requests a ToolServer account and can create UserName_TableName_P (where the "P" apparently stands for Public) which can be read by programs/scripts across accounts. So that part is a relatively "solved" issue - there are "political" bumps in the road, but not technical ones. The political "bump" is where - which Wiki server cluster/domain: Commons, ToolServer, WikiSource ?
• "canned" SQL queries - which for instance: "Special:" / Statistics pages can do. The "trick" would be figuring out how that kind of extension could be done in WikiText (WikiText which triggers execution of the query code - probably a parser extension within a Template or CSS/XML)?

For many US government data sources, there are relatively "small" condensed versions downloadable which reasonably represent what many Wiki contributors are putting in article Infoboxes/tables/text: Census data, GNIS (Geographic Names) coordinates, National Registry of Historic Places, National Bridge Inventory data, ... so the general mechanism would benefit multiple WikiProjects and pull some fairly standard "authoritative" data sources into a more centralized and maintainable location. LeheckaG (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not certain about the technical aspects of the above, but I did do a little testing and found that accomplishing this via template tweaking is actually far simpler than I thought at first. It can be done with a couple minor changes to {{infobox settlement}}, using a bot to change the existing GNIS/FIPS entries into "proper" entries (currently they reside in "blank" fields) and then dropping the census numbers into a new template in template space. The population figures in US cities would then become completely transparent. Shereth 22:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

From the contributor's point of view, they would transclude a WikiText template {{}} whereever they wanted data to go, they would supply an index/key and which data items they wanted returned in the template. "Behind the scenes" the template would do either a parser function call {{#function: }} or similar using an XML tag instead. The piece which requires "outside help" is the Wiki change pointing either of those particular function calls to a PHP function script which would do the SQL query and return the data to the template. See: MW:Manual:Extending wiki markup Ideally, the query template and PHP function should be done so that they could be used by more than one WikiProject (pointing at different database tables), and they should also do a "sanity check" to make sure they do not perform an unreasonable database query (returning too many results or consuming too much resources). LeheckaG (talk) 14:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood what I am saying. I am rather clear on what you are suggesting, and I am also rather clear on the technical usage from the contributor's point of view. I'm also not unfamiliar with the more technical end of things (I do have a toolserver account as it is) but what I am saying is that I am not confident about such a change being implemented. As you stated yourself, there is the "political" question of where the data would reside, as well as the issue of getting Wikimedia to implement the software changes necessary. I'm not familiar with the process of requesting such extensions to the software but I am fairly certain that the task is relatively onerous. As I have mentioned there is a workaround using templates that requires no software changes or anything other than modifications to existing templates, but would not have the benefit of being usable by other Wikimedia projects. The question is, whether we want to "try our luck" with a broader approach or implement a local solution, which we know is viable. Shereth 15:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as an addendum - the other thing I am not real keen on with this solution is that the data will all be stored in a relatively inaccessible location. Changes to the population figures are fairly infrequent but are sometimes necessary. I would prefer to see the data in a location that is public-accessible, inasmuch as it could be opened and modified from a browser just like any other page, rather than requiring someone with toolserver access and the ability to use SQL queries. Shereth 15:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, to give you an idea as to what I was referring to above in regards to using templates to accomplish this - I have set up a sandbox template {{USPlacePop}} that takes a GNIS number as a parameter and returns the population. For example, the GNIS identifier for New York City is 975772, so {{USPlacePop|975772}} returns {{USPlacePop|975772}}. Feel free to test it out, I've only added the data for the 10 most populated cities. Shereth 22:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that approach (putting data to be retrieve into a template) also works. The technical limitation of that approach is that "individual table" templates are limited by how large the text in a template can practically or reasonably be (100K or so?) and care must be taken so that most of the template text other than the desired statistics "goes away" rather than being expanded when the template is transcluded into another template or into an article. Part of the reasons for recommending (Wiki MySQL) database tables was to get around the limit on how large a template can be, but there are ways around that by splitting it up into several sub-templates (each smaller than 100K or so) and making sure that they are written to "collapse" rather than "expand" when transcluded. LeheckaG (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Overprecision

• New subtopic: OVERPRECISION in census figures. Many (indeed, most) of the articles give breakdowns of demographics for different races. Oddly, these figures go to 1/100ths of a percent. (In other portions of the demographics data, the numbers only go to 1/10th of a percent.) This is bad editing, although I figure it is done by an automated tool because it takes a lot of figuring to get the numbers. Why bad editing? Because it is False precision. In one example I found, 0.004% of the population in a small town had a particular ethnic representation. Was it precise? No. The number was there because only one person had that particular persuasion. I think the principles of Rounding and Significant figures#Rounding ought to be employed and set up as a guideline. Moreover, this would be IAW (in accordance with) both WP:MOSNUM guidelines and real life. (That is, IRL no one says "the ethnic population of Mudville breaks down in to these categories as such-and-such percentages.") Finally, these numbers with their resultant percentages are subject to change, which makes such overprecision meaningless. MY QUESTION ARE: 1. Are the number generated automatically? And if so, 2. how do we stop this? Finally, 3. can we insert guidance that says "Don't be wrapped up in giving such precise arithmetic." Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I share your consternation regarding the overprecision of the demographic data in certain articles. I don't think the problem originates with Wikipedia contributors; rather, it's due to the sources they cite. The Census factfinder website gives percentages "only" to tenths of a percent (even that is excessive sometimes), but there are other sources, such as the Piton Foundation in Denver, that take the values to hundredths of a percent. (That's not the only problem related to the Piton Foundation. Many of the articles that cite the Piton Foundation as a source of demographic data misrepresent the data -- that's a problem with a Wikipedia contributor, though, not with the data source.) --Orlady (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Your information about Piton is very useful. In any event, I've already added guidance in the US Guideline article. Perhaps I'll just come out and say "Present numbers and percentages with no more than one decimal place (0.x)" or something like that.--S. Rich (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I ask editors to note that the Census Bureau does not use x.xx% figures. See: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_submenuId=population_0&_sse=on The pros are not calculating out to x.xx%. For editors to over crunch the data violates WP:NOT#STATS. --S. Rich (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that tenths of a percentage point often is excessive precision, but since the Census produces the numbers that way, it's appropriate to report them that way. However, in articles for tiny places, like the one for Silerton, Tennessee (population 60), the xx.x% values look absurd to me. --Orlady (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Beyond My Ken

What is your specific rationale for changing these figures? I'm not seeing correction of false precision, I'm seeing the deletion of precise numbers for less precise numbers. I think you should stop until this has been discussed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline--S. Rich (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a conversation between you and one other editor. It does not establish a consensus to change these numbers. If the source give two figures of precision, changing the numbers is going against what the source says. Either find a different source and cite it, or establish that the original source is falsely precise. Without that, your edits are not helpful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The "changed" numbers themselves are not false -- but whoever (plural) took out their calculators to give us 1/100ths of a percent figures is engaging in a false precision process. In fact, the RS for the raw numbers is http://www.census.gov/ which does NOT use the x.xx% calculation when presenting the numbers! Moreover, these population figures are subject to change -- people move, die, are born, etc., so the precision of the figures becomes obsolete rapidly. Editors who think such numbers are useful are engaging in Precision bias and putting such stats into our articles is contrary to WP:NOT#STATS, e.g., the 1/100th%s & 1/1000th%s add to the sprawl. False precision & Significant figures were added to the edit notes as educational helps, certainly not as guidance. But WP:MOSNUM is guidance enough -- the demographic sections are mixing whole percentages, 0.x percentages, and 0.xx percentages. So editing back to x.x% is in accordance with the guideline. Finally, the numbers were not "changed" in the sense that x.xx was changed to y.yy. x.xx was rounded to x.x, which is what the RS provides. Thank you, Ken, for your concern and comments. --S. Rich (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In a place such as Brooklyn, with an estimated population of almost 2.5 million, changing "5.95%" to "6%", as you did, is making a change of 1250 people, which is not an insubstantial number of people, more than 20 times the entire population of Silerton, Tennesee, which makes its use as a exemplar rather ridiculous. Your dealing with places where there are a lot of people, and precision to the 100ths place is not unwarranted. Please start a discussion and get a consensus to do this before you do any more, I will revert your changes for the time being, until a consensus is reached. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

end of moved section

I had thought that calculating your own figures was essentially WP:OR. (also, there is the opportunity for error since no one else checks them, nor can they be "checked" against a non-existent ref). This suggests IMO that we should only use census figures. Student7 (talk) 12:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• SUMMARY of (my) concerns:

1. giving x.xx% data conflicts with WP:NOT#STATS
2. giving x.xx% figures presents ridiculous data (thank you Orlady)
3. going beyond the given Census calculations is WP:OR (thank you Student7)
4. adding x.xx% to paragraphs with x.x% figures conflicts with WP:MOSNUM
5. using x.xx% calculations is False precision and Precision bias, particularly in dynamic population settings
6. using x.xx% calculations ignores principals of Significant figures
7. presenting x.xx% calculations alone ignores error factors (see Margin of error)

--S. Rich (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me (from skimming edit histories) that Beyond My Ken is particularly interested in presenting Census data on languages spoken at home, obtained from the MLA at this page. The MLA does use data obtained from the Census, and the MLA (not the census) reports percentages to hundredths, so republishing them here is not original research. However, I think the MLA is committing an error in reporting one more decimal place than the Census reports. In particular, I note that the languages-spoken-at-home data come from a sample (only a small fraction of households reported that information), so the degree of apparent precision reported by the MLA is particularly unsupportable. Moreover, there is no meaningful difference between 17.98% and 18.01% and 18.03%. Note, however, that for very small values like 0.04%, the hundredths place is just one significant digit, and therefore ought to be acceptable (even though the Census rounds down to 0.0%). --Orlady (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I posit that MLA is going outside of its lane when presenting the Census data and then using it to calculate x.xx% figures. In looking at their website, it seems it is devoted to language, language instruction, and literature -- not demographics. (And I wonder what its MLA Handbook says about data presentation.) If this is so, then the Census is a far more reliable source. Regarding significant figures, I don't propose that such analysis be undertaken routinely by editors -- I point to the concept in an effort to explain why rounding is helpful. Indeed, counting populations is like measuring an ounce of water from a running faucet, and then trying to get the faucet flow rate from the measurement. You can hold your coffee cup under the faucet until you get one-eighth filled, or use an 8 ounce measuring cup and filling to the line, or use a pipette to draw out 29.6 milliliters. But will you ever get to 29.573529563 milliliters? No. Nor will we ever know precisely how many people there are in most demographic areas (unless that particular area is Silerton, TN) on any particular day. Oh, that leads me to consider the actual populations. Are the Census or MLA language counters considering infants, the comatose, the profoundly mentally ill? Finally, these numbers are given as data for a particular year. What happens between January 1 and December 31? The population changes. (And in Brooklyn I venture it changes by more than 1,250 people.) Again, this is mentioned to emphasize the point that getting wrapped up in x.xx%s is unhelpful. Bottom line -- I hope this discussion will lead to some guidance that editors can use, and the best guidance I can offer is K.I.S.S. -- by leaving off the 1/100ths places in the percentage figures.--S. Rich (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• Adoption of guidance. As a month has passed without comments, criticisms, or improvements, I am inserting the suggested language (below) into the guidance and removing the debate tag. (During this month, I have noticed that other editors have made comments on other sections.)--S. Rich (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested guidance

• Do NOT be overly precise in generating numbers or percentages. Follow WP:MOSNUM#Decimal points and WP:NOT#STATS when presenting percentages with decimal places. E.g., for United States cities, the Bureau of the Census presents data with x.x percentage breakdowns. It does not calculate out to x.xx% and editors should not perform their own calculations.

The above paragraph is my suggestion. --S. Rich (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Above modified to include #Decimal points.--S. Rich (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If the source states x.xx%, and you claim that it is only good to the 10th place or two sig figs, or whatever, then it is an unreliable source. You can't just say that so many decimal places is "overly precise." The level of precision depends on how accurately something was measure, not based on how many places you feel is "enough." The guideline is completely meaningless. Period. As far as the numbers changing with time... of course they do. The numbers are good for a certain point in time, and no one every said they were otherwise. Chopping off one sig fig is not going to make these numbers indefinitely accruate. People who do not understand uncertainty in measurements and statistics should not be making up guidelines, not even poorly written ones which are completely moot to begin with. 72.76.226.140 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sister Cities

Why is it recommended that city articles contain a section on sister cities? This is, at best, trivia, kind of like "Notable residents". I can see how, for some cities, there may not be much else tosay about them. But for most cities, this information is interesting, but trivial. I can see suggesting that this section is optional, or a suggested topic for a daughter page, but actually including this as a recommended feature for all articles on cities is ridiculous.--71.6.12.114 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more Ranever (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've just made optional the section on Sister Cities. If there are objections, kindly note them on this page. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with making them optional, but the new text, "Sister city relationships may be listed in alphabetical order." seems to say that the alphabetizing is optional. If sister cities are going to be optional, I suggest that ther description be merged into "Other topics", above, which is for the optional sections. --Uncia (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Demographics

While the people distributing the census did a great job, I do have one small comment. The phrase used throughout Wikipedia was "population is spread out" when refering to age distribution. This seems clunky to me. I would suggest "population is distributed by age" a better, if imperfect, substitution. Also, went I went to change this, an admin altered my wording back to the clunky phrase. Where is it written in stone that this phrase must be used? Student7 (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose that at couple of templates: {{Borg}} and {{NoBorg}} be created. Borg would accept "reference link" text which would be placed in the reference section citing content on Wikipedia explaining where particular data or text comes from (and how to go about requesting changing it). NoBorg would likewise accept a "reference link" parameter and would function similar to the {{Nobot}} or {{Nobots}} template, requesting that both bots and contributors refrain from editing a section unless they adhere to the specified criteria in the reference link.

I have seen (but not participated in) a few "edit wars" on census data with contributors changing it back and forth between the last actuals (2000) and the most recent estimates. What is really needed is a centralized Wiki MySQL database table of both the last actuals and recent estimates and then articles which cite census data in Infoboxes or inline text should then use a template which cites which census geographic/location entity (i.e. FIPS/GNIS code) and which census (actual or estimate) and particular statistic(s) are being retrieved. Then for either annual estimate updates or 10-year actual updates, the centralized tables could be updated without having to "manually" update all the articles referencing them.

Likewise for the "standard" text which Student7 cites, since it is mostly "boilerplate", it could or should be an (editprotected) Wiki Template instead of in-line text, and there should be a standard procedure for copyediting, where contributors can recommend better wording, and consensus/majority can be determined to determine which updates to apply. LeheckaG (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Such table-templates should be structured into an organized/standardized "tree" structure and the overall structure be usable across WikiProjects (within the English Wikipedia). Template parameters would determine that it was either: US Census, NRHP/NRIS, USGS/GNIS, ... data which was being retrieved, which specific "table", and which attributes (a.k.a. data) from that particular table. Individual sub-table-templates should be limited to 32KB to 100KB for performance/practical reasons. LeheckaG (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What a great idea! Solves my problem, at least in the generic.Student7 (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Editors please note my comments in Census, above. --S. Rich (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove religion statistics from suggested topics

I do not think religion data should be a suggested topic. As you're probably aware, the U.S. Census bureau does not provide religion data. The Census Bureau does, however, recommend the Association of Religious Data Archives for religion profiles. There's only one problem: the data is broken down by state, county, and metropolitan area, but not city. The data is fine for the few cities which also form a county (such as San Francisco, California, each of the five boroughs of New York City, and Washington, D.C.), but the data is really useless for cities that only occupy a portion of their respective counties. As far as I have been able to find, there are no other WP:RELIABLE sources that provide city-only religion data. Best, epicAdam (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's only a 'suggested' topic, and not set in stone that it has to be there. If no reliable data can be found, then including it would not meet citation guidelines, so it doesn't have to be included. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The primary problem is that the suggested topic falls under the "Demographics" heading, where only a few lines earlier, it states that only US Census figures are acceptable sources for the demographic data. Since religion information from the US Census Bureau does not exist, it seems inherently exclusive and probably should be dropped from the "suggested topics". Shereth 16:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a tangent on the above discussion--feel free to move it to a new section. Is it ever appropriate to list churches or other houses of worship that have Wikipedia articles in a U.S. city article? If someone could give me a few links to articles that successfully incorporate a "houses of worship section" or what-have-you, I'd be grateful. I usually remove these sections when they consist of a list of non-notable (i.e. no Wikipedia article) churches, per "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of info/a directory/tourism guide/phone book, etc., and I'm afraid a listing of wiki articles would invite people to add every church in town. My alternate solution would be to link Category:Houses of worship in Foo in the See also section. Other suggestions? Katr67 (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The only time I've seen churches and/or churches mentioned is if they are in some way important to the historical development of the city (such as the Old North Church), or if they are historic landmarks (Washington National Cathedral, Cathedral of Saint John the Divine, New York), but I do not think a general directory of houses of worship would be appropriate. There are lists like this List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, which I think should probably be deleted as they're practically a directory. -epicAdam (talk) 22:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Second the above. If the church has some kind of historical or cultural significance within the city it'd be fine, but that should be about it. Shereth 22:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Location/pushpin map Infobox fields versus "dot-on" image map files

Across WikiProjects, I use the Infobox {{Location map}} feature which {{Infobox Settlement}} calls or names the "pushpin map" fields, which uses these "sub"-templates:

which triggered this discussion: User_talk:Nyttend#Infobox_Settlement_-_pushpin_map.

In particular, the (233) Commons:Category:Locator maps of cities in Alaska and (1,409) Commons:Category:Locator maps of cities in Ohio maps typically have various inaccuracies (like borders are not accurately depicted North-South); while Commons:Image:Alaska Locator Map with US.PNG and Commons:Image:Ohio Locator Map with US.PNG are reasonably correct and the Infobox Location map/pushpin map feature plots a map marker as accurate as coordinates are specified in the corresponding Infobox (latitude and longitude) DMS fields.

I looked through WP:Cities and this "/Guideline" sub-page and there appears to be no specific guidance specifying whether "pushpin map" CAN be used, or whether "dot-on" map files MUST or SHOULD be used?

To me, WP:V and WP:UCS mean that: Wikipedia should not have dot-on maps which are inaccurate or misleading, and that it is "Common Sense" to update fewer Location map templates and corresponding image files (usually 1 template-image pair for each U.S. State) rather than updating "thousands" of individual "dot-on" image map files. Rather than updating individual Alaska or Ohio "dot-on" map image files to "fix inaccuracies", it makes more sense to instead use resources to first verify {{Location map USA {state-name} }} accuracy, I had verified that {{Location map USA Alaska}} and {{Location map USA Ohio}} are correct (i.e. border coordinates plot where they should and "North" is "up"); and then create corresponding {{Location map USA {state-name} {county-name} }} templates and files. Which would mean creating for example: (88) Ohio county templates and background map image files, rather than dealing with 1,409 individual "dot-on" image map files. Similarly, Alaska has (19) boroughs ("same" as a "county" elsewhere in the U.S. or Louisiana parish) including "The Unorganized Borough" which is administered by the State of Alaska, which the U.S. Census Bureau further sub-divides into (11) Census Areas for their census statistical purposes; As opposed to correcting (233) "dot-on" image map files.

So:

1. . CAN {{Infobox Settlement}} "pushpin map" fields be used for U.S. cities?
2. . SHOULD Location/pushpin map templates and images be extended to provide "Location map USA state-name county-name" (or other regions/subdivisions) templates and background maps in addition to the currently available ones for U.S. states (rather than correcting or adding more "dot-on" image map files)?
3. . If extended, Are "Counties" a reasonable next-level subdivision, showing either township or city boundaries within the county, and having a state overview map inset in one of the corners showing where the county is within the state?

LeheckaG (talk) 13:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I once generated a whole batch of the 3rd style of map, showing city boundaries within the county with the state overview map. Most people seemed to like them but there were a few vociferous exceptions that caused me to lose interest in the project. I suppose it could be resurrected, but at this point in time I am not particularly excited about the idea. As for the rest of your question/concern - it's kind of early and my brain is still processing, but I'll give it some thought. Shereth 14:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

1, Pushpin maps are vastly superior to the earlier dot-on maps. No question that the pushpin maps should replace the dot-on maps wherever possible. For 2 and 3, sometimes a more detailed local map may be helpful. What next-level would be appropriate may vary depending on the size and density of features. Seems that county-level would often be appropriate, although there are some counties that are very large and/or very densely concentrated where some smaller segmentation might be useful. For example, a map showing location of neighborhoods in a city might focus only on the city itself or even on portions of the city like east side/north side. older ≠ wiser 15:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Including non-Census demographic data

Under Demographics, the Guideline says "Again, US Census figures only," and some contributors are fairly aggressive in removing demographic info sourced to authorities other than the US Census.

While I strongly support the principle that the US Census should be the primary source of demographic data in these articles, I think it is a mistake to bar all other sources of demographic data. In particular, many of the U.S. states do their own data collection, sometimes but not always in cooperation with the U.S. Census, with results that may or may not agree with Census data. Counties, municipalities, and other entities may also do their own counting and estimating. IMO, when "alternative" demographic info is available from state governments and other responsible sources, it ought to be acceptable to report that alternative info alongside the official Census data, with clear identification of the different data sources. I'd like to revise the Guideline to state this explicitly. --Orlady (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. So long as the source is clearly identified and remains distinct from (and does not replace or supercede) the U.S. Census data, I don't see any basis for excluding demographic data from other reliable sources. older ≠ wiser 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. (1) Demographic information is almost always used to compare cities, thus having data from a single source using a single methodology is of paramount importance. (2) In every article I have seen where there is conflicting demographic information (presumably the primary reason why alternate data would be included), I have yet to find a case where alternate data was found to be more reliable than figures from the U.S. Census. (3) Cities and states have the ability to challenge U.S. Census data in the event their own estimates reveal different results. (4) The WikiProject Guidelines exist to make recommendations to editors and, for the aforementioned reasons, I think the general recommendation that articles use U.S. Census figures should remain. I believe that changing the guidelines would erroneously invite users to add alternate sources of demographic data, even when it is not prudent to do so. However, since the guidelines are just a recommendation, editors are of course free to use alternate data on a case-by-case basis, should it be preferable in a particular article. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 06:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. Census Bureau is not the only reliable source for demographic information about U.S. cities. Data from other sources should be clearly identified as such and shouldn't obscure or replace Census Bureau data so that apples-to-apples comparisons can be made, but there is no reason to systematically exclude other reliable sources simply because the U.S. Census Bureau also generates demographic data. older ≠ wiser 14:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I share Epicadam's concern that official data from the U.S. Census should not be removed from articles. However, this is not a proposal to replace the Census data, but rather to supplement it with additional demographic data when such data exist. Alternative data is not always related to disputes with the Census. As an example, the government of the state where I live allocates "state shared taxes" to municipalities on the basis of population. Municipalities that have grown significantly (either by natural increase or annexation) since the last decennial census can and do arrange for new population counts to be conducted and certified, so they can increase their share of "shared taxes." Myriad similar situations exist around the country. Articles could contain statements such as "The population was 2,715 at the 2000 census. In 2006 a special count by the state placed the population at 4,812.[ref citation]" --Orlady (talk) 15:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I am fully aware that other sources provide demographic information. The guidelines here are just a recommendation; I do not advocate a blanket ban on alternate sources. The scenario outlined by Orlady above is potentially one such situation in which the recommendation here should be ignored. This doesn't change the fact that I think the guidelines should still recommend that U.S. Census bureau numbers be used. Nearly every time this issue comes up, it's often due to an editor pushing an agenda. And, just for the reasons Orlady described, cities and states often have a reason to inflate their own demographic figures. At first glance it would seem fine to recommend that both sources be included (what's the harm, right?) but I have arbitrated many cases where local data not only supplements Census data, but contradicts it. In these cases, the U.S. Census data was always found to be more reliable. Whether there was a situation such as a conflict with Los Angeles, where users were citing data that showed the population of Los Angeles to be 10 million people (thus making it the largest city in the United States), or conflicts between census estimates in university towns where the municipality attempts to count non-resident students as part of the population. For all of these reasons, I don't think we should open a whole new can of worms on these issues by changing the general recommendation on demographic info; the sources used in each article should simply be decided by consensus on a case-by-case basis. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

While you might not advocate a "blanket ban on alternate sources", the way the guidelines are currently presented do, which is the question that Orlady raised. And some editors have taken that guideline as mandatory, systematically removing non-Census information. I think everyone would agree that the base data should come from the Census Bureau. But is there a way to tweak the guideline here to indicate that supplementary data from other reliable sources shouldn't be subject to automatic removal? older ≠ wiser 15:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The furthest I would go would be to remove the word "only" and bold the information at the top of the guideline that the information is just a guide, and perhaps add a line about an article's consensus being the ultimate decider on content. I'm hesitant to make any additional changes to these general guidelines in order to fit a small number of articles. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I replaced this part of the guideline with the following:

The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data. If census estimates or other reliable sources of demographic data are included, the additional data should supplement -- not replace -- the most recent available data from the decennial census.

--Orlady (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Orlady. I reverted the change because I do not believe that it matches consensus. I, for one, don't believe that other data should be used except in an extremely small number of cases. For that reason, I don't believe that the general guideline should be changed to fit a few minor exceptions. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 13:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And I restored it, because it represents a far more reasonable and defensible position. There are other reliable sources of demographic data besides the Census Bureau. There is absolutely no basis to categorically bar other reliable sources. And further, this project does not WP:OWN articles about cities, and the project guidelines should not provide a rationale for editors to make knee-jerk reverts of any demographic data that is not sourced from the Census Bureau. older ≠ wiser 13:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is some concern that demographic data from sources other than the US Census are not completely reliable. More to the point is that local governmental agencies habitually overstate estimates when in comparison to Census figures, and this creates the appearance of favoritism/lack of objectivity. In any event, a common sort of compromise I have seen is where the infobox (which seems to be what people are immediately drawn to) use only Census figures while other sources may appear within the body of the article. Since this method of compromise is in agreement with the newly proposed wording of the guideline regarding the demographics section, I can support it. Shereth 15:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that much of the information in articles is not completely reliable, but it is included anyway -- with appropriate identification of sources. The selective exclusion of all demographic information not from the U.S. Census seems silly (for example, in describing a mushrooming suburban community, why would we not want the article to say that local sources estimate that the population grew 35% in the last five years?) and could even be considered a form of censorship. --Orlady (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am actually supporting your proposed wording to allow it as a supplement to Census data, if that point wasn't clear before. Shereth 15:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Shereth. I recognized that you had agreed. I guess I was being lazy by responding to the whole thread instead of to individual posts (essentially I was responding to Epicadam, including making reference to ideas that you had articulated). --Orlady (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• edit conflict* My main concern is that population figures, and other hard-stat data, is most often used to make comparisons. Comparisons are not possible when data is harvested from many sources. Cities and towns do have a incentive to inflate their population data, however, the Census Bureau does provide localities the ability to challenge the official annual census figures. Further, when there are two conflicting pieces of data, you go with whichever comes from the most reliable source. In every case where there's been a question, the census bureau data (which provides methodology and canvassing details down to the city block) as opposed to city data. To me, it just doesn't make any sense to provide two conflicting pieces of data. However, in the event that there is one, it's very clear that the guidelines are just that and that article consensus can override anything that's said here; however, I don't want the reverse situation to occur that older/wiser is concerned about where editors go through and complete ditch census data in favor of something else which is not as reliable. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that what you are saying here is not consistent with the guideline that you advocate. The guideline you advocate indicates that only Census data may be reported, but here you appear to be saying that Census data should not be replaced by data or estimates from other sources. That's what my revised guideline said. --Orlady (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If the Consensus is to provide both sets of information, then that's that. I don't mind using non-census data to provide information that the census doesn't provide (obviously) or that expands on census data; however, I still have a problem providing obviously contradictory information on such basic statistics like population. If there is a significant difference between two pieces of data, then I think there should be a reliable source indicating why that would be and why the second source is more reliable than the Census. Further, if there is only a slight discrepancy (like the Census says "24,423" and the town says "24,952"), then I wonder why the information would even be included in the first place. The only time people seem insistent on making slight changes like that is to change population rankings or some other inane reason. It is that information I want to avoid being included in an article. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So what is wrong with a statement to the effect of "The official population of Anytown was 37,689 according to the 2007 Census estimates, while the State Department of Economic Security estimated a population of 39,378" that clearly shows the numbers are from differing sources? So long as the "official" census number is given, there's no harm in mentioning what other entities have estimated. Shereth 18:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Potentially nothing. However, I do think the discrepancy should be explained. I mean, estimates of this type are fairly scientific and there has to be reason for drastically different information (whether or not 2,000 people is a large discrepancy is debate). However, one can also point out that the Census Bureau information has a published methodology and raw data reports. Perhaps the State Department does the same, but if not, it's unclear how it's of comparable reliability. Further, one has to look at the reasoning behind including the numbers. If an editor is saying that Anytown has 39,378 people in order to claim that it's the largest town in Noname County, then that can be an issue, especially if the Census contradicts that. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 19:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, I find something wrong with Shereth's hypothetical sentence. Census estimates are not "official population," but are just estimates that sometimes turn out to be seriously flawed. I submit that every article about a place that has actual Census counts should include the actual census count data from the last decennial census. Estimates by the US Census or anyone else should be supplementary to the actual counts. Thus, I would like to encourage statements like: "The population of Anytown was 31,689 in the 2000 Census. The State Department of Economic Security estimated that the population had grown to 39,378 as of 2007." --Orlady (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree here. Estimates are just that, estimates. However, states and municipalities can and do challenge census estimates. In any event, if other reliable estimates grossly contradict census data, I think there should be some type of explanation. -epicAdam^(talk) 20:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the challengers to the Census-data-only guideline. To strip out all other cited sources of statistics (e.g., this edit, which even went so far as to take a "competing" source of statistics out of the external links) is the height of absurdity. If information added to articles passes the iron-clad policies of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:No original research, it should not be subject to immediate and summary suppression by way of a guideline on a subpage of this Wikiproject simply because a group of editors seems to consider that all highly-trained, government-employed demographers are unreliable unless proven otherwise. --Dynaflow babble 22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(^Note that for the city article cited in the diff above, Hercules, California, the January 2008 population estimate from the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit was actually slightly lower than the USCB estimate from 2006 which replaced it. This makes the argument that local sources tend to inflate their numbers look specious at best in this case. --Dynaflow babble 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Race and ethnicity in the United States Census

It there any particular reason for several links/redirects to the above article in US cities? For example the Barrow, Alaska has 10 links in two adjacent sentences. In others you get redirects like American Indians (U.S. Census). On the other hand Anchorage, Alaska has the links that would be expected. One to the above and the rest to articles about those particular people. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This question is better directed at Talk:Race and ethnicity in the United States Census as this WikiProject does not cover that article. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 19:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a nonstandard set of links to the Demographics section in the Barrow, Alaska article. They should be revised to be consistent with the linking in the Anchorage article. --Orlady (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this issue is a bit deeper than just Barrow - as the OP said, there seems to be a rather broader issue of how these terms are linked in US city articles. Some link the various ethnic terms (White, African, Native American, etc) directly to Race and ethnicity in the United States Census such as Barrow. Some link there via redirects (White -> White (U.S. Census), African American -> African American (U.S. Census), for example, Phoenix, Arizona. Some link to their more direct terms (White -> White race, African American -> African American) such as Anchorage. WP:USCITY does not indicate which method is "standard", and perhaps this needs to be addressed. Shereth 20:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

After looking back through the history of Barrow I noticed that here I changed the redirects to link to various groups and this edit changed it to the Race and ethnicity in the United States Census link. I've left a note with the editor asking why use that format. There needs to be a standard on this rather than three different variations. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it seems thoroughly pointless to link each race back to Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. I think the way it was linked in this edit makes the most sense. If anything, though, I don't even think the terms need to be linked themselves. It seems to be a bit of WP:OVERLINKing to me. If the Race and ethnicity page already describes each ethnicity, then I fail to see the need to link them separately. -epicAdam^(talk) 16:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Geographic Coordinate sprawl

The guidelines in this document suggest that it is a good thing to include up to four identical geo-coordinates for each city:

• In the infobox
• On the title line
• In the geography section
• As an external link

Viewed from the comfortable perspective of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Coordinates in US cities articles: where to display, this seems ... a wee bit excessive. The Geographical coordinates wikiProject is doing some fairly major work on coordinates across hundreds of thousands of articles at the moment (such as deprecating the 'coor *' template family, and adding {{coord missing}} to all geographic articles with no coordinates), so as to bring a modicum of standardisation and consistency across articles.

We've run up against some of your US city articles - particularly those with coordinate errors in them (see Category:Coord template needing repair), and would really like to get agreement that articles display only a single or perhaps two coordinates (in the infobox and on the title line), and that we should drop inline coordinates in the geography section, and those in the external links. Further, and perhaps of more importance, that we base any displayed coordinates on a single tag. Mendning coordinates is no fun. Mending three instances of the same coordinates is just sheer madness. We can do better.

We have run up against opposition - well so far, an opponent - who feels that because US cities have always been this way, because this guidelines mandates it, and because coords have some relevance to the infobox, geography section and external links, they should be shown in each.

We'd like a debate and to see if we can move to some consensus. I'd be grateful for contributions to the debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Coordinates in US cities articles: where to display or here. thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To update you: the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Coordinates in US cities articles: where to display appears to be swinging against the continued holding & displaying of multiple coordinates in an article. If and when changes are made, please be advised that this is the conversation we'll point back to. Get involved if it's of importance to you. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The archived discussion is now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Archive_25#Coordinates in US cities articles: where to display ✤ JonHarder ^talk 01:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Consistency issue

New Jersey is listing all governmental officers in its lowest level articles, including most federal. This makes some sense for the state legislature which may have peculiar boundaries as well as the US congressional delegation for the same reason. It makes no sense for county officials, since counties have clear boundaries and are listed in the lead sentence.

It is outrageously stupid to list the two US senators and the state governor at that level IMO! We need consistency here. Most states don't do that. So far, they have managed to refrain from listing the president of the US, but that could change in January! :) Student7 (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

And no judges. Yet.Student7 (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have examples of what you're talking about? I'm not quite sure I follow. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I missed the question. "The mills of the gods grind slowly..."

Anyway, I find listing the governor, ltgov, and US senator in every hamlet a bit over the top. And county officials who have their own article. Example: South_Bound_Brook,_New_Jersey#Federal.2C_state_and_county_representation. But most of the NJ place articles are like that. This is (alas) not an exception. The good news is, I haven't encountered another state doing this. Student7 (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Airports...and other resources

Some editors have been inserting airports that cannot possibly be inside city limits. Airports are properly placed in metro area articles or counties, or articles whose scope includes the area where the airport is located. Articles need to stick to WP:TOPIC which is the facilities within a city, not facilities outside of it. Focusing on outside facilities is a habit of tourist-oriented sites which suggest cities as "portals" to other areas. Articles should ignore this tourist WP:BIAS here. Student7 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Some cities have their own airports, which are nonetheless outside the city boundary. Consider Birmingham, whose Birmingham International Airport was created by the city authorities, is still part-owned by them, but sits outside the city - by a matter of yards. -Pigsonthewing 19:23, 28 December 2008

As I said on your talk page, I think you're taking WP:TOPIC too literally. There are some things that may be technically outside city limits but are intrinsically related with a particular city. You really have to look at things by a case-by-case basis to determine whether they should be included in an article. There's no hard-and-fast rule to determine such things, that's why an article's consensus overrides any other policies or guidelines. Best always, epicAdam^(talk) 20:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, which appears to be a forked thread on the same topic) In an article about a city, I would find omitting any mention in the Transport section of the major airports serving a city to be a serious flaw. older ≠ wiser 21:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Second level headers under history (Part 1)

Not sure why the proscription about second level headers here. Isn't there a style manual or something that governs this overall? Most ancient cities have fairly huge histories. Without second level headings, they would be most unreadable. Some of these cities do not exist today - all they have is history (and archaeology).Student7 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Do you have a link? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline#History. Then either read down, or search for "second level". Student7 (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will just delete the paragraph and see if anybody objects. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily agree with banning second level headers, I think I can better explain why there is a general weariness regarding their use. The issue is that if the History section of a city article is so long that it requires subsection headers to break down information, then the article is most certainly violating WP:SUMMARY and should be split into sub-articles. As Student7 points out, there are some notable exceptions to this, such as ancient settlements that don't have much else to the articles except history. For the vast majority of city articles, however, if the history section gets to be so long that it requires subsection headers, then there's a more general problem with the prose. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 13:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

But the sub-levels could be kept short and, if they get too long, they could be linked to a separate article, couldn't they? Anyway, are you objecting to the excision of this particular sentence? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Answering questions in reverse order: No, I'm not objecting to the excision (good word, btw) of that particular sentence your removed. However, perhaps a more general guideline should be applied that expresses that article text, and the history section in particular, should be written as a complete narrative. When reading a narrative, subsection headers that split up the text are often undesirable because they make the text disconnected and disjointed; quite the opposite of the intended goal. Further, editors have to look at what's best for the reader when adding sub-section headers and where they make sense. What I particularly oppose is splitting history sections up by century or other fixed-date sections. It is almost never appropriate to discuss history in such chronologically-constricted terms and requires editors to sparse two related topics under two different section headers. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 21:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If you can think of a good way to word this advice, see if you can get consensus, or just add it and see what happens. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Umm. You mean we shouldn't split up history into chronological subsections? History tends to group itself into chronological subsections IMO. I guess I agree that grouping by centuries may be pedantic, but sometimes necessary in the short run while an editor is trying to organize a history section that has grown out of control. Student7 (talk) 14:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

History certainly does tend to group itself into chronological sections, for sure. But at the point when need to use subsections is the point at which the history section is too long. My main gripe with chronological subsection headers is that they invariably divide sections that do not be divided. For example, putting one sentence about an event that happened in 1648 under its own section header titled "17th century", or splitting the events of the British industrial revolution between the 19th and 20th centuries because events occurred both before and after 1900. That sort of pedagogy (and you're right, that's exactly what it is) just doesn't make sense and I think editors should take reasonable precautions to prevent it. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 00:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Chiming in. I'm strongly opposed to secondary level headlines in history for the reasons I wrote in this article. Secondary headlines:

1. Artificially and redundantly partition a continuous narrative. These partitions distract the reader and are even somewhat WP:OR. They can engender terrible ideas like this. Paragraphs partition subject matter already, without suggestive titles.
2. Encourage length. As a rule, it seems to be people will be discouraged from adding more to a section when they are reading text and cannot see a heading on the page. When people see one or two paragraphs between headings, it seems inadequate. Secondary headlines lead to the illusion that what's been headed needs expansion.

For these reasons, I wish to reinsert my non-binding discouragement of secondary level headings into the WP:USCITY guidelines with a cursory explanation as to why they are discouraged.--Loodog (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Philadelphia article as it currently exists without the subheads in the History section is much harder to read and to edit than the earlier version with the subheads. Yours respectfully, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree. But readability is subjective, so let's stick to point number 2: history sections are fully capable of snowballing into half of city's article length when they should only be one point of many.--Loodog (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we came to at least one exception above for ancient cities with lots of history.

You may be correct about WP:OR type subheaders, but that is true anyplace. Calling a subsection "Mayor Hague's rule" instead of "Depression/War years" or "Early 20th century" is something the editors have to decide as they do for all content.

I think readability is marred for a long (one display page) when the reader can't see a break anyplace. We have the ability and duty to organize this stuff at the subsection level IMO. Yes, it needs to be done in an non-OR way, as does everything else.

People feel bound by what the guidelines "suggest." Often used to revert stuff that an editor doesn't like! Not that I'd do something like that of course!  :) Student7 (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If the reader can't see a break anyplace in the history for an American city, it means the history section is too long, not that it needs to be partitioned and made longer.

Certainly, I'll grant that exception, because for ancient cities the history is a much larger portion of its notability (e.g. Jerusalem, since each section easily merits its own article).

But these are guidelines for American cities, none of which are ancient. I can think of no reason to encourage secondary headlines in histories for cities just over 400 years old at the most.

Ergo, I propose: "Secondary headlines in history sections are discouraged because they encourage disproportionate length. Exceptions can be made in cities primarily known for their history (e.g. Plymouth, Massachusetts, Jamestown, Virginia)."--Loodog (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

My opinion, I do not see why any special guidance is needed for one particular type of section. There are several good practices regarding section breaks and, well, some other practices that should be avoided in general, and that are not particular to a type of section or even type of article. In my opinion, we should just direct editors to MOS guidance regarding sections. Personally, I find the current history section of Philadelphia [1] to be less readable than the version [2] Loodog pointed to as terrible. older ≠ wiser 12:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Then by that argument, we should also remove "This section should be kept to 10 paragraphs or less, preferably." from the history section since it's also "special guidance".--Loodog (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment on cities that no longer exist. I think that's a bit beyond the scope of WP:CITIES, which focuses on existing cities and towns that are active and populated. There is a separate wikiproject for ghost towns.

The point of this guideline is to make sure that the history section of city articles is short and concise, and to keep articles within wikipedia size guidelines. While second level headers aren't explicitly banned, their use should be kept reasonable, and if there's a lot of them, then start a new 'history of _____' article and link to it from the beginning of the section. Also, from my experience at WP:GA and WP:FA, articles with multiple third- and fourth-level headers tend to have many issues with being promoted at those upper levels of article review. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I'm trying to say. How about a guideline along those lines: "Use of any secondary headlines in history sections should be careful since they encourage disproportionate length. Exceptions can be made in cities primarily known for their history (e.g. Plymouth, Massachusetts, Jamestown, Virginia)."--Loodog (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we already have a policy regarding the size of sections, viz.:

The size of sections may vary, depending on what kind of subject is described and other variables. "Hard" knowledge, e.g. biochemistry articles, presenting many names and mechanisms in a short interval may have shorter section size, while, on the other hand, "soft" knowledge, like articles concerning movies, may have longer ones. There is no strict rule about how long a section may be, just as with wikipedia article size. Nevertheless, a proper section size is probably somewhere between 80 and 500 words. More specifically, "hard" knowledge articles should contain between 80 and 250, while "soft" ones may contain more than 250. Individual circumstances decides — many short sections makes it easier to find the desired information about a subject, but might, when used in excess, disturb the fluency of an article.

You'll find this at Wikipedia:Sections#Section_size_policies Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. That was precisely my point -- the MOS wonks (in general) can do a much better job of articulating good practices on general style topics than an individual wikiproject. Unless there is an extremely cogent reason for the wikiproject to refine or deviate from MOS guidelines, I don't think it is advisable for a wikiproject to try to redefine such general standards. older ≠ wiser 22:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Then let's remove the entire USCITY guideline since it's all redundant.--Loodog (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is a little absurdly extreme. It is quite obviously not all redundant. older ≠ wiser 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That's my point. You've made no arguments against dissuading from secondary headlines that can't just as easily be applied to the 10 paragraph recommendation or to the whole damn thing. So let's just get a consensus and make it consistent. What would you propose?--Loodog (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm honestly not sure what your point is. Saying that it is all redundant is nothing but patently vacuous rhetoric. On the specific point of the 10 paragraph recommendation, I'd not miss it, but at the same time such advice is well within the general guidance, which quite explicitly indicates a range based on context and it is within the prerogative of a wikiproject to provide some such guidance. However, there is little support in the general guideline for a blanket recommendation against using second level headings. My proposal then would be to leave things as they currently stand.[3] older ≠ wiser 02:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Let me illustrate my point: discouraging secondary headlines is "well within the general guidance, which quite explicitly indicates a range based on context and it is within the prerogative of a wikiproject to provide some such guidance." Epicadam and Dr. Cash have voiced similar concerns to mine so I don't about "little support"; in fact, it makes the opposite true and status quo has "little support".--Loodog (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting as you do that the general MOS guidelines on sections support discouraging secondary headings is a deliberately perverse misreading of that guideline. If you think others here support you, great, although their supposed support seems lukewarm at best, and more in support of length-based restrictions. older ≠ wiser 03:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting as you do that the general MOS guidelines on sections support a 10 paragraph limit is a deliberately perverse misreading of that guideline. If you think others here support you, great, although their supposed support seems lukewarm at best.

With that point, I see no reason that discouraging secondary headlines is any less reasonable than placing a length limit. Both are general commonsense nonbinding guidelines making recommendations to editors that will have a positive effect on the articles written.--Loodog (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As your argument has devolved into little more than childish parroting, there is little more constructive to be said here. older ≠ wiser 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm demonstrating that your points can be applied in either direction, which makes them not substantive. If you have any arguments which this is not applicable to, I'd gladly continue the debate and entertain those.--Loodog (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you appear to have a very different understanding of what the general sections guideline actually says. The guideline very explicitly suggests that recommended length can be variable depending on context. That guideline uses word count while this uses paragraphs, but both are related to length. Nowhere in the general sections guideline is there anything that could reasonably be interpreted as supporting a blanket restriction on the use of second-level headers. older ≠ wiser 03:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If we accept: (1)length recommendations are allowed (e.g. see above) and (2) MoS recommends a length (in words) for a section, then surely we can:

make a length recommendation (1) specified in terms of sections rather than paragraphs (or even both), since (2) provides a fairly constant length for a section.--Loodog (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The use of a particular section heading level is unrelated to length. older ≠ wiser 03:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but you can see how the two link. Use of secondary headings within the history section is necessarily creating additional sections, each of a fairly constant length according to the above guidelines. May I propose then: "This section should be kept to 10 paragraphs or less, preferably. If more than 10 paragraphs and/or secondary headlines are used, this may indicate excessive length."--Loodog (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The length of a section can be quite variable according to the guideline. There can be a recommended maximum length, but I don't see any basis for singling out a particular section heading level for special attention. older ≠ wiser 03:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine, can we equivalently say not to make multiple sections within the history section. Same thing.--Loodog (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

On what basis? I don't think one-size-fits-all statements are appropriate, and besides, I don't even agree with your basic premise that they should be avoided. older ≠ wiser 09:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Now we're backtracking. The 10 paragraph recommendation is a one-size-fits-all statement.--Loodog (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This section should be kept to 10 paragraphs or less, preferably. This statement regarding recommended length, with an explicitly fuzzy preferably, is quite different from making a blanket recommendation to not use a particular type of heading level. The project recommendation regarding max length is in accordance with the MOS on sections, in which it is suggested that in context different types of articles or sections may have differing optimal lengths. There is nothing to suggest a blanket prohibition on a type of heading level. older ≠ wiser 13:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, all equally applicable to level of heading recommendations which is equivalent to recommendations for number of sections.

I must ask which point you're contesting/not understanding: (1) Specifying heading levels within the history section is equivalent to specifying number of sections or (2) that we could write an equally loose "preferably" and "recommendation" to apply to number sections as to number of paragraphs?--Loodog (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with both of those points. older ≠ wiser 14:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Time to go further. Which of these statements do you disagree with?

(1)(a) The "History" headline is, in every city article, a primary headline. (b) A secondary headline subdivides sections created by primary headlines, (c) dividing a section breaks it into two or more pieces.

(2)Guidelines for number of paragraphs can be just as loosely worded as guidelines for number of sections, since identical language can be used.

--Loodog (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well #1 is pretty straight-forward. #2 is incorrect. A) there is no necessary equivalence between the number of paragraphs and the number of sections. B) Identical language is inapplicable because the two are not equivalent. Of course there may often be some correspondence between the number of paragraphs and the number of sections, but not necessarily. There can be a ten paragraph main section with three subheads and that could be perfectly appropriate. older ≠ wiser 17:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Time to read WP:No angry mastodons. GeorgeLouis (talk)

Then you do not take issue with #1?

On #2, we're making progress. What you're saying is that the same number of paragraphs can be partitioned any number of ways to create any number of sections. While this is true is theory, in practice, as you yourself note, more sections will have a tendency toward more paragraphs. Therefore a loose guideline or even a nonprescriptive comment concerning number of sections (equiv. to level of headline as per #1) is not unreasonable.--Loodog (talk) 17:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, so long as it is clear that it is not a blanket prohibition on secondary headings. older ≠ wiser 18:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Here's my proposal: "History sections can easily grow out of control. They should only take up as much space as it relates to a city's notability. Though each city is unique, if this section is in excess 10 paragraphs or is using secondary headlines, this may indicate that the history section is too long."--Loodog (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How about A history section can easily become very long, with more detail than appropriate for a general overview. While there is no strict rule on how long a section may be, as a general rule of thumb, more than 10 paragraphs or the use of subsection headings might indicate that it should be accompanied by a History of _ main article (using the main template). Only describe the minimum of what is required to understand where the community has come from and let the History of _ article give the details. older ≠ wiser 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Loodog (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I suggest we wait a few days to let others voice an opinion before committing the change. older ≠ wiser 20:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Parochial comment - I just haven't had the problems that Loodog is apparently experiencing. So I consider any changes to the guidelines "threatening." For now, I would rather see no change. The problem I have had is newbies putting stuff in main article without checking with the forked history article first to see if it was already deliberately excluded from the higher level article. But warning newbies of this here wouldn't work because they aren't even aware of this yet. Some things just can't be done neatly in a policy IMO. Student7 (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Second level headers under history (Part 2)

We have to be wary of WP:Instruction creep. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What we're proposing is a substitute for what's on there now; it's not any lengthier or difficult to follow.--Loodog (talk) 19:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, just exactly what is on there now that would be modified or substituted by the suggested wording? Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical populations tables and consistency

A minor debate regarding the historical population figures shown at Detroit has brought to my attention the following fact. Among the 50 largest US cities, the following can be said of the historical figures table in the Demographics section:

• 39 follow a standard format showing decennial census figures and percent change from each decade
• 3 (San Francisco, Minneapolis and Honolulu) omit the historical population table altogether
• 3 (Charlotte, Fresno, and Sacramento) omit the percent change column
• 3 (Atlanta, Miami and Detroit, which I have temporarily changed) add figures for metro (or other area) populations
• 2 (Chicago and Columbus) add a column for rank

It seems logical to me that, for the sake of consistency, the standard formula of showing only decennial population figures of the city proper, along with percent change from census to census, should be adopted as a guideline for US Cities.

Please share your thoughts. Shereth 23:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Especially when 78% of the 50 are already doing it.--Loodog (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. One reason for inconsistency is to allow experimentation. Chicago and Columbus, which add a column for rank, may be in the right and the others in the wrong (or at least terribly benighted). Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, surely we shouldn't remove information from the other articles for the sake of consistency.--Loodog (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a general format of census year, population, and percent change. That gives readers the most pertinent information. I don't think "rank" is necessarily important because it's difficult to compare cities in such absolute terms. City size is almost directly related to the area of the city. A city that covers over 1,000 square miles, such as Los Angeles, is obviously going to have a larger population than cities that cover fewer than 100 square miles. Such disparities make comparisons rather useless. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 04:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree on need for standardization. A bit tired of annual updates, particularly from non-census sources. I don't think annual updates, even from census sources (which, by necessity, are approximations - guesstimates) is that valuable. Student7 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Note on non-Census sources has already been made in this guideline. It says "US Census Bureau numbers only". Surely decennial plus one latest estimate (e.g 1970, 1980,1990,2000,2008) is sufficient in all cases.--Loodog (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Those who want standardization miss the joy and freedom to experiment that is built into Wikipedia by being bold. Stodginess does not rule in WP, that is for sure. One size should not fit all. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Favor keeping. The Tables for Detroit, Atlanta, are consistent and they add the regional population to better illustrate these particular regions patterns of population. The meet and exceed the notions of consistency. Its amazing that they would be singled out for being too good. The colors and format are identical and consistent. Time and effort was put into them. They contain U.S. census historic numbers. Strongly favor keeping them. In the case of Chicago, this also illustrates the subject in question since Chicago's shows Chicagos particular rank. Standardization should not mean censorship and that's what this seems like. Let's keep the tables. Thanks. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Its amazing that they would be singled out for being too good." Agree. Beyond the mandate that numbers be Census and decennial plus one most recent estimate, I don't think there's much to impose on every possible city.--Loodog (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Loodog, Thanks for concurring.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll preface this by saying that I won't lose any sleep over it if we decide to keep the tables as-is. However, I must take exception to the statement that I am singling these out for being too good - quantity does not equal quality, and adding more information to a table does not always mean a good thing. It is my contention that these are articles about a given city and not a region and therefore the statistics provided should focus on the city. In the case of Detroit, there exists a seperate article Metro Detroit where a table with historical MSA/CSA populations would make sense. In any event, the triple-population columns are information overload in my opinion and the tables should stick to the topic at hand : demographics for the city in question. Cheers, Shereth 22:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with "triple population" statistics. In some cases, the "city central" has the same name as the metro area and for that reason some editors assume that metro statistics belong in the article/infobox even though most people in the metro area live outside the city limits. This assumption is, IMO, dumb. A little more recognizable when editors try that in a city that has a large population but not the name of the metro area. In either case, it is like saying "I'm not very tall, but I got a tall guy standing next to me. Therefore "we" are tall! Student7 (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Beg to differ. A number of cities are vastly underrepresented by their city proper imaginary lines such as Boston, Miami, or Seattle. These cities are functionally integrated with their inner "suburbs", which are defined by nothing more than historical artifact. Because of cases like this, flexibility should be preserved. We can always recommend that metro figures be left out in general, but explain in some cities it may be appropriate.--Loodog (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't understand the phrase "underrepresented". What does that mean. Cities next to them have a lot of people in them? What does that have to do with the WP:TOPIC of the city itself? I suggest that it's like me standing next to you. You are tall therefore "we" are both "tall"? Come on! Either the article is about you or me. Joint is irrelevant except in a joint (metro) article. We can have a joint article (metro. "functionally integrated" as you word it) in which I can legitimately claim that, yes, we are both "tall." But it is foolish, pretentious and irrelevant outside of that joint article. Student7 (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No. This is like taking a person, and defining the first 4 feet of him as "Bob" and the last 2 feet as "Sam" based on how tall Bob was when he was 12, then declaring that "both" Bob and Bill are very short people.--Loodog (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2(UTC)

It seems to me that this suggests that Bob was wholly responsible for Sam, when, indeed, Sam is a separate person. Yes, Bob is the most prominent person of the two, but there is no reason that each shouldn't be separately recognized. Just because they are often in each other's company, there is no reason we cannot discriminate between them. Then we can talk about them together in a joint article, if need be. We assume that coastal cities (and others) depend solely on the central city. While that may be a driver, they usually evolved together, but with individual identies. Anyway, this is all covered under WP:TOPIC. We don't have to rehash it here. One subject, one topic. No need to slop over since we have a separate article for both.Student7 (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't catch that they're the same person. E.g. Boston is not responsible for Cambridge, they're the same city, arbitrarily separated based on historical artifact. If you don't agree with this, that's fine; I'm only making the case that rigid blanket statements like "Don't mention the metro area in a city article" are unnecessarily restrictive, given the unique situation of each city. These guidelines are meant to only contain what we can absolute recommend about every American city.--Loodog (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification, I never mentioned anything about restricting the use of metro area figures in an article - I was only a bit put off by the addition of the MSA/CSA population lists to the historical populations table. Shereth 23:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So if the headings said "Metro" and "Region" instead of 'MSA' 'CSA' would that satisfy your concern?Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read this entire lengthy discussion, but any understandable English word or phrase would be preferable to MSA (Maritime Safety Administration?) or CSA (Confederate States of America?) Yours for assistance to our thousands of readers of average intelligence, GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Much as I'd like to see some consistency among articles there is clearly no will to enforce such conformity and I will formally withdraw my suggestion. That said, I would strongly encourage the use of more intuitive titles (such as "Metro" and "Region") to abbreviations that are not well known. It'd be more preferable to not have all that info in the same table but, I'm ok with compromise. Thanks all for chiming in. Shereth 20:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, titles updated.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not in support or favor of switching the terms to the more ambiguous "metro" and "region". Metros and regions can be defined in any number of subject ways. Metropolitan Statisical Areas (MSA) and Combined Statistical Areas (CSA) are formal titles used by the Census, and thus they should be the title. The numbers are for MSA's and CSA's, which are official measures of metropolitan areas. They are no ambiguous terms. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The idea seemed to be the abbreviations MSA/CSA are unknown to some and potentially ambiguous. I'm fine with calling them MSA and CSA or Metro and Region, admin Shereth prefers Metro and Region as being more clear than an abbreviation. Unless there are objections we may return to the headings of MSA and CSA since Criticalthinker prefers the term MSA and CSA as the official Census terms for the population table heading or MSA/CSA could be added to the footnote at the bottom of the table with Metro and Region headings at the top. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, add the definitions for the abbreviations to the tables. Don't make the reader click to another page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I wouldn't mind that, at all. It'd keep it consistent, but satisfy those that may want a bit more explanation. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

So, we're saying to have Metro and Region heading defined as MSA and CSA in the note at the bottom of the chart. That's fine.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a good solution. Shereth 15:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should simply not use terms/abbreviations like MSA/CSA just because people don't understand them. Sure, they should be defined to the reader that's not familiar, but part of the reason of reading an encyclopedia is to educate yourself, which includes educating yourself into common terminology used in a particular field. Dumbing this down is somewhat counterproductive to education. Dr. Cash (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We need to make this easy for editors, new as well as old, as well as readers, as well as foreigners. I don't think anything can be made too obvious. Though I did notice one editor linking terms like "man" and "woman" the other day. That seemed a bit too obvious (but I didn't change it!  :) 00:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)