Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit to lead ("US Census data only takes priority")

While giving a third party opinion here I noted a conflict between the lead and the body of this article.
It is clear from this discussion above that editors on this page wish to give priority to US census data and that the guideline "US Census data only" needed to be loosened to allow inclusion of other reliable data.
I have altered the lead to reflect this ("US Census data only" becomes "US Census data takes priority") and hope this meets with the approval of regular editors of this article.
Regards -- Muzhogg (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And I have reverted you. There's no reason to believe we have consensus on this, esp. given the San Jose discussion.

Reasons for only US Census:

1. Local figures come from one of two places: (1) [local] Chamber of Commerce, (2) [local] Department of Finance. Both of these sources have a self-interested reason to overestimate even if they have no notions of local pride.
2. Consistency in methodology. Only one source that I'm aware of has estimates of the 259 largest US cities and it's not e.g. the Phoenix Chamber of Commerce.

--Loodog (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Muzhogg is not only a very polite person, but he or she is correct in making the change. Yours sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What does the phrase "take priority" mean? If we want to write something less restrictive, it should also not be less specific. As a guideline, this is already nonbinding, why dilute it down to no meaning? How about something like, "US Census should be mentioned. Others are optional."?--Loodog (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For a guideline that is non-binding, some editors are pretty militant about reverting any mention of statistics that do not originate from the U.S. Census (and even removing Census estimates in favor of the decennial counts). However, I think the suggestion to use "US Census should be mentioned. Others are optional." is clearly than "US Census data takes priority". older ≠ wiser 13:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

How about ""U.S. census figures should be mentioned. Reliable population estimates may be included"? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, non US census data is just not reliable -- it's almost always overestimated, in some cases by way too much. Plus, when reporting the population, we should only have one figure. It's confusing to have two or three figures for the population with several footnotes. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is just that — an opinion. As long as we report the source of the population figure, we have done our job. Let the reader decide afterward. Otherwise, WP is stifling the free flow of information. P.S. Census figures are not too reliable either. Sincerely, your pal, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to slippery slope that one, we don't go citing anything we please because it allows information to flow, lest we cite the "information" on someone's blog. There are standards to what we cite, and so long as there are standards, sources of information can be prioritized. And even if we only cite sources that meet those standards there still ways to misrepresent information, which is why we have policies like WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, etc... In short: all information getting to an article is filtered through the judgment of wikipedia editors to give the best, most accurate, and most neutral picture.--Loodog (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Loodog: I would prefer not to become embroiled in discussion on this page, but your three reverts within 24 hours would seem to leave me little option. I have reverted to my original change on the basis that it is a better reflection of current consensus than "US Census figures only". Whilst I realize that you have objections to this please note the following;

1. The consensus on this issue currently stands as rejection of "US Census figures only" - please refer to this discussion which I have already cited.
2. The purpose of a lead is to reflect the body of the article - wherein it clearly states that figures other than US Census figures are permitted. If you don't like "US Census figures take priority" then please change it to something better not something demonstrably contrary to the body of the article and the consensus of the page editors (your suggestion of "US Census should be mentioned. Others are optional." would seem far preferable to "US Census figures only").
3. Please note the edit history on this page. See particularly this version of the page: [1] and note that the wording of the body was changed specifically to address the deletion of non-Census material on the basis of the "US Census figures only" guideline. It would seem clear that the lead should have been ammended at the same time as this edit but was overlooked.

In short: the rewording I proposed may not be ideal, and other variations may certainly reflect the consensus position better than "US Census figures take priority" but please don't regard me as a fool - "US Census figures only" is most certainly not the consensus position at this point in time and your reverts on the basis that I need to discuss "consensus" are tendentious at best.
I have no wish to cause you difficulties by reporting you for a WP:3RR violation, but your failure to aquaint yourself with the discussions on this page, your failure to acknowledge the current editor consensus, and your insistence on reverting what is a reasonable, if far from perfect, change, will lead to stronger action on my part. Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Muzhogg, there's no need to get caught in the me and you of this, just stop changing the page before consensus is established as per WP:STATUSQUO. I reiterate what I've said before: "US Census figures take priority" is so vague as to be meaningless. Since no one seemed to have any objection to my proposed wording earlier, or even George Louis's version of it, why don't we put that in instead of reinstating what has been established three times as not agreed upon?--Loodog (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, stop pretending consensus has been reached, especially in your favor.--Loodog (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Really, Loodog, WP:STATUSQUO is the very policy you shouldn't be appealing to here. The fact is that the Wikipedia policy on edits is "be bold" - not "achieve consensus first". What does requires consensus is reverts - as explained in WP:STATUSQUO. That policy boils down to "don't revert good faith efforts without consensus" so I respectfully suggest you actually read and familiarise yourself with a policy before deigning to cite it to others. That said, consensus doesn't even enter into it. You haven't offered any challenge to the claim that the consensus of the page is "US Census figures first, reliable other figures in support" - indeed you've pretty much conceeded it in your proposed wording and your approval of George Louis' proposed wording. And yet you're arguing that editing the lead to reflect this is against consensus. That really makes very little sense - to put it mildly. If the article lead reflects the content of the article, then it isn't necessary to debate consensus on the wording of the lead. as you seem happy with George Louis' proposed wording, I suggest you just insert that in the lead. You don't even need to vote on it - you can just follow the suggestion "reword rather than revert" from WP:STATUSQUO - the very policy from which my earlier advice, to which you were responding, was drawn. But if you were familiar with the content of WP:STATUSQUO (all 7 lines of it!) rather than wikilawyering you'd have known that. As I pointed out from the beginning my own wording was just a suggestion and I have no vested interest in whether you adopt it or not. My only remaining point would be this - you should go and read WP:3RR and familiarize yourself with the definition of "revert" (="any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part.") which means, including the strike out of my edit, you have now made four reverts against two other editors (myself and George Louis). I'd urge you, then, to keep in mind that reverts, not edits, require consensus. The only reason I haven't lodged a WP:3RR at this point, let me say, is because I don't wish to interfere with the regular editors of this article. I do think, however, that you should inform yourself of the relevant policies and make yourself aware of what is appropriate behaviour in this context. It matters not to me whether I "win" or "loose" this argument, but rest assured that many other editors would not tolerate your behaviour with such good grace. I apologize for wording this as strongly as I have, but hope that you can accept that my intent is to help you approach such matters in a more constructive manner. Good luck with your article, I am afraid that I lack the time to make further contribution to this discussion. -- Muzhogg (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Muzhogg, there is no urgency to making that particular chance immediately. While I agree with the general point of your change, I also agree that Loodog has valid objections to the phrasing. The point is clearly contentious enough that some civil discussion is merited to reach an agreement on exactly what form the change should take. older ≠ wiser 13:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Muzhogg, I don't see how you can be reading WP:STATUSQUO and getting that. It explicitly says, "If there is a dispute, the STATUS QUO reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page." TO MAKE A CHANGE, CONSENSUS IS NEEDED. You wish to change what the page says, therefore YOU NEED CONSENSUS to do so.

Therefore, from the moment you made this edit, which, you knew you did NOT have consensus to make, you ignored this.--Loodog (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

--Loodog (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, DO NOT DELETE TALK PAGE COMMENTS.--Loodog (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to all editors on this page for the deletion of talk-page contents, it was inadvertent. Regards. -- Muzhogg (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Back in September 2008 I proposed 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."

I think that wording should effectively explain a reasonable policy. Specifically:

• Every U.S. city article should present data from the last decennial census.
• If official U.S. Census estimates, data from special censuses, or estimates from other reputable sources exist, it is permissible to report them, but only in addition to the decennial Census data.

One reason why I emphasize the need for decennial census data is that census estimates are not available for smaller cities. It's misleading to report the population of BigGrowingCity based on its 2007 Census estimate, but use the 2000 data for its neighbor, BoomingSuburbanCity. --Orlady (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as a little note - the annual Census estimates are for every incorporated place - not just the larger cities. You may be referring to unincorporated suburbabn communities. The difficulty there is in boundary definition; local sources may estimate the population using a completely different set of geographical boundaries for unincorporated areas and thus comparing a 2000 Census figure from XYZ CDP to a 2008 Chamber of Commerce figure for XYZ Unincorporated Town may be misleading, as well. Shereth 14:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Indeed they are. A few years ago I remember being unable to get current estimates for incorporated municipalities smaller than a certain size (I forget what that size was; probably 20,000 or 25,000 population). --Orlady (talk) 02:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Vote: choice

Please vote.--Loodog (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

In lead

1. US Census Numbers Only

2. US Census Numbers Take Priority

3. US Census Numbers Are Required. Others are optional.

4. Other choice (state below).

---

The above seems a bit premature or even uncalled for at this point. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a deciding vote (there's no such thing on WP); this is an initial assessment of where people stand since I don't think it's clear.--Loodog (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please provide some examples of any US cities where it would be best or appropriate to use non-Census data? Because we seem to be beating around the bush here with non-census versus census data. Are there editors out there that are trying to put some population data in an article that's causing this issue? I think if there is data from a reliable source, whether it's about population or anything else, we can include it. But it must meet those WP:RS guidelines, and www.city-data.com doesn't do that. Furthermore, I am currently unaware of a better source for population data. The US Census Bureau collects population data on every locality in the nation, and they apply the same uniform standards across the board. Unlike some population estimates sponsored by local chambers of commerce and things of that nature, which seems to be biased towards overestimation. So, I think, for a guideline for US cities, obtaining population data from the official US census would be the best source. If anyone knows of a better source, or if any other article is using something else, or wants to use something else, let's hear it. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto.--Loodog (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Examples, as requested, of places where there would be a good reason to report non-Census data (in addition to the US Census data):

• Seymour, Tennessee - It's not a city. It's an unincorporated place that the Census reports as a CDP. The Census number for the CDP is in the article. The local chamber of commerce and many local people say that the CDP boundaries don't encompass all of Seymour, and the true population is much larger. See Talk:Seymour, Tennessee#Population for discussion of this. Based on application of the "census data only" principle, the information about the conflicting local opinion on "what is Seymour?" and the chamber of commerce population estimate has been removed repeatedly from the article (most recently here) along with the statement that Seymour is an unincorporated community.
• Spring Hill, Tennessee - This city's population roughly tripled from 2000 to 2007, when the most recent special census count was made. The special census count was apparently not done by the US Census, but it was an actual head count. Not mentioning the increased population in the article would be withholding significant information about the city. --Orlady (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

These are interesting points. Seymour seems particularly pathological and not necessarily applicable from here, this being a guidelines for cities. I can't claim to know very much about Spring Hill or the history of its population debate.--Loodog (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Where US Census data is available (incorporated places and CDPs), Census data should always take precedence. It should be used as the de-facto official population figure for infoboxes (and preferably be the only figure there). If a population figure is given in the lead paragraph, it should be the most recent figure from the Census. Other data sources - so long as they are reliable - may be provided as supplementary information, in which case it should be presented in a way that it is clear that the alternative figures are supplementary to the Census figures. That is my take. Shereth 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Shereth. The wording I would use would be something like: "U.S. Census Bureau population figures must be included and must be given top priority (i.e. the figures used in the infobox). Other figures may provided given there is good reason to do so and the sources for such figures are deemed reliable." So my vote is number 3, but "optional" should be more spelled out. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Shereth and LonelyMarble. This is because: (1) local agencies overestimate, (2) they overestimate by inconsistent amounts with differing methodologies, and (3) the numbers given by local agencies aren't typically meant to be used this way; for a Chamber of Commerce, these are advertising figures - for a Department of Finance, they're being used to estimate revenues and balance a budget, as opposed to the US Census Bureau, which is charged with this task to help a government and its people understand demographic shifts and plan accordingly. I vote 3, with the proviso that the difference between Census and other estimates clearly explained in the article.--Loodog (talk) 18:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• US Census data makes sense usually, but not always: for cities that have changed boundaries (e.g., by annexation) or changed populations significantly since 2000, using census data - while accurate at the time - would be misleading for the current state of affairs. In any event, flexibility and WP:RSes are the key - and for some states (California, e.g.) the state government provides population estimates for its larger cities every year or so and there is no reason an intro couldn't read: The 2000 US Census reported the population of Foo as XX,XXX.<insert cite> [Since 2000, Foo has annexed adjacent formerly unincorporated areas of Faa, Fee, and Fii.<insert cite>] The <state> Department of <keeping track of such things> estimates that Foo's population as of 2009 is YY,YYY.<insert cite> Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Per the US Census methodology, "Census 2000 base counts of housing units are geographically updated each year to reflect legal changes reported in the Boundary and Annexation Survey (BAS), other geographic program revisions, and census corrections." [2] Annexations are accounted for in the annual estimates and this should not be a problem. Shereth 16:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • For its going-forward estimates, you are correct, what was published in 2000 is still what was published in 2000. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Of course, but as I understand it this discussion is largely concerned with US Census estimates vs. local estimates. I don't think anyone has proposed that year 2000 Census data should supercede more current data. Shereth 16:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Read User:Orlady's proposal above, someone is proposing just that: "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" which here would be 2000. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah, you are correct. I believe that particular wording proposal was made under the mistaken assumption that annual Census estimates were available only for a select number of incorporated places, whereas they are, in fact, available for every incorporated place. Speaking on a purely "Decennial Census vs. Recent Local Estimate" argument, I would tend to agree with you that the Census numbers are not "better". My particular viewpoint is that, in the "Annual Census Estimate vs. Recent Local Estimate" debate, priority should be given to the Census Estimates for numerous reasons stated by others above (I am willing to repeat them if necessary however). Shereth 16:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Any consensus yet? GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidently. Discussion seems to have stopped and User:Loodog made the change 5 days ago; there has been no objection to the change. Shereth 21:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Everyone seems pretty happy with this.--Loodog (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Natives and residents

Should this guide cover what are natives and residents? Native may be defined according to Merriam-Webster [3] as born (1) or raised (6) in. What is the standard for residence? Local law? "Notable" residency? Hyacinth (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is really within the remit of this project to define such terms. I'd be more inclined to simply let it fall to reliable sources. If a source can be found that says John Doe is a native of Anytown, then so be it; same if a source says Jane Doe is a resident. Shereth 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Resident has to do with living there, so it is best to use native as born in the city. Spshu (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

While we're on this topic, I suggest changing the phrase

"it is common to link to a separate List of famous people from _ article" to

"it is common to link to a separate List of notable natives and residents of _ article."

This will make the title correspond more closely to the suggested header. Thoughts? ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me like these 'notable natives' sections have been in city articles for a long time. Most undeveloped articles simply treat them as a bulleted list, which, if it gets really long, is moved to a 'list of famous people' article. These lists are poorly sourced, and mostly differentiated only by career categories (entertainment, sports, government, etc), and not based on whether the person is a native (born in the city) or just a resident (born elsewhere and moved there later). There's also a lot of people in these lists that are actually residents of nearby suburbs, and not the city itself. The lists also seem to be frequently vandalized, with random teenagers adding themselves to the list, or "garage bands" adding their members to the list as "notable musicians" (despite the guidelines in WP:MUSICBIO). Some of the more developed articles do have a more developed 'notable natives' section, which is written out as prose and covers some of the celebrities and famous individuals that contributed to establishing the culture of the city in question. When it's done right like this, it can contribute to the article. But most of the time, articles simply have a poorly conceived, commonly vandalized, and poorly referenced list.

I almost think it would actually be better to do away entirely with the 'list of' articles and put all the lists of famous people from a given town into a 'category of famous people from x'. We'd still have a list of famous people, but the maintenance would be much easier, as individual article editors would add the category to the bio page. Furthermore, people from nearby suburbs would be added to the category for famous people from that suburb, and that category could then become a sub-category of the main category for famous people from the city. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I could have sworn this had come up somewhere, before, and I could have sworn that I voiced my support of the idea. Moving to a category setup, rather than a list-of setup, allows the people who maintain an article about John Doe to "decide" where he is "from", rather than showing up on some random list somewhere. Shereth 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There will likely always be list builders and advocates. I can see three ways to go here with respect to the main article about a city:

1. Suggest a list name (the current guideline)
2. Suggest categorization
3. Drop any suggestion of how to group notable people

Three is appealing to me because it does not advocate one method or the other. But then we lose guidance about what to do when lists get unmanageably long. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 00:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Right now we have categories, imbedded notable lists, and forked lists. Not an academic exercise for me. I can only glance over a large update looking for glaring oversights - redlinks usually. dabs often escape me unless updates were few. I don't think people much look at a very long list or a forked list anyway. They are just there so someone can say he put x on it. The same reason Wikipedia rejected lists in the first place maybe. Never read because they are unreadable.

You aren't down to this fine a level, but I kind of liked splitting lists into Athletes, Musicians, Politicians, and Everybody Else. Forces people to think which they hate, and the list is smaller as a result!  :) And people might actually read it for a medium-sized city. Can't think of anything that can be read in a really large city of which I have one.

For small places, in-line works fine. Aren't that many. Easy to maintain. Can accumulate petty facts to justify why they are there - nothing lengthy (born there. Retired there, that sort of thing). Adds class to tiny places actually!  :( Student7 (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Music

Does music go in its own section or under Arts and Culture? Mahanga^Talk 17:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be the most logical place for it. I wouldn't think it's a big enough topic to have its own main section. You've got to be careful with a section like this, if it exists, as it's likely to become a lightning rod for various garage bands wishing to promote themselves, which is not what wikipedia is for. Most cities could probably do without this section, as any bands could be incorporated into the main arts and culture section, or under a section on annual events. A city like New Orleans might have a decent music section, though, since the jazz scene really did contribute to its culture. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

External links clarification

I would like some clarification on an EL. I've already removed it once, but the author restored it - so I wanted to get additional input before removing it again.

This is the link in question atManchester, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Manchester on Arborwiki

Note: it was originally linked via the {{arborwiki}} template, then restored by the author with a direct link.

I see several problems with this link. First, it goes against WP:ELNO #12 "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." The link also seems to go against the recommendations of WP:USCITY#External links. Add onto this that the link doesn't add anything not already found in the article, and it appears to be nothing but a promotional link to attempt to drive traffic to arborwiki.

Can those more familiar with this guideline please provide their opinions on the appropriateness of this link? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Note, I've also removed the link from a fandful of other city/community articles, but this is the only one (thus far) to which the link has been restored. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not lead directly to a lot of information. More precise, I am lead to a redirect which redirects to a category. The articles in that category may be suitable on their own subjects, but this is not in line with even the intro of WP:EL (should lead to info which can not be incorporated due to .. etc.). I would need some more examples, but this specific example fails certainly, even before hitting ELNO#12. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Here are some additional links which I removed to that same site, none of these have been restored as yet, only the one above.

From Manchester Township, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• Manchester Township on Arborwiki

From Barton Hills, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Barton Hills on Arborwiki
• Barton Hills Country Club on Arborwiki

From Saline, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Saline on Arborwiki

From Lodi Township, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Lodi Township on Arborwiki

From Scio Township, Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Scio Township on Arborwiki

(note: It appears that the {{arborwiki}} template has now been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Arborwiki)

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Similar problems have cropped up on the otherside of the pond with links added to articles on Chester and Manchester to their respective wikis [4]. The consensus was to remove them, pretty much for the reasons you gave above, although there was flexibility in case an editor was becoming disruptive about adding them (ie: let them have a link on one page where it is most relevant but not everywhere). Importantly, if the website isn't adding anything significant that isn't in the article, what's the point of including it? Nev1 (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Barek and Nev1. While each case needs to be considered on its merits, in general links like this are clearly promotional and often fail WP:ELNO#1 ("Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article"). I think the "Manchester on Arborwiki" link given above is not helpful for Wikipedia, and links to the wiki problematic in general. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Local wikis will almost never meet the dozens/hundreds/thousands of editors and stability criteria needed to meet WP:EL. If one does occasionally, fine, but this particular example is ridiculous. The link goes to a worthless page. 2005 (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

AS Barek stated in his original post, the WikiProject Cities/Guideline on External links suggests a strong preference for official websites related to the city and discourages most other links. Perhaps that should be stated more strongly and unambiguously in this guideline. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Population estimates

Hello everyone.. I am Mattscards. I have gotten into a few conflicts with a few editors and I feel I should explain my intentions here. From here on out, I plan to edit and keep the population of most all large cities in the United States. This includes the all cities. I intend to post the latest releases fron the United States Census Bureau. This is not something I came up with today. This is something I have thought of for a while now. This is a passion of mine. Population of cities. The press releases are as follows: Metropolitan estimates are released in March every year. The city population releases are out in late June or early July.. It varies every year. This information is always published in the World Almanac every November(usually the second week). I have never met anyone more knowledgeable than me in these subjects and if you are out there I would love to hear from you.(Believe me.. you get no ticker tape parades with this knowledge) This is why when someone deleted my posts I caught a little attitude today. I realized I can discuss them here and work out any problems that may have surfaced in the past. some of you say that they are estimates and argue my use of the term "accurate". The meaning of accurate is possibly wrong, however the information I use and will continue to use is the latest "official estimate" from the United States Census Bureau. To me, there is no other number that should be used. I have seen rounded off numbers and inaccurate released numbers and believe me, when people see these, they do not trust the information given. Yes, if it is July 2009 I would like to see July 2009 numbers. But you can see that some cities love to boost numbers if you use their reference.. and I will always use the US Census Bureau. If anyone would like to contact me i would love to discuss this with you. Mattscards (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As I stated on your talk page, my primary issue with your edits have been that you are breaking the ref tag formatting, resulting in errors being created within the "references" section.

Please view the references section in these two versions: original wording, and your revision.

In the original version, the references generate with no errors (the original reference is listed as item #3). But in your version, reference #3 displays in bold red text the message "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named population; see Help:Cite error.", and your new link appears as reference item #4. The issue appears to be caused by your version eliminating the named reference, which is used elsewhere for the same citation within the article. Also, the original version is cleanly formatted by using the {{cite web}} template, while your version is a bare, un-labelled link in the reference.

As for format of the source, I believe that the XLS format is more approachable by the average user - mainly because the CSV version loads as a string of text with no structure - unless you load it into a program that can add structure to the CSV data. Either way, Excel or another program that can display tabular data is needed to cleanly view the data.

I also feel that the flow of the original wording is better; but that's a secondary issue, and not the primary reason for my reverting your edits to the San Jose, California article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the unsurpassed knowledge of any one user, I believe that the lead section for major U.S. cities flows best with a rounded number taken from the latest U.S. Census estimates. The exact (and current) estimates by the Census Bureau can then be placed in the Demographics section and infobox. --BaronLarf 08:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I happen to think this is important to have accurate information from the beginning. That lets everyone trust the information they are reading as accurate. If you start estimatimating official numbers then the reader will feel other information is general information as well. I believe the official numbers should be posted in the first paragraph. Thank you Mattscards (talk) 11:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The unrounded numbers are ESTIMATES & actually LESS accurate (tho more precise) than the rounded number. If a reader were to try to recall the population of NYC after reading the lede, having seen "exceeds 8.3 million" will be more useful than "8,363,710" (or whatever the 18-month-old estimate may become). The unrounded estimate still appears in the infobox, next to the lede. The WP:lede is meant to present an overview, not a surfeit of forgettable & meaninglessly precise details--JimWae (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Besides the above, nowhere does the census bureau claim that their estimates are exact to the nearest person, nor to the nearest 10 people, nor even to 100 people. All they claim is that is the number they derived based on their best methodology (other than another, still inexact, census). The estimates are produced by the census bureau for the purpose of allocation of state & federal funds - a purpose that differs from that of an encyclopedia. The estimates are even significantly changed after publication (see the Challenge Results section on http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/challenges.html ) - some of them just recently. Challenges to the 2007 estimates were even accepted into 2009 -- NYC being one city that had its challenge upheld. --JimWae (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

JimWae, I still think you are missing the point here. Even if they are estimates, even if they are not real, even if you do not feel the people at the United States Census Bureau are competent, they are the foremost authority in population estimates. There is no organization that outranks them. We are not allowed to change their numbers. People respect releases from the experts, whether those numbers are right or wrong. If you have any court ruling that overturns the numbers I am posting on the NYC article, I will cite that as a reference instead of the United States Census Bureau. Mattscards (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My concern is with guesstimates. I don't care how accurate they have proved in hindsight, I prefer actual headcounts. They are official. Guesstimates are just that, guesses. I would prefer to update population once a decade and revert any changes for the next ten years. This is preferable to try to figure out if the latest change from an unregistered user is really correct or really vandalism. I would rather a figure lag by a few percent than to try to figure out the correctness of information from whomever (since you can't update all ten thousand places). Student7 (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we are obligated to include both—the last official head count as well as the latest Bureau's estimate. —EncMstr (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"Obligated"? Why "obligated"?

And why guesses? I would think we would avoid guesses. Everyone can "guess." Only scholars get it right (supposedly). Student7 (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The official population by the US Census Bureau given every decade does not reflect the numbers close to the city's population, especially fast growing cities. If you give out 9 year old population data, then the reader will wonder if all the data here in the article is old data. The population estimates given by the United States Census Bureau are official estimates. These should be published and respected. One could even argue that the 10 year census count is not accurate either, there being numerous reports that undocumented people try to stay hidden and never fill these forms out. I think the annual estimates are as accurate as information that is available. I feel the US Census Bureau is the experts in this and the numbers they release should be posted in the lede paragraph in every City. I feel these numbers should be updated annually to give a better representation of that city's population. Mattscards (talk) 19:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The exact numerical estimate figure is listed in the infobox to the right of the lead section. When writing in prose, numbers over a million are written as X million or X.X million. This is a proper copyediting style of writing a prose when a numerical figure is in the millions. Mattscards, you should refer to a college-level writing handbook. There has been a consensus on writing the prose this way for all United States cities with populations over a million. I would suggest you stop changing this style of nine U.S. cities with populations over a million. Your wording changes are not inline with the copyediting style guide. If you look carefully at any city articles, there is an infobox to right of the lead section which lists an exact numerical estimated figure. Consensus has been established for this article and other articles to have it written as X.X million. You are the only one changing it for this article and other articles, and your changes have been reverted by many people. As stated by JimWae at Talk:New York City, please read WP:BRD and WP:lede. —RJN (talk) 04:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This will illustrate my problem with arbitrary census changes on a frequent basis, news at 11 breathless timetable. I have no idea whether this edit is correct or not. Not registered. No edit summary. TWO changes to count instead of one. All the hallmarks of vandalism. I can't be keeping up with minute-by-minute changes. I guessed it was ordinary vandalism (but I didn't "warn" him since I wasn't really sure). This is the type of real-world stuff that regular editors have to contend with on a daily basis. Student7 (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion touches on some old debates regarding annual estimates versus decennial census counts. For some perspective, the annual estimates, while exactly that (estimates), are nonetheless considered both reliable and important; were they merely curious little guesstimates, there would be no sense in a formal process of contesting them. These figures are used by the federal government to determine how to distribute federal funds amongst the various cities of the country. As far as the United States Government is concerned, annual estimates are official populations. Now, bearing that in mind, our own guidelines do not prohibit the inclusion of other data in addition to the census figures; if someone wants to include figures from the California Department of Finance, that is specifically allowed so long as it does not replace the Census figures and the source is clearly indicated in the article. Our guidelines also do not prohibit rounding to a less precise figure, and again, if the folks who maintain New York City want to use "exceeds 8.3 million" in lieu of citing the exact figure that is fine, so long as the exact figure is available somewhere else easy to find (such as in the infobox, where it is currently located). There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. Shereth 15:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If it "only" came down to once a year changes, those of us who actually maintain/watch these articles would not have much of a problem. It's these peculiar, and usually very pov estimates that are issued that are a serious problem,besides trying to defend against odd updates to numbers by unregistered users which may be, but probably are not, accurate. These pov estimates are used as a club to try to force "better" figures and therefore money from the federal government. They are usually not WP:RELY. I would hope in the US, that we would not accept anything but US census department guesses. Trying to analyze other guesstimates for reliability is just too much when we know in advance why these guesstimates are being made. At least stick with an unbiased source.

All this is tremendously easy for Mattscards, and his peers, they just slam in some number and move on, never looking back. A bit harder when you have the overall health of the article in mind. Student7 (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The chamber of commerce is not an official city link

This guideline currently says, "A link to some of the official websites should be provided here, such as...the chamber of commerce."

A chamber of commerce is a private organization whose sole purpose is to promote the businesses owned by the members (at the expense of non-member businesses and non-business owners). At the national level, they are essentially a political lobbying group; the US CofC is the world's largest lobbying group. There is no possible rational reason why a chamber of commerce should be linked, but other clubs should not. For example: why the chamber of commerce, but not the community foundation, which is essentially the same idea for non-profits? Why the local chapter of the Chamber of Commerce but not the local chapter of the Jaycees (whose name is literally the "Junior Chamber of Commerce") or the local Rotary Club chapter, which also serves the business networking function for many members?

More importantly (IMO), this sentence implies that a CofC is an official city entity, which is absolutely untrue in most of the world. The chamber of commerce definitely does not qualify as an official link for the city, and should never be represented as such. It is a purely private organization -- one that even occasionally works against the government and public, when that opposition happens to suit its members' financial interests -- and should not be singled out as special entity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.Student7 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable to me to exclude the CoC links. How about tightening up that first sentence like this:

Only links to official city websites should be provided here, such as the official city government and the convention & visitors bureau.

I do refer to this guideline frequently when cleaning up city article and rarely if ever have anyone put back non-official links. One exception that I do make is leaving links to history pages from unquestionably reliable sources. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not reasonable to prohibit non-official links. For example, there might be a perfectly good history-of-the-city website that is owned by a local history buff. Even if this person doesn't count as a reliable source, the link might be justifiable. I don't even mind linking to the website of the local chamber of commerce, if that particular website is likely to be useful or interesting to our readers (something that must be determined on a case-by-case basis) and doesn't amount to unfair or spammy promotion of the members' businesses (something that, again, must be determined by looking at the individual website).

My primary goal here (done, since nobody has objected) is to avoid having non-official links improperly included in the WP:ELOFFICIAL exemption: the chamber does not own or run the city, no matter how much any member would like to pretend otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, as your rationale seems reasonable. The only reason I originally reverted your change is because I didn't think your original single-sentence rationale in the edit comment was sufficient, and I felt that it should be brought up here first. Now that you've explained it in more detail, it's ok. I wouldn't expressly prohibit Chambers of Commerce links there, though -- they may be applicable and appropriate to some communities, though I do agree with you that it shouldn't be required explicitly. WTF? (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Internal linking advice

An edit summary for a reversion of my addition of a small "Internal links" section, just above the "External links" section, claimed that links are about layout rather than style. Yet internal links are closely entangled with the essence of prose style, in some respects. There are references to footnotes and verifiability on the page. I don't quite see the logic here.

The key consideration is that articles on geographical topics are typically way overlinked, leading to the significant dilution of our wikilinking system; it works best, of course, when links are skilfully rationed and piped. I'd have thought people would be glad to provide a few lines of advice WRT such a poorly handled aspect of style as wikilinking in city articles. Tony (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways: either the external links should go, or the internal links should be retained. They can both be treated in the same section if that is what is required. I am going to add internal links to that section, changing the title to "Linking", unless there is a very good reason not to. Tony (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good reason? How about "common terms" being a matter of personal opinion, as opposed to the long-established guidelines regarding external links? In addition, the "common terms" issue is a personal concern (no insult intended, but not everyone supports the mass removal of geographical and other that you are spearheading) whereas external link spam is a serious, ongoing issue in entertainment, geography, and countless other subject areas. Seriously, what need is there to graft sections of the linking guideline into this and several other guidelines? --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of personal preference: it's in the style guidelines. The fact that you have been conducting your own personal vendetta should not be allowed to infect this page. Tony (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

US-centric focus is a problem

I do not believe it is appropriate that this page be predominantly oriented towards articles on cities of just one country. This is explicitly the case. If this bias is retained, I believe the page should be renamed "WikiProject Cities/US cities guideline". Tony (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that renaming the WikiProject is a proportional response to a guideline that is currently directed towards US cities. There is no rule that says WikiProjects' names must be sensible, intelligible to outsiders, or accurately describe their scope. There may be many virtues in moving the page (including making more clear its nature as advice from members of a small group, rather than a community-approved guideline), but the part of the name that might want changing comes after the slash, not before. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"There is no rule that says WikiProjects' names must be sensible, intelligible to outsiders, or accurately describe their scope." So ... there's no rule that articles should be "sensible, intelligible to outsiders, and accurately describe their scope"? Actually, what I meant was that this guideline, not the wikiproject, needs to be accurately named as dealing with US cities, or that the bias should be fixed. I've changed the example in my previous post.

I think we need to remove the style-guide status until these issues are fixed. Tony (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The correct category is probably Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects, not the cat for community-wide/approved pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That may be the case, but the page title is misleading and can easily be fixed. Or the bias removed. Wouldn't it be more useful to have a section on US cities, and make the scope wider on the page overall? Tony (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

External links section

This is in response to the recent removal of the entire External Links section of the guideline. I believe that a section on external links is useful; it allows editors an easy way to refer to the consensus on which links should and should not go on articles about cities. Official city links? Yes. Random businesses? No. Without addition clarification, I don't see how a proposed "Inline links" section would do this. Cheers --BaronLarf 08:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

External link spam is a serious concern in geographical articles, whereas decisions about what constitutes a useful internal link are far more subject to personal opinion that to any arbitrary standard. The EL section is relevant as it allows the guidelines to be explained and tailored to the specific topic. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree; in the same way, the overlinking of common terms is "a serious concern in geographical articles.

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A place for crime

Currently the guide suggests demographics as a place for crime statistics. I would have thought government, sometimes coupling it with police. I had been constructing separate subtopics "Public health and safety" but will stop doing that I guess since infrastructure has health. Student7 (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

A place for environment?

(The trouble is that no one supports "Projects" much. Hard to get answers). Most cities are being pressed to stop dumping treated sewage into the local tributary that contains phosphorus or whatever the bane du jour is. I had put it under "government" since it was an ongoing problem. Some government official didn't like it since it wasn't government structure per se even though the government was truly responsbile for it. So I have moved it to "history" which seems a bit weak. This is pretty major right now, so supressing it doesn't seem like a very good option IMO. Student7 (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Information like that pretty easily fits under the Geography section. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 15:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Notable people sections

I've been cleaning up notable people sections in the cities and towns of a few states now and plan to keep going to the others. The following is what I have learned.

• First, I note the dated conversation above regarding deletion of these sections. I for one think deletion is wrong, the sections are a great easy stepping stone for new users and I think that should be encouraged. Just because that same ease invites vandalism, is no reason to deleted relevant information.

• Second, I think the fixed name for these sections on city pages should be Notable people. This is the name used in top GA & FA city articles. Notable natives and residents is not inclusive enough for the use of this section. Many people become associated in notable ways with towns where they were not born or resided. Michael Jordan and Chicago for example. Jordan has never lived in Chicago nor was he born there, yet the two are closely linked due to his championships with the Chicago Bulls. I have taken the liberty of changing the name of this section on the project page/guideline page.

• Third, regarding list vs prose. I find that straight prose about notable people becomes a serious of unconnected sentences strung together in paragraph form. It is cumbersome to read and in my opinion, grammatically annoying. List of names are not better. I for one support the hybrid bullet list with one sentence prose. I find this has generally become standard practice, but I think it should be noted here as a Wikipedia standard.

• Fourth, inclusion I think it should be fairly straight forward that if a person does not meet notability warranting their own Wikipedia page or mention on a Wikipedia page, then they should not be included in these lists. The "mention on" qualifier means people listed on something like the Miss Virginia page. These pageant winners should be mentioned on their home town page, but are not notable enough for a biography page.

I invite discussion about these four points. Dkriegls (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion is far from straightforward. The issue is not simply "is this person notable", but "is their link with this place notable" which is much more difficult to establish in marginal cases. Articles on settlements do not require notable people sections to become Good or Featured Articles. Their value is dubious at best and they should not be forced up articles unnecessarily. Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevi, during my clean ups, I use a 'citation needed' tag for any listing with a Wikipedia page that doesn't make clear the connection to the town. However, I do not know what you mean by a 'notable link' to the town. Is being born there notable?Dkriegls (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, although it depends. My experience with settlement articles begins and ends at the UK, but today people are born in hospitals in which people may spend no more than a day. By your suggestion, a town with a hospital could have lots of "notable people" even though they may have spent very little time there. The link should be made explicit in the settlement article in case the article on the person is changed. Nev1 (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about hospitals, however, most people born in that hospital are not notable. I think a notable person being born there is a notable event if credible source mentions it. The 'claim to fame' materiel should not be an inclusion cretonne for Wikipedia, but it is a good way to get new editors interested in contributing to these smaller towns and cities. I encountered this problem while editing cities in Maine where lots of famous New Yorkers 'summer' in small town. If the reference to their 'summering' there was solid, I allowed it to stay. If it was just local gossip or a local paper making note of it, I cut the name...or used a 'citation needed' tag.Dkriegls (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

At WikiProject Oregon we've adopted essentially the same standards. In city articles, we've codified a standard disclaimer which is added as a wikicomment to the top of each Notable residents section. It looks like this:

<!-- Note:
· Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability.
· The biographical article must mention how they are associated with <city name>, whether born, raised, or residing.
· The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited.
· Alphabetical by last name please
· All others will be deleted without further explanation
-->

Since we've added this comment, the number of vanity additions has greatly decreased.

Also note that we completely circumvent notability inclusion problems, like with people visiting the city briefly, by using the section name Notable residents. The sense of this is that anyone who has ever lived there and is notable is eligible to be added. In the case of Michael Jordan and Chicago, it is easily argued that he works in the city, and so is a notable resident. —EncMstr (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks EncMstr. I might end up using that tag. However, I think calling Jordan a 'resident' of the City of Chicago because he played for the Bulls is a stretch. More importantly, the consensus for cities with GA & FA status is to use the title "Lists of people from XXX". 'Notable people' seems a better fit for in-page lists. Unfortunately, the only FA with an in-page list was [Peterborough]], which violated Wiki-norms by using the subjective term 'Famous' and the page referential term 'Peterborians'. Both of which violate a couple of consensus rules. I think there should be some established and voted on naming convention though. Dkriegls (talk) 03:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much agree. Think there may be local "notables" who do not (yet) have their own page. I have allowed a person who happened to have been a transitory professional football player, but never did anything, as a local "notable" person. First black official and first black official to have been elected to a significant job in a professional government association, by his peers. All carefully footnoted, of course. But these unlinked people are maybe, 3% of the notables I review. In this case, he merits an article anyway, but there will be some who don't. Needless to say, these exceptions are allowed in Podunk. They are not allowed in New York City!  :)

And I put the Oregon disclaimer on a lot of my articles. A bit hypocritical when I'm allowing blacklinks!  :) Student7 (talk) 17:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

bullet vs. prose in notable people lists

I have reverted the content added recently by Dkriegls favoring bulleted lists over prose. While I do not have a problem with changing the name of the section to 'notable people', consensus was NOT reached to favor bulleted lists, and in fact, the FA examples he cited do not use bulleted lists in these sections. By writing a guideline favoring bulleted lists over prose is only going to serve to promote vandalism in articles, by encouraging users to add names of marginally related people to the "laundry list" at the end of the article. While this is acceptable in the early stages of the article, the lists generally need to be converted to a prose-based discussion of how these individuals have affected the city in question, and/or how they are related to the city. This is not easily accomplished with bulleted lists. WTF? (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Foxtrot, I support your changes, and agree with your reasoning. Thank you. However, there is one item you removed that I think should be discussed. That is the suggested cap on the number of people mentioned before converting it to a List of people from.. article. I don't see a lot of these sections actually getting converted into full prose before they become their own list page, unless they are going up for GA/FA. I think there should be some guidance on a suggested size for doing that. Unfortunately, the unsightly appearance of these sections due to number of mentioned people varies if it is a list or in prose, with prose holding many more names before it gets cumbersome. Dkriegls (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine. I've added that. WTF? (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers :) Dkriegls (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable people vs Notable natives and residents

User:Nyttend recently undid my name change of this section stating that "discussion did not result in support for new name". There was no discussion for either name, so I am not clear on the user's stance for their pick. The original title used in the guide was place there during page creation, with no discussion either.

I changed the name to Notable people because that is the title used by a majority of Wikipedia:Featured articles #Geography and places. 12 featured articles use Notable people, 5 use Notable residence, and only 1 use each of the following (Notable Peterborians; Notable persons born here; Notable natives and residents). The rest of the Featured article cities have a "List of people from..." page. I will change the name back unless another user has a reason we shouldn't follow the consensus of Featured Articles. Dkriegls (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the Featured articles referenced. Notable people-Neilston, Oldham, Radcliffe, Greater Manchester, Shaw and Crompton, Wormshill, Stretford, Herne Bay, Kent, Chadderton, Cheadle Hulme, Caversham, New Zealand, Brownhills, and Altrincham. Notable residents-Stephens City, Virginia, Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, Hillsboro, Oregon, Mackinac Island, and Westgate-on-Sea. Famous Peterborians-Peterborough. Notable persons born here-Isle of Portland. Notable residents and natives-Kent, Ohio.

NOTE:I've changed the section titles on the above US cities to "Notable people" per consensus reached here. The two British cites were not changes. Dkriegls (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

My apology; I saw that you changed it and that your edit summary was "see discussion" for an edit related to this section at the time its name was changed. I mistakenly thought that the change was made in the "see discussion" edit. Combine that with your creation of the section above, and I thought that you had changed the section name in response to the section above. I can't argue with your statistical findings, but I disagree with your reasoning. "Notable people" could mean notable people associated with the community, but standard practice has always been just the people who live or lived there — "Notable natives and residents" more precisely defines the content of the section. Nyttend (talk) 07:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning for choosing this title, from the section above: "This is the name used in top GA & FA city articles." Sorry that directing you to the 'discussion' page, in order to find that, wasn't clear. I don't know what measure you use to find "standard practice" but I have cleaned up the Notable people sections for the cities and towns of four and a half states now and residence only is not what I have found, even in FA cities. One thing I have found is that "Notable natives and residents" is one of the least used titles for these sections. Notable reasons people get associated with towns other than residency: sports, committed a notable crime there, attended school, and notable employment there (often where famous politicians practiced law). Trying to monitor these sections for spam is already hard enough without adding legitimate notable connections to the no-no list. Dkriegls (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to add it. In my several years of concentrating primarily on US geography articles (for almost every community in eleven different states), all of the established editors that I've worked with have removed entries for those who didn't and don't live there. The entries you've found are generally added by drivebys with little awareness of our standards; if you want to say that the appearance of non-residents in these sections is accepted practice simply because they've often appeared there, you must also accept the eighth grade football stars and the other random people that don't and aren't going to have articles, because they're on there even more frequently (even long-term) than the notable people that just aren't residents. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Notable residents means pretty much the same as Notable people. A "resident" is anyone who is regularly present (though I see Wiktionary is missing that meaning). That doesn't mean they have a home there—it could be they regularly vacation, or work there. The context of Notable people or Notable persons within a city article is obviously that they are (or were) somehow a member of the community. There isn't any purpose to distinguish this more finely. Natives doesn't add any insight at all. —EncMstr (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I've frequently encountered situations in which an IP removed a name because "doesn't live there anymore" or something like that. If we include "natives", we make it clear that we're not including just current residents. What's your source for this meaning of resident? I've never heard a usage of the term that included someone who lived elsewhere: you reside in the place you live. Oxford agrees with me — aside from resident physicians, specialised usages such as statuses of certain officials of the East India Company, and non-human usages such as birds that are resident in certain areas, all of its definitions of "resident" include the idea of living there, not just going there often. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I much prefer "Notable people" to "Notable natives and residents," in part because of those IPs who remove people who don't live there any more (for example, because they died after living in the community for 45 years). Any wording is subject to misinterpretation, and the more specific the wording, the more likely it is to be misunderstood. Ideally, these lists should have an introductory sentence or paragraph that explains the scope as including notable natives, notable residents (past and present, living and dead), and any other categories appropriate to the unique local situation (these might include, for example, famous seasonal residents or the guy who owned the place as a company town, but lived just outside the city limits). --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nytend, see Merriam-Webster meaning 1b, serving in a regular or full-time capacity. Granted, it is an older meaning, but still in widespread use. —EncMstr (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This confusion over meaning (is a dead person a resident or native?) is why Notable people makes the most sense. If they meet WP:Notability, and have a connection to the place mentioned in reliable/independent sources, they should be included. There is no Wikipedia guidelines that could justify limiting the list beyond the above criterion. Dkriegls (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've most often seen the appendage "...natives and residents" in foreign countries where lots of tourists come to live. I appreciate that a place will claim someone who never got their start there just because he retired there later. Doesn't happen that often. Simplest is best IMO. I would rather see this section improved with footnotes which tie the person to the place if it isn't mentioned in his bio. And I'd rather not have to search through his bio to find it anyway. Student7 (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer "notable people". The proposed change leaves out those people who are neither natives nor living residents, but who lived a sizable portion of their life there or otherwise have a significant connection to the community. The proposed title "natives and residents" suggests that the minute a notable resident dies, he has to be deleted from the page. I don't think that's what most people would want. Incidentally, the comparable categories and lists do not define the term at all - see the category "People from San Diego, California" or the List of people from Seattle - and that seems to work fine. --MelanieN (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like we have a decent consensus to keep it simple with Notable People.Dkriegls (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Are notable people more than residence?

Currently the guideline for Notable people reads: "any famous or notable individuals that were born in, or have lived for a significant amount of time". The conversation above about the title of this section suggest that many editors feel residencies is too narrow a qualification. I feel that any notable connection meeting WP:Notability should be the qualification.

I submit Michael Jordan's connection to Chicago as the test case for this discussion. Jordan and Chicago are paired in anyone's mind who knows the subject. Yet, he never lived there, nor was he born there. For the extent of his career with the Chicago Bulls, he lived in the Chicago suburb of Highland Park, Illinois. However, a Google search of the two produce WP:Notable media describing his long time work with the Chicago Area Boys and Girls Club; his downtown namesake restaurant; how he is sill a top tourist draw for the city of Chicago; his continued relationship with the city like campaigning for the Chicago Olympics bid; and that his son attended the Chicago based Whitney Young Magnet High School.

I think the discussion directly above showed that many editors feel residency is too narrow, but i wanted to open a separate discussion on the topic, just to clarify. Dkriegls (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've picked a good city. The problem with any major city is that they already have far too many people who were either born there, or lived there, to really keep up. No one editor from a large city can really keep up with legitimate entries with solid credentials. I would think you would not want them to be any more liberal than they are. But I wouldn't even do this with villages who have almost nobody. You have to either have lived there or be born there. The criteria should be narrow, not broad.

Having said that, if you really must, you can create yet another list of people from metropolitan Chicago and point to that list from the Metro article. Huge list though. Mostly full of 20 year old musicians who once cut a record, "professional atheletes" who played for a few minutes in a game someplace, etc. Truly trivia to a place. Something we would be better off without, but like fleas on a dog, we are stuck with them. Student7 (talk) 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I see your point but I wonder if the opposite is true. That having to continually remove names like Michael Jordan is more time consuming than including every WP:Notable name. I think you're right that a metro area list would be too big for any practical use. However, I think your thoughts might work better for smaller, embedded lists. For example, with towns in Maine that take a lot of stock in their "Summer" visitors, we might consider not listing them under the Notable people section, but instead listing them under a unique Summer residence section. Similar to the way we treat notable alumni of Universities. We don't include them in the town's Notable people list, but instead refer the Notable alumni list from the town's page. Dkriegls (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In the context of an article like Chicago, I agree with other editors that the information you would like to include is too specific for such a broad topic. If Chicago had a notable people list (even though I think they're awful and not useful to casual readers), then I would agree that he shouldn't be excluded. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 20:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Epicadam, cities with Notable people lists bigger than 25 are broken off to form their own articles. See: List of people from Chicago. Dkriegls (talk) 01:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

References for Notable people

I joined the Wiki editing just over a month ago and joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities around 3 weeks ago. Since then I have been cleaning up the cities in my state of Iowa per Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. An editor has recently dropped an {{unsourced section}} in Waterloo, Iowa a smaller city(pop 68,000). In a discussion with him I contend having their own article (blue linked) is notable enough, references should be in that article, he contends There needs to be a link for every entry in the list to prove that they are or were residents of Waterloo. Wikipedia doesn't require readers to skip around from page to page to find sources. I looked at the Featured Articles listed above in this page at section Notable people vs Notable natives and residents - and seen that most had references but not all. In the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline section Notable people the subject is not addressed. I think a consensus to this subject needs to be reached and an addition made in the guidelines to cover this subject.

Points to consider

• The immense number of edits required if every entry in Notable people needs a reference.
• Size of towns, I came across one town population 11 people Beaconsfield, Iowa that had one Notable people.
• Article Classification, IMO all FA articles yes, GA maybe, and below debatable especially stub and start articles.
  

RifeIdeas Talk 18:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policies are WP:V and WP:RS which directly derive from the Five Pillars. However, common practice is to list and link them with the idea that no one would challenge a well known fact. Unless, of course, it isn't well known. The number of edits to correct this is not a consideration (except for the people who do the work). We had a discussion similar to this at WikiProject Oregon about two years ago here, including later discussion about placement of the citation. —EncMstr (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

EncMstr has said it all. Citations tying a person to a place has to be there else anyone can put Michael Jordan or whoever they want into "notables" which (sorry) is almost meaningless as it is. Close to trivia. If the list gets totally out of hand (all sorts of names, nothing to say person belongs there), we probably need to think about deleting the section entirely from the encyclopedia for every place. Your call. Cite those you can't find and delete them after a few months. If they really belong there, someone will come up with a ref. It doesn't have to be you personally. Unless you are going for FA/GA. Then just delete all that are unreferenced. Student7 (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

RifeIdeas, when I started cleaning up notable people sections last year, my thinking followed yours. However, after some good conversations with Student7 I started to realize the value of citing an individual's connection to the town or city. As you point out, meeting WP:Notability in order to have an article is sufficient to show they are notable, however, it is not sufficient to show they have a notable connection to the town/city. I'm in favor of more inclusive lists, but many blue linked names are added to these lists that really don't belong there. True, this is more of an ideal than a standard practice, but ideals are what we aim for here. I throw the following tag on every listee where their connection to the town/city is not immediately found on their biography page: {{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}. It can be argued that this tag should go on every name without a citation, but I ain't gonna do it :) Dkriegls (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Student7, I did not say "cite it or delete it." If NYC's article listed Elton John or Sting, a citation would be useful, but not necessary. It is widely known that they maintain residences there, so this is covered by text from the no original research policy:

... Verifiability says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist.

Per the Biographies of Living People policy, only contentious material must immediately be removed. In most—if not all—cases, the fact that some person lives in some town is far from contentious. And the non-rigorous standard of relying on the biographical article to support the association is in agreement with the spirit of Original Research. —EncMstr (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I read the information you cited above that had been discussed at Project Oregon (kudos for your active program) and although I have a better understanding, I also have some confusion. I seen a reference to a Notable Residents rule/guideline/policy but could not find it listed. Is it a reference to your imbedded Note in the wiki code cited way above this page in the Notable people section? I seen talk about a Oregon MOS but did not find it either. I seen vastly different examples Bend, Oregon with 34 notable's with 2 cites, Medford, Oregon with 37 notable's with 0 cites and Lake Oswego, Oregon with 23 notables listed with 22 cites. (By the way Notable people is the official by consensus title for this section and all three Oregon examples have some other wording for the header.)

I learned a lot from all of your previous discussions. I agree that to strive for perfection all entries should have a reference in both their article and in the Notable people section and all entries I do from now on will have a cite. I started this discussion to see about getting a consensus and then placing some rule into the Guidelines with maybe a stipulation about the level of the article quality vs the degree of cite needed before an entire section has a {{unsourced section}} added or completely deleted by a zealot. As a reminder I am still a newbie. RifeIdeas Talk 03:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The embedded comment is what is being discussed. It was the result of an earlier, brief discussion of notable persons inclusion. I repeat the embedded notice here for completeness:

<!-- Note:
· Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here.  This establishes notability.
· The biographical article must mention how they are associated with <city name>, whether born, raised, or residing.
· The fact of their association should have a reliable source cited.
· Alphabetical by last name please
· All others will be deleted without further explanation
-->

The talk about an Oregon MOS was a suggestion never acted upon. As I recall, consensus was that it wasn't needed since there are plenty of MOS already.

The label Notable people was very recently agreed upon (like two weeks ago), so it hasn't had much chance to propagate. I'll be fixing them as I encounter them, and copying the citations from the biographical articles. —EncMstr (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my questions. I made reference to the Oregon cities only as an alert to you. Now back to my original question about the need for a more complete explanation in the Guidelines. RifeIdeas Talk 05:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Guideline Sentence: All listings should have citations explaining the subject's relationship with the place, however, 'citation needed' tags are preferable to removal of non-contentious listings. Dkriegls (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as Stung and Elkton John goes, this is great if you are American and between the ages of x and y. For non-Americans, and readers under x, or over y, you do not know where they live. Therefore they still need to be tied to that area. Inserting a notable should not be a trigger for watching editors to perform a lot of "research" on their own. The research should already be done and present, just like for any other text. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. That makes sense as far as workload goes, however I think it might violate Wikipedia:Good faith.Dkriegls (talk) 06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed tags

What is the consensus for placing this ^{relationship to THIS CITY}
behind all entries that do not have a valid reference connection to the city, instead of just inserting a . . .

Which I think is unattractive and ambiguous and can result in a reference to why they were notable
and/or other references unconnected to the connection to the city.--RifeIdeas Talk 19:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This outcome not a real benefit.[5]   Will Beback   talk  04:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the use of the section wide tag over individual tags. The "unattractive" aspect should motivate editors who are interested in the subject to do something about it. For all others, it is a great 'heads up'. Dkriegls (talk) 06:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify the example that is linked above by Will Beback is an old revision dated December 5, 2010. To see the progress check it out and then checkout the current Bettendorf, Iowa#Notable people. To add another obvious fact about the above {{unsourced section}} is that when one resource is added the tag is no longer valid and needs to be changed to {{Refimprove section}} whereas the ^{relationship to THIS CITY} is deleted with each individual reference established. --RifeIdeas Talk 14:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

How I feel. Put a section wide tag if the section has a large number of problems and an obvious big mess. Put an individual tag on a small number of problems. The big problem with the section wide tag is that some people are NOT sure if every aspect of the big tag has been fixed thus are scared to remove them. For an individual tag it is obvious that after you fix that problem then you remove that one tag, simple cleanup. I've read many articles where section wide tags should have been removed long time ago. While reading city articles that I've noticed any missing references, I put an individual tag at each point where I guess that needs a reference, so it is obvious to other people what needs to be fixed. Sbmeirow (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Good point. Section wide works best when there is absolutely nothing redeemable about the section. Best to tag paragraphs or sentences, if possible. But the section tag is sometimes needed just to get attention. There are some articles where editors have gotten in the bad habit of leaving "remarks" which seem really fairly accurate, but unreferenced. Something has to happen to jolt them out of that rut. Section tags. Individual tags. Then reversion of unreferenced additions. Otherwise we have a big mess. I think our gripe is the "visiting" editor who leaves a section tag and never returns! I just rm old tags that seem sorta answered and ask for particulars in the edit summary if tag is reinserted. So far nobody's objected. Student7 (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. cities

Please consider participating in the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. cities discussion. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What about notable duos/trios/small bands, shouldn't these be under the notable residents section if they apply?

Here's the situation: many small bands are composed of 3 or 4 people from the same town. If the band reaches the level of notability, we typically do not start an article for each person, unless either (a) the band goes far beyond notability and is very well recognized, or (b) band members have separate projects for which they are noted.

In the case that (a) and (b) do not apply, but the band is still notable, it sounds like it would still make sense to put the individuals under the "notable persons" section for a small town, with a listing like this:

• Band members Isaac Hanson, Taylor Hanson, and Zac Hanson, of the pop band Hanson, all reside in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

...even if there are not separate articles for each person.

Note that this does not apply to really large bands or ones with shifting members, i.e.

• Band members John A., Lisa B., Jimmy C., Taylor D., Terry E., Carlos F., Amy G.,... of the Penn State Marching Band, all reside in State College, Pennsylvania.

(Yes, I know that separate rules for colleges are in place as well, just an example.)

So anyway, is this something that needs to be up for a vote? I have an editor trying to delete my notable person entry for the members of a band that easily meets notability criteria, merely because the article is for the band, not the individuals. It seems to me that one of the biggest parts of the narrative for a small town is local kids make it big. In this case, it's certainly true, but I'd like to get all your thoughts on it here. This person is a stickler for the rules, but this is certainly a gray area. If we agree that it make sense to put small bands in the notable persons section, I'm certain that this editor would bow to the wishes of the group and stop deleting my altogether appropriate entry. 71.74.87.123 (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Or should it be three separate entries for Zac, Isaac and Taylor? The individuals (not the Hansons IRL, but a smaller band) are notable but only as members of the band. Sometimes a person's article is just a redirect to the band. Three separate entries, one band entry, or none at all? I bow to the wishes of the majority, once a decision is made. 71.74.87.123 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

First, be careful how you state things. You make it sound like the "other editor" is just misguided or some kind of zealot. That "other editor" has mountains of experience editing similar articles and is very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding notability and such notable people lists. Consensus is a big part of Wikipedia, but local consensus does not override previously established consensus (or policy) over a broader topic (i.e. the inclusion of non-notable band members from a notable band). This topic would probably be better suited for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Also, the point of city articles is to help readers have a general, yet thorough, understanding of a particular city/town/village. "Local kids making it big" is a very small part of a city's narrative, even for a small town. That town's history, government, geography, etc. are a much bigger part of that narrative. Finally, "making it big" is a matter of point of view. New Hollow has had some great accomplishments and is certainly poised for success; however, their notability is relatively low, recent, and thus has potential to be temporary.

I used this on my talk page as an example and I'll use it here: the band Six Parts Seven is listed at List of people from Kent, Ohio as the band, not as the individual. The band is what has notability (very little in this case), so mentioning that the band formed in and/or is based in a particular town seems appropriate for a notable people list. The individual names, however, usually don't have much notability, if any. Listing their names, especially if they all redirect to the band article, doesn't help the reader learn anything about that person. Notability must also be established individually, which of course could potentially happen later on. Notable people lists are more to connect relevant Wikipedia articles, not to serve as points of boosterism. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Points taken. Agree with you that the band (but not the members) falls in the notable persons list, but may end up later on being nonnotable, at which point they would fall off.

True the other editor has experience, but the mountains of experience does not outweigh requests to bring concerns to Discussion pages, which I have not been successful doing, over multiple issues. I am more than happy to discuss edits and more than willing to follow guidelines, but there has to be reasonable dialogue in the process. Only late in the game am I receiving civility, despite requests to move to the Discussion page. Constructive edits are always welcome, but blanket destruction without discussion certainly warrants a response. I always respond to civil and reasonable concerns with civility and reasonableness, that's all that I ask for in these discussions, not just deletions of constructive additions.155.188.247.16 (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

True, experience doesn't always mean right, but more times than not it does. One thing to remember is that every edit does not require a discussion. Many editors will try to explain their edits, particularly a large removal, (I always try to where I can) but are not require nor should they be expected to do so outside of the edit summary. If you have something removed, rather that revert it back, start a discussion. Most times an experienced editor isn't going to remove something just for the sake of removing it; they will have a guideline or policy in mind. Nothing wrong with asking, but make sure it's a legitimate question (like "please explain so I can understand better") instead of just being upset. If nothing happens at the article talk page, try taking it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities to see if you can get a response there. Chances are good it will get a response. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree that bands get recognized as "people" under "notables". Individuals are either notable or they are not individually notable IMO. And what about different towns? Would Peter, Paul and Mary be notable as a group under individual notables (assuming they didn't have different bios)? This doesn't make sense. The band article is not written as a bio anyway and may leave out significant background that would be expected in a bio.

Alas, these bands are usually grouped under "cultural" or somesuch. So they have their place in article, unfortunately. I think all this stuff should be moved to WikiEntertainment so the rest of us can edit an encyclopedia. The others can have their entertainment thing and we both can live happily ever after without trying to marry the two! Student7 (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've dealt with many city-specific articles and lists that included bands on the "notable people" lists. The fact that a notable band was formed locally is often a source of local pride -- same as if a movie star or famous solo musician hails from the city, so it's reasonable to expect that these bands will be identified in the city article -- same as that movie star or solo musician. In some cases they will be discussed in a "culture" or 'arts" section of the article, but that's only if there is/was a strong ongoing association between the band and the community. In many cases, though, the relationship of the band to the city is not that strong. For example, Paramore was formed by several kids from the small city of Franklin, Tennessee, but it's no longer closely associated with Franklin; the association deserves to be mentioned in the Franklin article, but not in a section on local arts and culture. In another example, Memphis has been the home of many famous bands and individual musicians, so only a few of the most prominent are going to "fit" in the arts section of the main city article. and not all are going to belong to a specific local music genre like Memphis soul. Less prominent bands like Nights Like These and The Gentrys still seem worthing mentioning in spin-off articles like List of people from Memphis, Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Orlady summed up what I think as well. Even though a band in itself is not a "person" it is made up of people who may or may not be notable on their own. If members of the band achieve notability on their own, they should be listed individually; there is no need for a mention of the band itself other than that the person is/was a member of the band. This is only is cases where a band has notability but individual members do not. I also don't usually like them listed in the Arts & Culture section unless there is a strong connection with the cultural elements or the band is a regular part of that scene. As city articles develop and the Notable people sections become prose instead of lists, a lot of this gets taken care of. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

So we should rename the subsection to read "Notable people or groups or what have you?" Don't have to have people anymore? Can be the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (not all from the same place unfortunately); Boy's Vienna Choir (same problem, but what the heck?); Inmates of Attica? individually not notable but collectively? Wow! The Third Army? A powerhouse in WWII. What is the cutoff here? Or is there one? Just music? Why would it be limited to music BTW? And does that reflect a music bias on the part of Wikipedia? And how about Jeopardy, never mind that they are not Ken Jennings? And why the bias against linking Jeopardy contestants if mentioned in that article? And how about "Beach Volleyball, Season 3, Episode Two?" And why not?

And before you accuse me of "trying to be funny" remember that is how your suggestion struck me! :) Student7 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

And oh, if one person from the Third Army was not recruited from NYC, do we then throw it out a a notable group from NYC? How many exceptions do we allow?

And how do you propose to word all this? It is a change. Student7 (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this:

People who are best known by a collective name, such as the name of a musical group, may be listed under the group name. If the entire group is associated with the place, list the entire group. Examples:

• Eddie Foy and The Seven Little Foys, a family of vaudeville performers, lived in New Rochelle.
• The rock band Paramore, formed in 2004 in Franklin, includes local residents Josh Farro, Zac Farro, Taylor York, Jeremy Davis, and Hayley Williams.
• Isaac Hanson, Taylor Hanson, and Zac Hanson of the pop band Hanson all reside in Tulsa.
• The Gentrys, a band that achieved commercial success in the 1960s and 1970s, was formed in Memphis in 1963 and consisted of seven graduates of Treadwell High School.

Probably too long, but... --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I like Orlady's example, though I would list all the notable people separately and then put "professional musician with the band Hanson", much like I would put "professional football player in the National Football League" for a pro football player. We also need to use common sense here. The times this comes into play are usually with small bands in small towns where all the members are from the town or founded the band in a town, not large, well-known groups like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. In those instances, the group can legitimately be seen as part of the culture of a city, not simply as a notable native. The point of notable people lists/sections is to connect the city article with relevant articles of notable people, so since the people are listed on the band article, having a link to the band article would be appropriate in these cases where there is no individual notability yet. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Re to JonRidinger: Although the individuals have separate articles, I don't see any benefit to users from listing Josh Farro, Zac Farro, Taylor York, Jeremy Davis, and Hayley Williams separately in a bulletized list in Franklin, Tennessee, since they are all notable mostly as members of Paramore. Ditto for the members of Hanson and the article on Tulsa, Oklahoma. --Orlady (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

So pretty much limited to bands. And maybe five or so people since modern bands don't get that large anymore? I assume the same small cutoff applies to the bands of yesteryear which did get fairly large? Student7 (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I see that limitation. Two of my examples involved groups larger than 5, and the Seven Little Foys weren't even a band. You appear to be thinking of an example of a larger group -- could you tell us what group you are thinking of? --Orlady (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching this discussion about group notability and thinking of other examples besides musical bands.
For example one from Ames, Iowa as follows:

• The Girls from Ames, a group of women from Ames who are the subject of Jeffrey Zaslow's 2009 nonfiction bestseller.
  

So what about a subsection to the Notable people section called Notable groups?
--RifeIdeas Talk 02:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an excellent example of a group that's not a band, and one that clearly belongs in a city article! Thanks for bringing the example here. IMO, there's not much need to separate "people" and "groups." For one thing, few cities that list their notable people in a "Notable people" section will have more than one or two groups to list. Groups do tend to have names that don't resemble normal human names, but I've noticed that many city articles list individual people who also have unusual names, such as Viper and Brimstone. Thus, there isn't really a big need to separate the groups from the individuals. --Orlady (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the nice side effects of the section name Notable people is that "people" can be either singular or plural, so a group fits alongside individuals in the list. There is no need to subdivide the section for that particular reason. —EncMstr (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Precision

I've removed the following text from the Demographics section:

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.

This is based on an erroneous reading of the statistics and of Wikipedia policy. Let's look at the New York City data from 2000 for an example:

• Total population — 8,008,278
• White — 3,576,385 — 44.7%
• Black or African American — 2,129,762 — 26.6%
• American Indian and Alaska Native — 41,289 — 0.5%
• Asian — 787,047 — 9.8%
• Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander — 5,430 — 0.1%
• Some other race — 1,074,406 — 13.4%
• Two or more races — 393,959 — 4.9%
• Hispanic or Latino (of any race) — 2,160,554 — 27.0%

Yes, the Census Bureau only reports to tenths of a percent, not hundredths, but it's quite appropriate to give hundredths here. The relevant section of our policy on original research says that routine calculations don't need a source, as long as the calculations are properly done and based on numbers derived from reliable sources. For this reason, it's entirely appropriate to say that Asians composed 9.83% of the population, because 787,047 divided by 8,008,278 is approximately 0.0983. The only strict limitation on such calculations is the significant figures, and obviously the three significant figures of 9.83% aren't a problem when we're dividing by numbers with six and seven significant figures. Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That part of the Demographics section was added after discussion above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US_Guideline#Overprecision. There was concern about over-precision in some articles (I am particularly aware of this in regard to neighborhoods of Denver), due to third-party sources who republish Census data and carry percentages out too far. For many of the cities that are smaller than the New York City example (and most U.S. cities are smaller than NYC ;-)), hundredths of a percent values are overly precise -- and, anyway, does any reader need to know that the value is 9.83%? (Isn't 9.8% good enough, particularly if the raw number is also reported?
A particular concern I have is that many US Census statistics are based on sample data (i.e., the old Census long form and the newer American Community Survey), so carrying the percentages out particularly far may truly be false precision. That is not a concern for ethnicity data, which are based on a 100% count, but it is an issue for topics such as income that are based on sample data.
An element of the removed section that was erroneous was the emphasis on the number of digits after the decimal point, as the key issue should be significant figures. In a city of 10,000 people, of whom 9012 are white, 819 are black or African American, 100 are Asian, 18 are American Indian, 4 are Native Hawaiian, and 47 are "Two or more races", I think it is unnecessarily precise to list the white and black values as 90.12% and 8.19% (or even to report the American Indian and "two or more" values as 0.18% and 0.47%), but I think it is inappropriate to round the Native Hawaiian value to 0.0%, as the Census Bureau would do. Small non-zero values should be reported to at least the first significant (i.e., non-zero) digit. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

[Forgot to conclude my comment.] I agree with the removal of the assertion that statistics should not be carried out past the 10ths of a percent. However, in view of the many instances of reporting spurious precision in Wikipedia articles, I think it was worthwhile to point out that the Census limits its data outputs to the first 10th of a percent. Perhaps the guideline could caution against going beyond the Census' precision without careful consideration of the issues in the cited guidelines, the Wikipedia article Significant figures, and the potential issues inherent in the Census' use of sample data for many of its statistics. --Orlady (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The flip side of this, is continued changing of statistics. I get real suspicious when an unregistered user, or maybe even one I don't recognize, changes some census statistic, invariably without an edit summary. I would really prefer inserting figures that agree with the census, and locking them, if that were possible!  :) Otherwise, we get "tinkerers" and people just seeing whether they can change something or children committing petty vandalism. Hard to tell the difference when someone "adds precision" to a figure. Student7 (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear! It would be nice if data could be locked, as you suggest. --Orlady (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal income

This is collected by the census bureau and for a long time, dumped by a bot indiscriminately into "Demographics" with which there is scant correlation. I moved it in many articles into "Economy" and met with great approval by other editors, since, of course, personal income is a main driver of the economy. Of course, there was no subsection "Economy" back when.

For the first time, this was challenged in the review of a city article. I'm pretty sure it was in the recommended outline originally, but what there is today, is just vague suggestions. I'd like to see it restored. Student7 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Overlinking

The example infobox on the project page links the heading 'Country' to 'List of countries'. What's the point of this? 'Country' is a common, widely understood word (per WP:OVERLINK) - it doesn't need a link. Any objections if I remove the link? Colonies Chris (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No opposition, so now done. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Name listings of local officials? - Guideline proposal

The WP:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Government section gives guidelines about descriptions of the local governments for cities. It has no provision calling for listing of individual names. But many articles go overboard with tables, etc., listing the names of city clerks, librarians, airport directors, etc. The problems with this practice are fairly clear: 1. These listings are subject to continual change across the spectrum of cities everywhere and give little helpful information to the reader. (If a reader wants or needs the name of particular city officials, s/he can go to the official city website.) And, 2. they violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Indeed, the WikiProject Cities: Notable people guideline says "Simple lists of names add little of value and may be subject to abuse." (I venture to say these lists only serve to feed the vanities of those people named.) I propose that this section guideline be amended to say Listing the names of non-notable individual government officials in this section is not permitted. As an alternative, notable individual government officials may be described or listed in Notable people section. --S. Rich (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Places outside city limits

Does WP Cities have a policy about whether and when to include places that are not in city limits in a city article? Not-in-city places are common in city articles (Boeing and Microsoft for Seattle, Port of Long Beach for Los Angeles, Palace of Versailles for Paris), so I'm wondering if there is an official policy on this. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends on the consensus of the editors. If there is a subject so closely associated with a particular place (even if outside city limits) then it's worth a mention. Typically there shouldn't be any problem, but sjust be sure to not give a subject undue weight. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 06:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We have an ongoing dispute at Las Vegas, Nevada where a cabal is insisting that the Las Vegas Strip should not be discussed in the article since it is not in city limits. I'm sure that the Strip is the classic example of such a place that deserves a mention. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

In some cases, an entity will be the largest employer for a town but not actually be located within the town line. Fort Drum 13603 holds this status for Watertown, New York 13601, despite its own huge allocation of land being well outside city and town limits. I presume it's valid to state that Fort Drum is n miles from downtown H₂Otown and has x in economic impact on the city - even if the base itself isn't within the town line, many of its deployed soldiers do have Watertown homes within the town line awaiting their return from Baghdad or Kabul and that does affect the town's economy. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

flagcons in settlement infoboxes

At present there is a discussion ongoing about putting flagcons in settlement info boxes. See: Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#flagcons_in_settlement_infoboxes --S. Rich (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Only YOU can stop Rambot spam

This is a US-specific problem: there are many articles in which the "Demographics" section was generated by a 'bot, user:rambot sometime around 2004 as a placeholder stub before a valid article existed on an individual place. This text is problematic both because many of the numbers listed are pointless trivia (do we really care that some not particularly Hawaiian village on the Québec border has "0.2% of Pacific Islander extraction between 18 and 45 years of age" or similar tripe?) and because the information is simply outdated (it's from the 2000 census, not 2010). Perhaps this guideline should encourage the removal of any of this statistrivia beyond what little of the information actually adds anything useful to the articles. It's spacefiller and was annoying enough in 2004; by 2012 many of the affected pages are valid articles (and not stubs) but the outdated statistical trivia is merely dead weight. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Peer-review for "List of people from.."

I'm trying to create some consensus on what a "List of people from..." page should look like. The List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois has had the most editor input and is the only such list of a US city which is fully cited. It was previously nominated for featured list, but the conclusion was to bring it to Wikipedia:Peer review instead.

The current peer review can be found here, and all are encouraged to say their piece, as a successful featured list is likely to be used as a standard reference for such lists. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Residential segregation"

Hi folks. Haven't worked much at this level before, but we had an issue in Pittsburgh that warrants some attention. This section on residential segregation describes an important feature of the city; however it's a complicated feature, not easy to measure, and not exclusive to Pittsburgh. The point was raised: if we're going to talk about this in Pittsburgh, shouldn't it also be described on the pages for New York City and Detroit? I think yes, but I'd like to solicit opinions from people who are involved in the project from up here. Thanks! groupuscule (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The subsection was removed for WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:CRUFT, and a host of other issues making it insuitable for inclusion in a city article. WTF? (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Racial segregation in Pittsburgh (and the US generally) is not my "POV" or a fabrication from my "OR". It is emphatically not fictional or relevant only to certain fans--it is a core part of everyday reality for many many people. I find your terse response (and accompanying immediate deletion) to be extremely rude. I am interested to hear the thoughts of other members of the WikiProject. Thanks, groupuscule (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged this as NPOV. The text should really be removed immediately, but you're just going to edit war this, so that's just wasting time. This is not a problem and you know it. Wikipedia is not your personal soapbox. WTF? (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

IMO, the situation is undoubtedly real, the topic is important, and the content was sourced, but it does not belong in the article until it is presented with more sourced context than was provided in the deleted text. Rather than saying the city is segregated, provide a discussion, based on reliable independent secondary sources, of residential patterns in the city, how they developed over time, and what the data show right now regarding distribution of racial groups within the city. The heading "residential segregation" is probably something to avoid, regardless of how the subject is presented. --Orlady (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The section appears to be WP:Soapbox and not really a neutral point of view and not very well written. Heading would give undue WP:Undue weight to selective interpretations and use of terms.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

USPLACE RFC notice

Which U.S. cities require disambiguation by state? Example: Atlantic City or Atlantic City, New Jersey?

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)#RfC: US city_names. older ≠ wiser 01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Lists of city administrators

Does a list of city administrators (e.g., clerk, treasurer, department heads, city council members) belong in a city article? -- Mesconsing (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor has decided what a "Government" section should include, and has added a new section to the guideline page. I don't see any discussion here to support the addition. --Orlady (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

They didn't add it; it was already there. They just moved it higher in the article. However, I don't think the new higher position in the article is in line with current usage. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see the change was being reverted while I posted! I don't see any justification for the move so I agree with the revert. --MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wording on bot updates to census area figures

Hi folks, this issue is nit-picky, but will potentially affect every town and city (etc.) page for the U.S., as it has to do with the wording of the area figures obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau in the Geography sections of articles. In 2007, Detroiterbot made some edits to the wording, one result of which was that the area sections read "...has a total area of x sq mi, of which, x sq mi of it is land and x sq mi of it is water..." The "of it"s in bold are redundant, since the sentence already says "of which". Various editors (including me) have corrected the syntax in articles when we run across them. This fall I have been very happy to discover that a JBradley_Bot is producing updates to the census area and demographic figures. However, the bot was restoring the redundant "of it"s. User:Jamo2008 is willing to change the bot moving forward so that the grammar is correct, but before he decides to go back and change several thousand bot edits from this fall, we both wonder if doing so will overturn some decision of this group. Has this wording issue ever been discussed? --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Please fix it! Preferably with decent English. Also, this would be a good chance to get conversions in place: "... has a total area of {{convert|X|sqmi|0}} of which {{convert}} is land and {{convert}} is water."

I don't think it would be going to far to included land and water as percentages too: "... has a total area of {{convert}} of which {{convert|Y|sqmi|0}} (W%) is land and {{convert}} (V%) is water." —EncMstr (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and got rid of the "of it" bit for places with both water and land. Also using converts was mentioned above and I've already been doing that so no need to worry about that one the current sentence would look like this for places with both land and water

According to the [[United States Census Bureau]], the city has a total area of {{convert|29.19|sqmi|sqkm|2}}, of which, {{convert|28.63|sqmi|sqkm|2}} is land and {{convert|0.56|sqmi|sqkm|2}} is water.

and like this for places with just land

According to the [[United States Census Bureau]], the town has a total area of {{convert|0.69|sqmi|sqkm|2}}, all of it land.

It wasn't specifically mentioned for places with just land, but I feel like the "of it" could be removed from that one as well. As I mentioned to User:Ken Gallager I'm willing to replace the versions that use "of it" on the pages that have already been updated. I was thinking the easiest thing would be to wait for the 2012 population estimates to be released and I'd go ahead and put in a bot request to get authorization to update all the pages I've already updated with census data to have 2012 population estimates in their side panel. Then while doing that I could check for the out of date sentences and replace them, this way the edits would have some new info being added and not entirely just grammar updates.Jamo2008 (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

2010 Census Info Discussion

In May the census will be releasing population estimates for 2012 for cities, towns etc. and I will be running my bot over all the pages that it has updated, to update the population estimate in the infobox. As of right now the total number of pages stands at around 9,000, I've been incredibly busy at college recently so I haven't did any editing over the last month, but I should find some time to run the bot more often over the next couple months so that figure should rise a bit. Now during this rerun is the perfect time for me to make changes to things that I have done that people think could be improved. It has already been suggested to me that I change the publisher field in my references from |publisher={{URL|1=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census_Bureau|2=United States Census Bureau}} to |publisher=[[United States Census Bureau]]. I would like for the community to weigh in on if their are any other things they would like to see changed. If you would like to see what the standard updates look like, look through the history of Special:Contributions/JBradley_Bot, or you can look here at the city I grew up in, as of writing this all of the things I update are unchanged from when I updated them, Popejoy, Iowa. To give you an idea about what to look at my bot updates the sentence in the intro about population if it isn't updated yet, the area info in the infobox, the population info in the infobox, the area sentence in the Geography section, and it creates a new section in the Demographics with three paragraphs worth of 2010 census info.Jamo2008 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: Historically, we have kept the decennial census data in the infobox and article for the entire 10 years until the next census (however, many articles don't yet have 2010 census data). Interim estimates may supplement the 2010 census data, but they should not replace it. --Orlady (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not remove the 2010 info in the infobox, I already put 2011 estimates in there and I use the |population_est and |pop_est_as_of fields to do the estimate information. Jamo2008 (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I have only made a cursory examination of your standard boilerplate, but I have one wording change to make: "There were 1000 households out of which..." should be "There were 1000 households of which..." The word "out" is unnecessary. --Orlady (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as no one else objects I can make this change, the boilerplate I use is based on what Rambot used for the 2000 stuff so I'm by no means partial to any of it. Jamo2008 (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Biased placement of "Notable persons"

I enjoy reading Wikipedia articles about cities and towns around the world. Because these articles are often written by a person familiar with that city or town, they sometimes read like tourist brochures, and their bias is obvious. My concern though, and the one I'd appreciate input on from others, regards bias in the placement of "NOTABLE PERSONS" within articles about cities and towns.

For some larger cities, it would be awkward to list all their notable people on the main page of their Wiki article, as the list would number in the hundreds. To avoid this, many city/town editors have created a link to a sub-page where all of that city’s notable people are listed. Unfortunately, some Wiki editors have created two lists of "Notable people" for the same city/town. The first list is placed on the city/town’s main Wiki page, while the second list is placed on a linked sub-page. My concern is that when two lists of notable people are created for one city or town, all of the city’s lesser-known people seem to end up on the sub-page (and not on the main page). This is an obvious bias, as it requires the page author's own assessment about which notable persons from that city or town are more or less important (and should therefore be placed on the main-page or sub-page list).

For example, the City of Hamilton, Ontario keeps two lists of Notable persons. The first list is placed on the article’s main page, and contains the names of nine notable people from that city. There is also a link to a page entitled "List of people from Hamilton, Ontario", where several more notable people are listed. Readers of the article about Hamilton, Ontario may be left with the impression that people on the first list are "more important" than those on the second list.

I recently posted the following on the Talk Page for that city: "There seems to be an A LIST and B LIST of Notable People from Hamilton. What credentials are needed to make the A LIST? For example, drummer Neil Peart of the rock band RUSH made the A LIST, while Paul Szep only made the B LIST (he won a Pulitzer Prize...twice)."

I received the following response: "It's really about how well- or widely-known the individual is. Everybody knows Neil Peart, for example. There are other Hamiltonians who may be notable enough for a Wikipedia article but naming them without any other context might not ignite recognition in the reader."

I would therefore suggest that guidelines be created regarding the use of "Notable people" within articles about cities and towns. Specifically, that all "Notable people" remain together in one place. When this is not reasonably possible due to the length of the list, the entire list should move to a sub-page.

When authors created two lists of notable people from the same city or town, they decrease the objectivity of that section because a judgement of 'popularity' must be applied. As observed in the article about Hamilton, Ontario: a local rock singer was judged 'more popular' than a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. Please note that I am only using Hamilton, Ontario as an example. This same editing practice is done on hundreds of other Wiki pages about cities and towns. I would appreciate the ideas and opinions of others. Thank you. -Richard Apple 14:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Richard Apple. I hope you don't mind that I condensed your post. However, I do agree with you on the notable people list. First, I think that a simple list should always be avoided if possible, and that the inclusion of notable people lists really border on WP:TRIVIA. If an individual is truly notable, then s/he should be mentioned in other sections and put into the larger context of the article (i.e. how does this notable person relate to the city other than the fact that s/he was born or lived there.) If all you have is a list of people, then it should be relegated to a list page or, even better, just a simple category. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 23:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It really is a matter of opinion and consensus as to who is kept for the summary section and who isn't and how long it should be. That can also change as time goes on based on new additions and events that could increase a person's notability. Obviously people who have specific interests in different areas are going to know more about some people than others, so it may seem the person they know the best has been relegated to the "B list". Again, it's about notability, not necessarily accomplishments. Someone can be very accomplished but not very notable and vice versa. That's also the nature of a summary. Not every detail can be included, which is why the "Main article" hatnote is there. I do think many (of not most) city articles need to do a better job explaining a person's connection to that city (born there, grew up there, lived there...etc.). --JonRidinger (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Lists of schools

Your attention is called to Boyle_Heights,_Los_Angeles#Education, which I have marked as a possible directory. You will note that this is simply a list of schools, with no indication of their importance or significance. Do you think this is a proper use of the template, and do you think it should be adopted on a widespread basis? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Request discussion about Climate section

I think the "Climate" section should be a level-2 section, instead of a level-3 section under "Geography", because climate isn't a geography. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Physical geography "is one of the two major sub-fields of geography" and "can be divided into several sub-fields"; two of which are Climatology and Meteorology, both of which are sciences of climate. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 10:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I didn't know that climate was rolled into it, because I thought it was just the surface features. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Me either. I was all ready to cite you some wiki legalese about subsections being more about ease of navigation than about being strict children of the section head. Then I looked up the relationship and found out that some smart Wikipedians before us had organized it correctly. Cheers. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding format of sections

Hi. I'm editing the article on Phoenix, Arizona, and in doing research on the structure of articles, I noticed quite a bit of differentiation between the pages of other major US cities. Can we have a discussion on following the sequence of sections as outlined in the wikiproject page? I understand that if there is little or no information on a section's subject that that particular section might be omitted, but shouldn't we attempt to standardize the structure the sequence of the material contained in articles on cities? For example, the Demographics section in the articles for the 6 most populous cities can be anywhere from the 3rd section to the 8th.

Another issue is that in some articles have certain of the sections as a level III section, when the guidelines have that it should be a level II (e.g. Sports in the New York City and Philadelphia, and others, are all listed as a level III section in the Culture level II section). I don't have an issue with Sports being a level III under culture, but then shouldn't we change that on the guidelines? It does not seem to diminish those city's articles, and might make more sense. Just a thought. Onel5969 (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The editors at this project generally support the idea of uniform navigation for city pages and the order of sections as they are outlined here have more or less been agreed upon. But our project is not a Wikipedia "rule" and was started long after many of the big city pages had already settled on the order of their sections. Some editors of those pages have strong opinions about how their pages should look, but that doesn't mean things can't change. For example, I took just one section ("Notable people") and tried to create uniformity there. Changing big cities actually wasn't the problem. I found more resistance at some random provincial cities. But I've more or less started a trend that has brought more uniformity to the structure of that section and where it should be placed on the page. If you feel like this is a Wikipedia task you want take on, I recommend Being Bold and just going to those pages and changing the order of the sections, and cite this project as your guide. If you get resistance, engage the editors in conversation and try to learn what their objections are and see if you can alleviate them. Any editor that want's to bring uniform navigation to city pages would be a welcome addition. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dkriegls: Thanks for the input. If you look at what I put down the other day when I signed up for this project, that's what I intended to do. Just wanted to check before I start throwing the boulders around. If you don't mind my asking, what did you think about putting Sports as a subsection of culture? Onel5969 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

On a huge page like NYC, it might make sense and there is clearly a logical nesting argument to be made. Clearly the editors of that page made a heroic effort to keep the sports section relatively short for such a large sports culture. Not an easy task when confronted with passionate fans wanting to include everything. Keeping it as a sub-section might be one of the tools they use to keep the section short, i.e., give it less prominence. In fact, I think the 5 largest cities in the US list sports that way. Now contrast that to Milwaukee, where the sports section is not a sub-section, and most of the space is consumed by a big table. The need for space in the navigation has been outweight by the desire to give sports a more prominent position on the page. There is no "right" way and I would suggest that might not be the best Category to try to create uniformity with. In general I think it's hard to say the Sports should have a higher heading than say Arts, but in American culture, I think it's a safe bet. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Nicknames

Anybody object to my adding Nicknames to the list of stuff which should go under the "Arts & Culture" section. In my revamping of many of the pages, while it is not a frequent addition, it does appear on several pages, and has usually been its own section or in "Arts & Culture". My opinion is that it should be in A&C... thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 13:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm...I often see Nicknames in the Lead and History Sections (and also infoboxes). Many cities also have a pronunciation or explanation of the etiology of the place name that fits in well with the history section and flows logically into the nicknames. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Dkriegls. But I would also add that Nicknames encroach on WP:TRIVIA. -epicAdam^(talk) 22:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

That's why I brought it up, Epicadam, there was one page where I left it after the "notable people", and before the "sister cities" sections, but that looked to me like "trivia". And far be it from me to disagree with Dkriegels on any issues regarding this, since he is like my sensei on this project I'm undertaking, but when I see it in the history or lead sections, it's integrated, rather than being a block of information set off by itself. Onel5969 (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, worry not, we may not fully disagree. Perhaps we shouldn't encourage a list at all and should only be guiding people to incorporate the names into the lead or history (or A&C) text as well written prose. I have also seen it added to the info box. Like Epicadam, I think any list of nicknames that is too long is likely to be including a lot of little known nicknames that are more or less WP:TRIVIA. Including only well cited nicknames should keep the list short and amenable to prose. There is a general rule on Wikipedia that prose are always preferable to lists but for the life of me I can't find you a link for that. I'm giving up for now, but might try again later to find it. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Military presence

Hi... in those communities where there is a significant military presence (e.g. San Diego, Phoenix, Colorado Springs or Tampa (which is the city I'm currently working on)), might we add something in the guidelines about where this information should go? Right now it is all over the place: Culture, Infrastructure, Government, Economy, its own separate section. IMHO, it should go in one of two places, either under economy (especially where the communities are so closely tied by economy to the military bases), or in its own separate section as part of "topics specific to the city". I'd like to get a consensus on either of those two, or at least some indication where other editors think it should go. Once we reach consensus, I'd like to update the guidelines.Onel5969 (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Good question. My thought would be that the main information goes under "Economy" (as a subsection, along with other significant contributors to the economy such as Manufacturing, Tourism etc.). In most of these cities there would also be some information under "History". --MelanieN (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN that information about a current military presence generally should fall primarily under "Economy", but it is natural for some information to appear in sections like (but not limited to) "History", "Geography", and "Infrastructure", depending on the particulars of the relationship between the community and its military presence. --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, some information might be in other sections (particularly history)... I guess I'm referring to an actual separate section on military presence. Which, I agree with both of you, should be a level III subsection under economy.Onel5969 (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Just chiming in to agree with the general conclusion here. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)