Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Gallery sections

Hi all. It's the pain in the ass again. They are not the norm, but a few pages sport galleries. I understand people's zeal to show off their town/city, but I don't see any guidelines on this. As I've been going through the cities one by one, I haven't been standardizing the position of the gallery in the format of the article. Should we? And if so, my recommendations would be in 1 of 3 spots: 1) at the very end of the article (after Sister Cities); 2) at the end of the Arts/Culture section; or 3) at the end of the Geography subsection dealing with either cityscape or neighborhoods. My first choice would be at the end, since that could be made consistent through all the articles. Another thing, we might mention that a gallery should only have notable photos. A city like Buffalo has a very rich history of architecture, and the gallery reflects that for the most part. Then you have a city like Chula Vista, which basically just has a bunch of non-descript shots.

Thanks for all your work!! I think the galleries question is very subjective, but if there is a gallery, I agree that it would be preferably at the end, right before "see also", "refs" and "ext lnks". However, I've moved mass sections of photos to a gallery section in an article and then had that section deleted and moved back to an end of another section with nothing saying "gallery" to its name. Then again, I've deleted gallery sections myself and then added a link to the Commons Category by using the template in the "EL" section. I really don't know what would be best and WP:GALLERY isn't that definitive either. Any ideas? Funandtrvl (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, WP:Gallery. It's definitive enough to delete that Chula Vista thing, anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup, definitely subjective. I think the WP:GALLERY is a good place to start. How about something like

As per WP:GALLERY, photos should be integrated into the body of the article. Occasionally, a city will have a subject or subjects which warrant more photos than can fit into the text of the article. In those instances, a Gallery can be created and placed at the very end of the article, after the "Sister cities" section and before the "See also". A good rule of thumb is that if a gallery can only be labeled as "Gallery", and not to a particular subject, it doesn't belong. A good example of a gallery in a city article is in the Buffalo.

I don't think we should add "Gallery" to the sequence however, so as not to encourage it. If we can reach consensus on the verbiage above, I'll add it to the guidelines. I've also gone in and deleted the Chula Vista gallery, citing WP:Gallery.

Can't say I really have a dog in this fight. I like galleries, but don't think they're core info that should fall anyone place to make them easier to find. The clean obsessive freak in me says let's try to standardize it. But my desire to adhere to the general goal of reducing bureaucracy on Wikipedia makes me say it doesn't matter if it's in the middle or end of the page, or not included at all. I say leave it up to the page editors. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Articles for small towns are sometimes a big pain. The infobox makes it hard to find a place to put photos on the left or right size without causing layout issues, thus I will more likely use a photo gallery (or convert someone elses mess) to prevent layout problems. The one thing I can agree on....is we should say the photo gallery shouldn't get out of control with too many photos, because Wikipedia isn't a photo album! I prefer the "Gallery" section to be above the "See also" section, or someone near the bottom, though I've seen some articles use a gallery feature very nicely in some other sections. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Geography sections

I've been going through the Geography sections, it has seemed very natural to break the section into 2 main areas: Geography/Cityscape/Neighborhoods and Climate/Flora/Fauna. Very few cities have any mention of flora and fauna. Onel5969 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you're asking. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't actually asking anything. It had been part of the above post and got broken out. I was merely letting the talk page know of how I hadn't been formatting a certain part of city articles.Onel5969 (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Conformity

As of today I've gone through the top 80 cities. There was only one of the top 80 who rejected the idea of conformity: Washington D.C. I attempted to engage them in discussion, but they weren't interested in discussing it, just simply wanted to state their positions and be done with it. Other than that, pretty positive response and no other issues.Onel5969 (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Just an update. The top 100 cities now have the same structure, with the lone exception of Washington D.C. Hopefully, this will assist folks doing research.Onel5969 (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Environment

Hi. Where would you folks suggest we put information regarding environmental concerns/awards. Recently an edit was made to Lincoln, Nebraska, creating a new level two section titled Lincoln, Nebraska#Environment, and he actually cited our guidelines. I can't find anything in the guidelines regarding Environment, so I'm thinking that's why he put it in the area where "topics specific to the city" would go. I don't like to see too many additional sections, but I can't think of an appropriate place for it to be included elsewhere in the article. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 15:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, that one line can easily go under "History" as a significant achievement of the city, however, I was surprised to see such a significant city lacking a history section. I strongly recommend starting one and placing the info there. But if for some reason the editors of that page don't want a history section, I think the sentence also fits nicely in the climate section. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 05:21, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Boldness in the notability section

Greetings all... I've been WP:BOLD and several sentences in the Notable people section. In some articles, there is a tendency to list obscure folks who may have a local reputation, and insist on including them in the Notable people list, because they can provide a citation or two. However, I believe that to be included in the list they still should meet the notability requirements per WP:PEOPLE. A fast and easy way to establish this is if they already have an article written about them on Wikipedia, since it would have never been approved, or would have been deleted, if they did not meet notability requirements. I've added two sentences to reflect this. Onel5969 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Just now, I expanded the section for college students. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, I think these additions are helpful. --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a very rare exception where I leave a red linked person on a notable person list. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Heading question

There's an interesting edit war (actually consisting of two parts) on one of the pages I follow: Phoenix, Arizona. In the infobox, right below the name of the city, is what type of settlement it is. In the template, it gives examples of town, city, etc. However, when a city is also a state capital there are several state pages (at least one of which is FA status, Boston), which have State Capitol listed instead of city. The secondary issue is, if we do use State Capitol, should it be State Capitol or State capitol.

Honestly, I see both sides of both issues. There are no state capitols which are not cities, so putting State Capitol there is more specific; however, city is the particular type of entity.

Thoughts? If we can reach a consensus, I'll go through the 50 pages and standardize them.

If the decision is for State Capitol, should the second word be capitalized? In section headers we wouldn't, but this is more like a title, so perhaps we should? Onel5969 (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

"State capital" would be the most fitting, in my opinion. As you say, the fact that it is a city is implied. "Capital" is not a proper noun, so I wouldn't capitalize it, even though the word capital can mean an "uppercase letter" (har har). Thanks for helping standardize this. Once consensus is met, perhaps we should document it in our guideline or even at {{Infobox settlement}}. — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks MusikAnimal. I had intended to edit the guidelines and infobox info once consensus was met. Onel5969 (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree that "State capitol" is a description, not a proper noun. It makes sense to me to give the type of settlement as "state capitol" as that often better describes the specific type of city, though I would accept "city" as well. What about county seats? Do those deserve special mention? (Doesn't seem like it to me.) —EncMstr (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Template:Infobox settlement doesn't list capital or county seat for "settlement_type". The following looks reasonable, as long as "official_name" is removed. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

name = Phoenix, Arizona

other_name = State capital

settlement_type = City

Sbmeirow, I think Template:Infobox settlement pretty clearly doesn't limit settlement type to those listed: "Any type can be entered, such as City, Town, Village, Hamlet, Municipality, Reservation, etc." The words "Any type" and "etc." seem to encourage a broad undefined list. I think "State capitol" works as it is the most specific possible definition of the settlement type and State capitols are distinctly different jurisdictions within US law from other cities. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Lists of Notable People

The guidelines for lists of "Notable People from City X" need clarification. This issue has arisen because of the list List_of_people_from_Eureka,_California, which includes Ulysses_S._Grant. I am not proposing to discuss the merits of this particular case here, but rather it provides a good case study as it raises several important questions about these lists. Summary - Grant was stationed at Fort Humboldt by the U.S. Army for 5 months - around 0.6% of his lifetime. During his time there, Eureka, CA was not an incorporated city.

Does this imply that he is "from" the city of Eureka, California? I would say no, but nothing in the guidelines helps to clarify this issue. I understand that ideally there would be some historical consensus on whether an individual is "from" a place, but I've spent months trying to correct (in my mind) a clear mistake, and if it is going to be this much trouble to take someone off a list, I think it would be much better to form a consensus on when someone is considered "from" a place in general.

Currently the guidelines read that "any famous or notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time" may be included on such a list, but "significant amount of time" is a nebulous term at best, and even being born in a place does not make one "from" that place. Ideally, a person on such a list, if asked "where are you from?" would respond "I am from City X". Sometimes X changes over a lifetime, maybe that person would respond "I am originally from X, but I consider Y my home", or something to that effect. Clearly if that person is dead, then this becomes a more challenging question.

I would suggest that if you want to say a person is "from" a place based on the amount of time spent there (as is currently proposed), the time should be something like ~20% or greater of one's lifetime. This would easily account for being born and raised in a place, as well as most chosen places of residence.

However, I personally don't think quantifying this term in such a way is a very good idea. After all, not everybody has to be "from" somewhere. Kids with parents in the military may move to a different city, state, or country every 1-2 years as they grow up. If you ask these people where they are from, often they respond that they moved around a lot, and that they aren't from any one place. I think for a given person, if "city X" is the answer they would give to the question "where are you from?", then they belong on the list of "people from X".

Ultimately Wikipedia needs to be right. If someone reads a list, say, and learns that "Abraham Lincoln is from Washington D.C." (he isn't on this list nor should he be - but current guidelines suggest he could be), they would be wrong to relay that information.Laundrybox (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

In a related example, for people who lived temporarily in a college town should be listed in the notable section of the college article instead of the town, unless they actually grew up in the town or stayed a long time after graduating. This helps filter out people who live there ONLY during their college years. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

We should be talking about where a person was or is a "notable resident", not where they are "from". A person can be a notable resident of more than one place. "From" is a loose term, not really suitable for what we are talking about, and not the wording we should use here - partly because you can only be "from" one place, and partly because "from" sounds like origin rather than long-term or current residence. If Joe Blow was born in city A, grew up in city B, spent most of his working life in city C, and now lives in city D, he is "from" either city A or city B, but he is a "notable resident of" all four places. --MelanieN (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is the case, then these lists should be called "List of notable residents of X", which is certainly understood differently than "List of people from X". If something like this is done, then some lists would become unwieldy and possibly lose meaning - large cities with many notable residents on Wikipedia (New York, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C.) would have tens of thousands of entries (not to mention, someone like Ulysses_S._Grant would have dozens of "Notable Resident of ___" links at the bottom of his page). Also while it is no doubt easier to qualify residency, I think it takes away from the purpose of these lists, which is to give some insight into the type of people that define, or are defined by, a certain place.Laundrybox (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@Laundrybox, so let me understand you: Do you think there is only one place that a person is "from", or what is your definition or limit? In my example above of Joe Blow (who was born in city A, grew up in city B, spent most of his working life in city C, and now lives in city D) - which cities do you think should be able to list him under "people from" that city? --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@MelanieN, In response to your question - In my opinion Joe Blow is from wherever he says he's from. If he says "I was influenced by the local culture in B during my formative years, but I was inspired by the majestic River of Letters in C and did my best work there, so I consider myself as being from both B and C," then there's your answer. Clearly there's no lack of edge cases to consider, but it's the vagueness of the heading on these lists makes this a problem, and is the reason I brought it up for discussion. If I read the List_of_Nobel_laureates_in_Physics, I better be able to say for certain: "Lev_Landau is a Nobel laureate in Physics" by virtue of his being on said list. Similarly if I read "List of People from D", I should be able to confidently and accurately state, "Joe Blow is a person from D".Laundrybox (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "Joe Blow is from wherever he says he's from" is not a formula that has any usefulness at Wikipedia - unless you are suggesting we should try to contact every subject (living or dead) and ask them. Do you have a way to determine this question that does not involve the person's own subjective preference? --MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's the whole point of this topic. This is a subjective measure that's been made into lists for virtually every city listed on Wikipedia. There is no consistency or clarity among these lists which renders them effectively pointless. Do you think the lists should be renamed "Current and Former Residents of City X"? That would be a much more concise title regarding a quality much easier to define.Laundrybox (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The suggested 20% time frame may filter out useful people who became famous in a city, or are closely associated with it, but did not live there long. For instance, nobody would say that Joseph Smith was not notably associated with Nauvoo, Illinois, even though he lived there just 5 of his 38 years.

The problem is that some editors want a very inclusive and comprehensive list of people barely associated with a city, while other editors want a tailored list of select people, ones that are most closely associated. This project has to choose some position on that continuum of editor preferences. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You've put your finger on the problem, Bink. Can you think of any way to make that choice? Frankly, I can't. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The answer is obviously notability. If someone was notably associated with a city, then they deserve a mention in that city's article. If there is no coverage, even if they lived there for 80% of their life, there is no basis for a note in the article.

I spent some time in Middletown, New Jersey (which, incidentally, has an extensive Notable people section). One day I was walking around and came across a permanent sign in front of some woods there. It said "on blah date, George Washington and his men spent blah days camped here. 12 of them died." Ever since I saw that 25+ years ago, I have wondered how they knew the particular spot seeing as how there seemed to be no landmarks whatsoever. —EncMstr (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This debate is probably one of the most discussed topics on this project. You can read the first one here, second one here, third one here which continued here and here, fourth one here, fifth one here, and one last one here about placement, less about inclusion. The consensus from those discussions has been for these lists to include WP:Notable people who have Wikipedia:Reliable sources discussing their connection to the place. Any ambiguity of the connection should be mentioned and presented to the reader. Unless there is a BLP issue, including well cited information is better than not. Any attempt to reduce inclusiveness of these lists will only result in a plethora of tedious reverts by seasoned editors trying to enforce a less inclusive policy on all other editors. Not to mention the tedium of trying to explain to less veteran editors why their Wikipedia:Reliable sources isn't good enough to get their favorite local celebrity mentioned in connection with the town because they only lived there for 5 years. Easier for everyone one to stick to well established Wikipedia guidelines: inclusion is for Notable people with Reliable Sources linking them to the list. Ambiguity is removed, inclusion criterion is clear. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 08:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, this definitely provides some insight. The conversations you link boil down to this: Editors mostly agree that these lists are trivia and don't belong on Wikipedia. User:Dkriegls shows up, spends a lot of time editing these lists and declares "I for one think deletion is wrong". There are only two clear consensuses reached that I see - one that these lists should be called "Notable People" and two that college alumni should not be included.

If we want to maintain consistency with the current guidelines, I'll make a small initial proposal based on the consensus reached regarding college alumni that 'No notable college people "reside" in town. Or "notable" professors either,' because "unless an alum decided to make their home in that town or was already from there, you'd never say they were from that town or even connect them with it without first mentioning the school."

It follows that no notable military people "reside" in the town of the military base at which they are stationed. They are first and foremost connected to the base, not the town, and unless they go on make their home there post-military, they should not be mentioned. This is a direct corollary and it is inconsistent to have one without the other. If consensus can be reached on this I think it will provide a small stepping stone to laying down some meaningful guidelines regarding these lists.Laundrybox (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The WP:Consensus was not "trivia", it was to keep; as evidenced by the fact that they still exist and were not deleted per WP:Trivia. The consensus on college students was easily reached because the information could be moved and linked to another "list of people" associated with the town. So deletion of the information from Wikipedia was not necessary because it was simply nested differently. If there were a "List of Notable Military People Stationed at XXX", you might have a strong case for deletion. If this is a project you are interested in taking up here at Wikipedia, I would encourage it and suggest you start by making some friends over at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. They would have the best insight on the feasibility of such a task. I think this would a great addition to Wikipedia and it would help you learn to navigate some of our tedious bureaucracy. I would be happy to help. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

For reference, here is a discussion about the specific edit that has started this discussion: Talk:List of people from Eureka, California#U.S. Grant

Making trivia lists is highly discouraged and so your proposed action would be incorrect and unnecessary. Clearly if some notable person is associated with a military base, they would be included in the prose of that article and so no list is necessary. My proposal was about residency guidelines. Your counterproposal simply sidesteps the clear equivalency I cite.Laundrybox (talk) 21:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you are taking this opportunity to read our guidelines. That was a good reference, but as I've explained to you, lists of Notable people associated with places have been determined not to be trivia. I was not trying to sidestep anything. I was WP:assuming good faith that you were here to improve Wikipedia and so I was offering a compromise I thought would meet your desired outcome. This is how Wikipedia works. We often find solutions through working with other editors to reach a compromise that works best. I encourage you to reconsider your dismissal of my proposal. The effort you now continue to put into this conversation could instead be used to improve Wikipedia. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you please clearly state how spending 4-5 years living and going to college in a city is "not residency", but being stationed at a military base for 3 weeks or greater "is residency"? If so I will cede that your point is valid. However, if you could have done that I think you would have already. Not all information is good information, and I think that even you realize adding extra lists of notable people for all military bases would be redundant.Laundrybox (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It is residency, we just have a more specific list to add the name to. On Wikipedia were prefer maximum specificity. The consensus was not that they were not residents, it was that they were better described as residence of the specific school. Hence "People from x town" lists include "See also" links to "Notable Alumni of" lists. It's called nesting lists and is what I encourage you to do if you want to remove information that is supported by a wp:reliable sources. For instance, inclusion on the List of musicians from Chicago does not mean these people do not also meet criterion for List of people from Chicago. We simply add the name to the most specific nested list. I'm sorry this point is so frustrating for you. But your personal attacks and mischaracterizations of other editors' positions have not furthered your position. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 23:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a grouping of related things issue. If numerous notable people all have something in common, like a college, then they should be put in a notable list article for that college. This list will be included in both the school and city articles, using the {{Main|ListArticleName}} and {{See also|ListArticleName}}. There are multiple benefits to do it like this: you don't flood the college article with names, you don't flood the city article with names, you make it obvious these people are primarily associated with the college instead of the city. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you so much for that extremely intuitive introduction to set theory. Meanwhile, you already clearly established that the original basis for providing an exception for colleges is that No notable college people "reside" in town. Or "notable" professors either. This is a direct quote in context - not a "mischaracterization" - and I resent your claims to the contrary. I believe you've taken this off topic enough. The original point of the topic was to come to a consensus and improve Wikipedia, and your belligerent defense of the indefensible is not at all helping.Laundrybox (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Laundrybox, I encourage you to read the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. It is rare that you will convince other editors of your position by simply stating over and over again that something else like your position exists. As for mischaracterization: You said of me: "You already clearly established"; no i did not, you are quoting User:Studen7, not me. Also, using words like "belligerent" are not in sticking with WP:Assume Good Faith. I assure you I am engaging with you in an effort to jointly and constructively edit Wikipedia and not to enforce my opinion on you. Hence my offer a compromise and extensive efforts to like relevant information for you to read. With which you are starting to do and I applaud you for it. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Laundrybox, please calm down; you are taking this way too personally. I actually think your point is well taken about military assignments being similar to college students. I also think Dkriegls makes a good point that the college decision was easy precisely because there was already another list where notable people could be mentioned. In some military cases that list already exists; see for example Fort Ord#Notable Fort Ordians. If there isn't already such a list in a base's article, one could be started there. If that seems inappropriate for some reason, we could make a subsection - "Notable people associated with Fort Whatever" - on the "List of notable people from the nearest town." These are several ways of dealing with the military assignment situation within existing guidelines - and without making a federal case out of it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC) P. S. I also agree with EncMstr that the person has to be NOTABLY associated with the base, not merely assigned there briefly. For example, many base articles already have a list of the base commanders. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you MelanieN for a very sensible suggestion that there could be a subsection within these lists that qualifies a person's association with a place. That would represent a meaningful change that I absolutely support. I still think there is merit in removing persons from these lists, and, as you say, that notability with respect to the location should supersede simply existing there, but I think that a subsection could provide some of the clarification that is needed.Laundrybox (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Subsections are actually fairly common on long lists of "notable people". Commonly they are categorized by their profession or claim to fame (Sports, Academics, Performing Arts, etc.); in fact that's how it is already done on List of people from Eureka, California. There is already a subsection there for "Military". People who were at Fort Humboldt could be inserted there, or there could be a further subsection of the military section called "Fort Humboldt", or there could be a whole new section "Notable people associated with Fort Humboldt" explaining why having been at Fort Humboldt is not necessarily the same thing as being from Eureka. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I have today added citations to the list in question here, including this link to the History of Humboldt County which discusses at length Grant's service in Eureka and why he left. The experience was formative, he quit his military career because of it. I think that he's included on the list within the guidelines of this WikiProject and I don't understand any vested interest in taking just this one person off this list. I do know that some Grant scholars deny Grant's stay here because they don't want his apparent lack of control while drinking to be added to the biographical information - but "Grant's drinking" is a topic that comes and goes over history with the poor man and is needfully included as is his time in the West and his spectacular failure as an officer and gentleman (according to his commander at that time). As for how people are considered "notable" in an area, I think being several pages in the history book, having schools, streets and fairs named after them, being one of the only exhibits at Fort Humboldt and so on, only adds to his notability in the area. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz, Hi Ellin, this topic is about the general purpose of Lists of "People from X", not about any specific person or city. Please try to stay on topic.

@MelanieN Good point, and I noted that there are already those subsections on most of these pages. I also saw that those sections typically categorize the people within them by their general notability, but these lists are supposed to be about the town, so wouldn't it make sense to have "List of people from town X" subdivided by the person's connection to X? This is already done to some extent with the sections for college towns. Basically I'm proposing these subsection titles be something like "People born and raised in X", "People stationed at Fort X", "Longtime residents of X", etc. This would immediately clarify to any reader how and why the person listed is connected to the town. Laundrybox (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any article or list that currently does it that way, and I'm not sure it's a good idea. Most such lists are alphabetical; a few city lists and many alumni lists break it down by profession. I think I've seen one or two (usually within the city article rather than a freestanding list article) that have separate categories, such as "born and raised" and "significantly associated", but the difference seemed rather arbitrary. I don't believe your suggestion would be helpful or easy to implement; for example, if a person was born in the city AND a longtime resident AND a current resident, do you list them in all three places? Or do you edit-war over whether "born here" is more important than "longtime resident"? I think the current system is the best: they are listed if they had a significant, documented association with the town, in whatever capacity. I have seen a few alphabetical lists that specify, after the person's name, what their association with the town is - for example "Joe Blow, born here 1948", "Jimmy Brown, resident and business owner", etc. - but that system has not caught on widely. --MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I like the idea that there should be some association listed. The original problem - and the reason for this topic and all previous topics on this subject - is that these lists are much too ambiguous (bordering on trivial), and that appealing to the lowest common denominator for when a person belongs only exacerbates the problem. If a person is worthy of being listed as "from" a city, it should be easy to concisely state how and why they are notably connected.Laundrybox (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

@Laundrybox I am on topic, you wrote in the very first part of this over long thread, "Does this imply that he is "from" the city of Eureka, California?" and I replied to your question. I believe he belongs on this list and that is my answer to your question. If you don't want questions answered, don't ask. And if you really are so very interested in these lists but have no vested interest in U.S. Grant, why aren't you making similar arguments for Lt. Whipple? Otherwise these arguments are most hollow and seems time for you to WP:DTS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Laundrybox, I think I can address your most recent concern about having their "Association" with the town made more apparent. The article we have been debating (Eureka), is not what I would call a "finished" list; one worthy of "Featured List" status. Now, the List of people from Park Ridge, Illinois on the other hand is closer to a fully developed list of notable people (though it also has not been a Featured List). If you take a look, it has a separate column that is specifically for clarifying what each persons' association is with the town. Then they are grouped based by profession or shared notability (sometimes it's just that they are involved in a notable crime). Turning these lists into tables is a lot of work and only a small fraction of the stand alone notable people lists are even close to this developed. The style and format came out of several peer review efforts, and a few of us have been slowly converting as many as we can. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Impressive list - nice work! Not many "people from" lists are in that kind of shape or are ever likely to be - must have been an enormous amount of work! --MelanieN (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It was a lot of work. I've tried to get it to Featured List, but they are so overworked that it never got reviewed one way or the other. Just fell off their ToDo list. The nice thing about that format is I find a lot less red linked names get added, which means a lot less reverts. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow Dkriegls, that's incredible! I have to admit it, you've certainly change my mind with your amazing table! Considering also your bulletproof arguments and mastery of the English language, I definitely have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works now! I mean, I'm not going to waste my time turning lists of things into tables of things, but I'll definitely appropriately contribute wherever I can! WikiLove!!!Laundrybox (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Dkriegls needs to be complimented on that list. Perhaps we can reference that list as an example (although I'm not sure of where to exactly do that?). Onel5969 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit cut

Laundrybox, you argued so eloquently above that military personnel's association to a place should be clearly identified; and now you're just going through lists adding names without any such mention of association (here, here, here, here, and here). Are you attempting to disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as User:MelanieN had previously suggested? If you are sincere in your editing, I encourage you to add some text about the association that you successfully argued for above. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fictional notability

I want to clarify or establish a policy regarding fictional people in the notability section(s). What is the guideline? User:Dkriegls deleted an entry that I added and I want to know the official rules regarding the subject. Fictional characters from a film series, video game, novel, or television show are no less important than living people in certain communities (i.e Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn to Hannibal, Missouri). This is by no means a personal attack to any user; i merely want clarification and if necessary, include some guidelines to adding them to the section. Not many fictional characters have Wikipedia articles and for good reason, because Wikipedia is not Memory Alpha or Wookiepedia. Is there some other check to establishing notability for inclusion? (Tigerghost (talk) 04:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC))

I don't know of anything which supports such information being in a factual article. It makes sense for fictional people to be mentioned in an article about the fictional work. The guideline which comes to mind which would contraindicate such information is WP:TRIVIA. —EncMstr (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer some flexibility in fictional people. Extremely well-known fictional characters like Tom Sawyer should not be treated the same way as some lesser known character from a minor book / tv series / game where only a small subset of the population might be aware of them or even care. I'd say all the other fictional characters in Hannibal, MO could be removed since I never heard of them or didn't know that Sherm from Mash was from that town, and would guess most people don't know it either. More people need to get involved before a final decision is made. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Is your clarification about fictional people in the "Notable" section, or notability in general for a city article? In the case of Tom Sawyer, I would say it's ok to roll him into the Mark Twain text for Hannibal, MO but not include him in the Notable section. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Fictional characters should be discussed in the article body by way of prose, if they are vitally important to the city. They should never be listed under notable people. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Fictional characters are fictional, and therefore not notable by definition, since they are not real people. If a fictional character is vitally important to the city, they might be mentioned, as Binksternet suggested, in the body of the city article, most likely under the Culture section. But I can't truly think of a single example where I would a fictional character merits that. In the Hannibal MO, example, the notable person is Samuel Clemens, and in mentioning him in the notable person section, the note could read, "creator of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer" But other than that, EncMstr's point is that they belong in the article about the fictional creation, not the city. I would vote for a clarification in the guidelines to the effect that fictional characters should NEVER be listed. I looked at the Hannibal, MO article, and their section is absurd, and in that instance, the fictional characters aren't even from Hannibal, they are from a fictional town. The other entries there are even more absurd, since they have nothing to do with the city's identity.Onel5969 (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, your premise is false. Darth Vader, James T. Kirk, Gollum, and Nancy Botwin are all fictional characters, but apparently notable due to their established articles.

However, I agree that fictional characters associated with a real city are unlikely to be worthy of mention, unless such a character has a notable impact on said city. Henry Huggins is one I know of, but is only mentioned in the Portland-related article Klickitat Street which seems fairly reasonable since there are real statues there and so forth. Also Riverside, Iowa seems reasonable as the town seems to have adopted Captain Kirk. —EncMstr (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Never said fictional characters cannot be notable, but they cannot be notable people (since they aren't real people). Of course, notable fictional characters can have their own articles. Again, if a fictional character has an impact on a city, it can almost always be construed solely through a cultural impact. Have a great day.Onel5969 (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Even if they aren't "real" people, what harm could there be at having a section devoted exclusively to fictional people from said city in their List of notable people from XXXX, (insert state here) articles? Clearly it is fascinating to know that Peter Parker (Spiderman) is from New York City, Hikaru Sulu is from San Francisco, and the characters from Glee are from Lima, Ohio. Even if they do border trivial knowledge, some have some cultural significance to the regions these fictional characters inhabit (such as how James T. Kirk has had an affect on Riverside, Iowa or the characters in To Kill a Mockingbird have had on Monroeville, Alabama (Tigerghost (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC))

Please see WP:ISNOT.Onel5969 (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't redirect me to that nonsense. I'm tired of people defending the suppression of knowledge, no matter how "trivial" it may seem, by citing that. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005 and WP:ISNOT has only harmed the collaborative nature of this encyclopedia. I'm certain that a lot of well respected material of merit has been removed due to the application of WP:ISNOT. For one, nearly all cities have notable resident lists (which under the standards of Wikipedia via Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information should not be included in them then as a result, fictional beings or otherwise). There is a lot of cherry-picking under the rules established by WP:ISNOT. The whole thing needs to be scrapped. It's damaging to the very idea of a Wiki. I'm not ashamed to state that WP:ISNOT has serious problems; problems that ultimately damage the whole damn process. I know I'm not the only person that feels this way. Who would have thought that in nearly 14 years of existence, Wikipedia would turn into a bureaucracy, not with the agenda to collect knowledge, but to dictate what exactly knowledge is and what knowledge is worth documenting. If there is any rule, policy, or guideline that should be cited in this debate, it is that Wikipedia should not function as a bureaucracy, Wikipedia is not censored, and the most important of all is to be bold, which sadly, Wikipedia ignores in this day in age. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so tyranny of the majority under the guise of consensus is not "the Wikipedia way." (Tigerghost (talk) 07:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC))

I prefer fictional characters NOT be included in city articles, because they NEVER lived-in or visited the real cities, why, because they are imaginary and don't exist in the real world, unlike cities. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not about what's interesting or suppression of knowledge as everything you mentioned above is already mentioned somewhere on a Wikipedia article (so please mind the accusatory language); it's about creating logically consistent Wikipedia articles. List of people from... pages would make an illogical home for that information as fictional people are neither people nor from anywhere. At best such information should be in the text of the city's main article or articles about the city's culture or arts. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 09:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Why have an article like this then? (Works of fiction set in 2013, Stars and planetary systems in fiction) If entire articles such as these can exist on Wikipedia, then why can't fictional people be included on List of people from [insert city and state here]... articles? If it is in a section that clearly states that they are fictional, then what harm could it bring to the list? What would make their inclusion illogical? (Tigerghost (talk) 02:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC))

Wouldn't it be logically inappropriate to add the Solar System to the Stars and planetary systems in fiction list? Even if it were by adding a subsection called "Real Planetary Systems"? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 10:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Economy section

Greetings! I'm noticing on a few articles, that they are beginning to be inflated by simply listing companies which do business in that city or town. The latest is Austin, Texas, which has a couple of sentences which are just lists of companies, but there are others as well. While the companies all have their own articles, I can't find anything in WP:ISNOT to indicate that these arbitrary lists should be trimmed, or even deleted. However, articles look and read better (imho) when these lists are limited or not included at all. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm absolutely against the simple listing of companies, especially non-notable companies (I delete them on site). I see the "largest employer" lists on a lot on towns and small cities as a means of fluffing up content. I think it should be in prose form and require some mention of how that company's development is related to the town's history. Not simply, this company is here. That's my two cents on this fluff. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 19:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Whenever I drive into a little town, my first questions are Why is this town here? That is, Why did anyone settle here?, and What do people do here? Traditionally, the answers I remember receiving as a child were variations on "It started as a lumber mill town but when the mill closed it slowly morphed into an agricultural support town" (typical scenarios around the Pacific Northwest).

I still wonder what makes most people live in a city, especially when it is something unique. For this curiosity, I support content which describes the largest employers—past and present—whether it is a list or prose. But please, if the town has nothing beyond a few grocery stores, fuel stations, and malls, then don't bother. I guess that means it should list three to five of the largest businesses (employment-wise) and anything notable, like Philipsburg, Montana's sapphire mining, public sluices, and gem stores. As far as I could tell, there is nothing else notable there. —EncMstr (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I usually will let more slide for a small or tiny town than a medium or large city, mainly because there is so little content, but that doesn't mean I'll let all common businesses slide. Any extremely common business, I usually delete, like restaurants / gas stations / grocery stores / banks / ... unless it's a true historic landmark or notable per Wikipedia. If it sounds kind of like an advertisement, then I'm more likely to delete or thin it down. For large cities, the most well known businesses are the main ones that should be listed, but other ones should either be briefly listed or deleted depend on their notability or local importance. Though Wikipedia has lots of rules, I also feel that some minor stuff should slide, so the public doesn't think of us all as delete-happy tyrants. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox details

The infobox example in this article shows both the city and state name. However, Template:Infobox settlement states that only the "official name" should be used, and the example in the infobox doesn't add the state name. Magnolia677 (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox settlement can be, and is, used outside the US. The documentation for the template does not preclude the use of state, while Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline is rather clear that it should be included for places in the United States. The settlement infobox, in its heading, refers specifically to the US city guideline. I hope that this clears up the confusion. Alansohn (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunate that both examples of infobox use are of US cities--without the state name. Magnolia677 (talk) 07:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The only thing "unfortunate" is the USA cities that use the "official name" instead of "name", because the "rarely used" legal description is shown instead of the common name. "settlement_type" field already says that it's a "City", so why the heck do we need another line that says "City of XYZ" immediately next to it.... actually we don't, because it's duplicating information and look silly. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:56, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, the infobox settlement example for Chicago merely shows "Chicago", while the infobox in the actual article shows "Chicago, Illinois". The examples should probably be corrected. Alansohn (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Census-designated places

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is that if a settlement can be accurately described as both a census-designated place and an unincorporated community, its article should begin "XXX is an unincorporated community...", as it is a more understandable phrasing. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

---

There are many articles about US settlements that begin like "XXX is a census-designated place in YYY County..." and go on to repeatedly refer to the subject as "the CDP". I find this usage grating and believe it's off-putting to the 99% of readers who have never heard of "census-designated places". In the vast majority of cases, I think "XXX is an unincorporated community in YYY County..." is preferable.

Article ledes are supposed to give a definition of the subject. The Census Bureau does lots of research to figure out the definitions of local communities, so it is a valuable source. But its use as a source should not be confused with what defines these places, which are the people and buildings on the ground.

It's important to mention the place's CDP status when it is relevant. In most articles, that means in the Demographics section, where extensive Census statistics are given.

"XXX is a CDP" seems to have originated in this 2004 conversation about Rambot. The idea appears to have been that local editors in each area would sort out the best phrasing to use. Rambot's creator later wrote, "Clearly we should use CDP as it refers to the statistics, but it is not so clear that the article should use CDP as the dominate name/type". But today, there seems to be an attitude that this is the way Wikipedia articles about CDP's are written, and anyone who tries to change this phrasing will be reverted.

There are certainly exceptions, such as CDP's that don't really correspond to local ideas of extant communities, or where there is a confusing overlap of similarly named municipalities and CDP's. For example, there are places like View Park-Windsor Hills, California, where the Census Bureau jams two nearby communities into one CDP. Since the conglomeration doesn't really exist except as a Census Bureau concept, it's fine to call it a CDP (if we really have to have an article about it). Some of the northeastern states have CDP's within incorporated areas (since they have no unincorporated areas), so some other phrasing is needed there. But these are a minority of cases, and they should not derail a conversation about the majority case. Toohool (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should article ledes use "census-designated place"?

In general, should an article about a U.S. unincorporated community that is a census-designated place begin:

1. "XXX is a census-designated place in YYY County..."

or

2. "XXX is an unincorporated community in YYY County..."

Toohool (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If the designation is a CDP, that needs to be in the lead, especially if all the demographic information in the article comes from the Census Bureau entry on that CDP. If a broader definition of that community can be properly sourced, then that should be included too. Since the lead contains a wikilink to Census-designated place, if users find that to be an unfamiliar term, they can go there to find out more, just like if a place is classified as a city, village, town/township, borough, hamlet, etc., all of which vary in definition by state and country. Further, "unincorporated community" can often be quite ambiguous (since they typically have no defined boundaries) and often lack reliable demographic measurements, while a CDP has defined boundaries and regular measurements, just like an incorporated area. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be more consensus on this topic. Thanks for asking this question. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• 2 is far more preferable. Only bureaucrats care about CDPs. Most humans care primarily about communities and neighborhoods—not county lines (except in Appalachia), CCDs, ZCTAs, μSAs, PSAs, CSAs, or any of the rest of census bureau alphabet soup. (Be honest, how many knew these actually exist?) That said, a thorough article might mention which specific parts of those it is wholly or partially within, and maybe adjacent XYZs, but not without first mentioning adjacent communities and cities. None of this is lead material. Instead, it belongs in a minor (approximately) Nitpicky technical divisions of the Census Bureau section. —EncMstr (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I've always been fond of a construction I borrowed from @Bkonrad: that I've been using for years: "Foo is an unincorporated community in Foo County, Foo State, United States. For statistical purposes, the United States Census Bureau has defined Foo as a census-designated place (CDP). The census definition of the area may not precisely correspond to local understanding of the area with the same name." That said, a handful of CDPs in Oregon (the only state's community articles on which I work) do not correspond with a community in any real sense "on the ground". And as @EncMstr: above can vouch for, I do my due diligence as far as research. In those cases I've suggested keeping just CDP in the lede. Personally I think it's up to each state to make the call. Question: Do all lede sentences across the project have to be consistent? There is often variation with addition of "rural", "historic", "northern", etc. Valfontis (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• CDP or census-designated place is bureaucratic jargon. Wikipedia should first use terminology that is more familiar (although the article that unincorporated community leads to conflates two distinct senses of the term "unincorporated" and likely causes more confusion than it clarifies, but that is a separate matter). In general, a CDP is designated to provide statistics for areas that are commonly recognized as communities (although without official boundaries, a local sense of the community may not always precisely match the somewhat arbitrary boundaries of a CDP). In some cases, CDPs could be designated or named for areas that were more artificial entities (such as Greater Galesburg, Michigan) or that encompassed several smaller communities (such as Shorewood-Tower Hills-Harbert, Michigan). In such cases, the named entities are actually CDPs only rather than a distinct community. older ≠ wiser 16:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The reality is it's likely going to be a case-by-case basis since CDPs and what constitutes a "community" are going to vary from area to area along with the other realities others have mentioned about CDPs that combine smaller communities or CDPs that cover only a portion of what is considered a community. Locally, in the county I live in, we have two unincorporated communities (Wayland, Ohio and Diamond, Ohio) and two CDPs (Brimfield, Ohio and Atwater, Ohio). All four of these entities are part of a respective township (Paris Township, Palmyra Township, Brimfield Township, and Atwater Township) and each township is the better definition of a "community" for all of them. The two unincorporated communities (Wayland and Diamond) both have a respective Post Office and ZIP code, while of the two CDPs, one has a post office and ZIP code (Atwater) and the other (Brimfield) does not. In both CDPs, they cover a smaller area of their respective township, but the sense of "community" is the entire township. The unincorporated communities, in general, don't really have a sense of community separate from their townships either; they're simply relics of a past time and have that post office, and their respective ZIP codes cover larger areas. Both the townships and CDPs have official and different population measurements from the Census Bureau, (the unincorporated communities do not), so while they could be combined in one article, it might create confusion with two separate demographics sections. Right now both Brimfield and Atwater have CDP mentioned in the lead because that's what the respective articles are about: the CDP, not the community. CDPs do have boundaries (find maps here), but only for the purposes of measurement, similar to census tracts. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I phrased the RfC to cover only articles that are about unincorporated communities that are also CDP's. If a particular CDP can't accurately be called a community, other more accurate words should certainly be used. I feel that calling it a CDP should be a "last resort" though. For example, "unincorporated area" would work in many cases. Toohool (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Still think it's a case by case basis, though since we have the ability to wikilink, I don't think there's a reason to whole-scale avoid using a valid and defined term, any more than we would avoid using any other wording that may be unfamiliar to many or have a different definition. It's similar to how different states define a "city" or a "town" (for instance, a "town" in New York is equal to a "township" in Ohio while a "town" in Ohio is an unincorporated area; or the fact that a city in Ohio is any incorporated area with 5,000 or more inhabitants but in Virginia is an entity independent of a county regardless of population). Again, if the infobox displays the population numbers, land area, and other data of the CDP, that's what is being defined in the article, so no reason to avoid calling it what it is. If editors feel having "unincorporated area" in a lead would be helpful, I'm not opposed to adding it, but making CDP a last resort? No, I don't see a need since there are thousands of CDPs across the country and Google and other map programs show CDP boundaries on their maps as if it were a city boundary, so people are seeing them. Going back to Brimfield, Ohio, the CDP boundaries have been displayed on maps for over a decade and I never knew what exactly I was seeing until I came across what a census-designated place actually is and the fact that Brimfield has a CDP within the township. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I never heard of a "census designated place" before I found Wikipedia, and I live in a CDP. Around here, we just call it an unincorporated community. On the other hand, if the bureaucratic terms is more proper, I don't have a big problem with its use. I eventually learned what it is, so I guess other people will, too. But it seems like the common name really is "unincorporated community", for what it's worth. So, I guess I'm alright with either. Sorry for being so wishy-washy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would bet that most of the population don't use the terms "unincorporated community" or "census designated place". As for myself, I have seen U.C. term used far more than C.D.P. If a community is like a tiny city and not part of another community, then "unincorporated community" should be the primary way to describe it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

1. For a tiny community, I propose "Xyz is an unincorporated community and CDP in County, State, United States.". (assuming it is a CDP in this example)
2. For a tiny community, I propose that if CDP is used in the intro, it must be wiki-linked, and use the short form CDP instead of the long form or any "long winded" explanation of what a CDP means.

• 2. Unincorporated. I agree 100% with what Toohool says about usage. CDP status should be mentioned when relevant, but otherwise we should follow local conventions: "Village of X" or "Town of Y" and note the unincorporated community status. I understand that the phrase "unincorporated [whatever]" isn't much less unwieldy than "census-designated place," but at least unincorporated intrinsically contains the distinction I think it is important to make—whether one of these small towns is an incorporated municipality or an unincorporated area governed by its parent county. I also have concerns about the case Toohool mentioned at the top where more than one unincorporated settlement is crammed into a single CDP by the Census Bureau. And I agree with the comments that "CDP" sounds awfully bureaucratic and technical, even if, again, "unincorporated" isn't much better—a little better is still better. Darkest Tree Talk 16:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

In many states, "Village" and "Town" are legally used to designate incorporated communities of a specific size. Even if the citizens living in an unincorporated use these terms, we can't use it in the article because it conflicts with the legal use for incorporated cities. Even in states that don't legally use "village or "town" for incorporated communites, I think it would be best to not use those terms since many nearby states do use them. If people don't like "unincorporated community", the call it a "community". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changing the order in which sections are presented on US city articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#New Jersey towns, section order to examine changing the order in which sections are presented in New Jersey city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Official Website links

User:Magnolia677 reverted one of my edits and citied something that I originally added to this guideline, lol, I laughed at that mistake, per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Cities%2FUS_Guideline&diff=589017407&oldid=587396432 I should've come back and fixed this section, because at some point since that time I added the text I noticed someone else saying that official links templates should only be used once per article, thus is why I don't do it any more. It wasn't recent and I don't think it was a city article, but unfortunately I don't have a Xerox memory to remember whom said it. Whether this is correct or not, I don't know, but we should investigate, and if wrong then we should fix it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL says "Use of the template is optional." • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

While Template:Infobox settlement says to use the {{URL|example.com|optional display text}} template (though the use of the "website" parameter is optional). All the more proof that the structure of these city articles need conformity across each state. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding list of US cities by population.

There is a discussion at HERE which might be of interest to members of this project. Onel5969 (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding sourcing of Sister Cities

Hi. There's a discussion going on HERE, which would be nice if there could be a few more eyes on it. Thanks. Onel5969 (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

flagicons in infobox

Hi all. An editor, Vaselineeeeeeee, has been systemically going through the US City articles and removing flagicons from the infobox, citing MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. While I don't really have a preference as to whether or not to include them (I don't mind them), their reasoning for using that MOS is a bit flawed. While the opening statement there is "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.", there is actually a paragraph which deals with the type of articles that cities fall under: human geographical articles. In that paragraph, the MOS states, "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes." So I thought I'd run it up the flagpole and attempt to get a consensus. Currently, the infobox example on our page does not include them, and using that as a standard, Vaselineeeeee would be correct in removing them. Perhaps there was a discussion about this prior to my joining the project, if so, I apologize. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, we had a very lengthy discussion on Talk:Edmonton, and most editors feel that they should not be added. I was against removing them from the infobox, but several editors removed my additions of the flag icons. Since there was a discrepancy in major city articles I decided to remove most flags to avoid confusion. If you look at the Edmonton talk page, there are many editors saying that they are distracting to the eye, etc. If you want to contribute there as well feel free. I do not think there is a set in stone rule for if they should be included or not. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vaselineeeeeeee... Edmonton, not being a US City, would fly by the rules of the group that oversees Canadian cities. As I said, I'm not adverse to removing them, but I just want to get a consensus from the folks who edit the US Cities. Onel5969 (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm inviting a couple of editors who have shown activity on this issue on the city pages: Epicgenius, Alansohn. Onel5969 (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Canadian city articles' policies are different from US city articles' policies, and the consensus on Talk:Edmonton only applies to Canadian cities. If there is consensus to remove flags on US city articles, however, I will follow that consensus. We can open up an RfC for what to do regarding MOS:FLAG in American city articles. Epic Genius (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe flags should be used in city infoboxes. Everybody knows Miami is in the US. A flag for emphasis is not useful. Some editors sprinkle flags around like confetti. We don't need a decorative effect here. GroveGuy (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For years, I've noticed multiple editors saying the flags shouldn't be included in city articles, so I've been removing flags from articles as I've come across them. I basically agree with other people about them just being fluff. I'm currently on the "NO FLAG" path until someone tells me otherwise. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi all... me again. I was just attempting to head off what I saw as the potential for edit wars on various pages. Can we all agree to leave it status quo until we reach a consensus here? Onel5969 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to read to the bottom of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG to get to the Wiki rule: "where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan)...the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not". Edmonton definitely falls into this category. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What User:GroveGuy said came off very arrogant. You cannot just assume that "everyone" knows that Miami is in the US. By that logic, you might as well not even mention anything about the US if everyone already knows it. I believe flags should be included as it enhances the term and gives it a better idea of what it is to the reader. There is a lot you can get from a country just by looking at their flag. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To those of us who have made many edits to articles about cities and towns, I'm sure you'll agree that a lot of time is spent "cleaning up". This includes the removal of exhaustive lists of elementary schools, personal photo collections, geo-coordinates added to geography sections, vast unsourced trivial narratives about the local landfill, and members of garage bands added as "notable people" because their bus broke down in middle of town and they spent the night at the local motel. These edits are added by well-intentioned editors, but they detract from the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia, and experienced editors remove them again and again and again. I completely agree with the rationale at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG for NOT adding purely cosmetic cruft like infobox flags: "they are unnecessarily distracting". Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, kids book, or graphic organizer. It's an encyclopedia. Let's add content, not fluff. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Magnolia677. as has been already pointed out, Edmonton, Alberta is not germane to a discussion on the consensus for US cities. But, just so everyone knows, Magnolia677's statement does not appear to be correct. Edmonton, and many other cities, are not both human and physical geographic subjects. They are human geography articels, and the applicable par tof the MOS is Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes. Meters (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So...Manhattan--which is used as an example at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG--and has sections about history, geography, demographics, economy, government, education, sports, culture and infrastructure...IS a "human and physical geographic subject". Edmonton, on the other hand, which also has sections about history, geography, demographics, economy, government, education, sports, culture and infrastructure, IS NOT a human and physical geographic subject. Could you explain that? Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You refer to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, but I'm not sure that you understand what it means. Again, "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes; however, physical geographic articles – for example, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, and swamps – should not." Edmonton -- and the same is true for virtually every single US city -- is **NOT** a "physical geographic article". It is not a mountain; it is not a valley; it is not a river; it is not a lake; nor it is not a swamp. The reason that Manhattan is offered as a potential example of covering both human and physical geography is that Manhattan is largely one big island. As Edmonton -- and Astoria, Queens and Hoboken, New Jersey -- are all examples of "human geographic articles", MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is clear that they "may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes". The number of sections in the article has nothing to do with being a "human and physical geographic subject". A "human and physical geographic subject" has to do with a place like Manhattan which is both a human-defined place and a physically-defined place; This is NOT true for Edmonton or just about every other city in North America. What is the confusion here? Alansohn (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, what's even better than an unnecessary Flag Icon? Simply typing the words like "United States" (or "USA") and "Florida" in the appropriate Infobox parameter fields. That answers your concerns, and avoids the totally unnecessary Flag Icons. You also assumed that most readers know nation flags, or more improbably U.S. state flags (can anyone here pick Florida's flag out of a lineup?! – if you can, you're better at this than I am, and I'm pretty good...), when there's no evidence to show that. The bottom line is that the vast majority of Flag Icons used in U.S. city article Infoboxes are unnecessary, and simply typing out the words for the country and state names is more than sufficient. --IJBall (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Magnolia677. Flags are not "cruft". By that logic, why ever include flags? Why even have a code to include a flag? In any circumstance a flag is used as what you call "fluff". Can you explain that? If you believe it is cruft, why have have highlighted sections of charts, ( ex. Manhattan) etc., after all this isn't a graphic organizer right, I am sure the readers can figure it out themselves no? It adds a "design" to enhance the article and the specific city. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677, Edmonton IS a human physical geographic subject, and should have flags just like how Manhattan, NYC, The Bronx, etc. have flags. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Flags shouldn't be used when nationality is emphasized too greatly (e.g. using it in a person's article). They could, however, theoretically be used if it's a geopolitical subdivision like Manhattan, and there is no guideline or policy stating otherwise. See WP:FLAGCRUFT. Epic Genius (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

My position on the question of Flag Icons in Infoboxes can be pretty well summarized here, and I agree with others that Flag Icons in Infoboxes (excepting those Infobox parameters that are directly designed for flag images) are generally "fluff", superfluous, and unnecessary. Certainly, non-U.S. city articles generally don't use them (at least not for prominent cities such as London, Paris and Berlin, though there are definitely exceptions especially when you get down to some of the esoteric "village"-level articles where editors do like to sprinkle around Flag Icons in Infoboxes like elementary school stickers). But even more than my disdain for Infobox flags in city articles is my strong desire for some consistency on their use (or not) – we even see this in the U.S. city articles where some articles use Flag Icons in Infoboxes, and others don't. What I'd really most like to see here is just that some consensus be made, and applied across all U.S. city articles. There's no question that I certainly come down on the side of wanting all of the Flag Icons stripped out of U.S. city articles' Infoboxes (as I think that they are unnecessary, add no informational value, and are basically "decorative" rather than useful). But if the decision goes the other way, can we please at least make a concerted effort that the decision is implemented uniformly across all the U.S. city articles?!... --IJBall (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion has taken place here, and at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#WP:INFOBOXFLAG question. Both discussion have not led to consensus. There appears to be two issues. First, the policy outlined at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG needs to explicitly differentiate "human geographic articles" from articles which cover "both human and physical geographic subjects". Second, there is clearly a wide range of opinion about whether flags should even be used in the infoboxes about settlements such as cities, towns, and counties. Is there an editor who would be willing to prepare a proposal so we can obtain a wide range of opinions, and hopefully, consensus? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677 - Thanks for that info. I was sure that this had to have been discussed somewhere before, just didn't know where. I've never done a proposal before, so it probably would be a good exercise for me. I'll give it a whack over the next couple of days. When I have it ready, I'll put it on my sandbox, and let folks take a look at it. Onel5969 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Onel5969: – that sounds excellent. Please let us all know when you get further along in that process. As someone with pretty strong opinions on the subject, I look forward to taking part in the discussion on this... --IJBall (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• WRONG VENUE All of the cities affected are Canadian. This is the wrong place for this discussion. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually this is the right place for this particular discussion, even if it was started for the wrong reason... --IJBall (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually :) - the discussion, if you look at my original post, was started in the US Cities page, because an editor was making wholesale changes to US City pages. So, can't think of a more appropriate venue. The fact that the editor was doing that due to something which happened on a Canadian city page, only speaks to that editor's motivation, not to this discussion. Onel5969 (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The flags at that size are not comprehensible to most. Making them bigger will just draw to much attention to one part of the box as they already do a bit at the current size. So basically they are not needed...if they were there would be a parameter for them thus making then a readable/legible size. Thus my vote for any action would be remove....that said... decisions of this nature are hard to implement to say the least....as we are talking about so many pages. For some the norm is have them and other not to have them...its a hard one for such a small flag. -- Moxy (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but if a "consensus" policy is reached, then at least editors will have some justification to link to if/when they start removing Flag Icons from Infoboxes. (And, FTR, we seem to be moving closer to consensus to removing them from U.S. city articles' Infoboxes, from what I am seeing here...) --IJBall (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Unlike most of you guys I am for adding the flags because it is a quick visual indicator (without reading) to determine the country especially for those people who have some problems with their vision. Most other wikipedia cities have the flag and it would just be more consistent. For those arguing that the flags are "fluff", superfluous, and unnecessary, then so are pictures since you have the geocoordinates and the descriptions. The wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons States that flags are allowed on infoboxes for settlements "may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes". Lastly most of the largest cities all have flags (Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles,Boston, Baltimore, Chicago, New York City, Phoenix,San Antonio, San Diego) and it does not bother users. I do not see anyone complaining about them other than few people wanting them removed. --Cs california (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Official Website

I rewrote the "Official Website" tips section. I hope it's ok with everyone. If not, then throw rocks at me. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A top goal of community article editors should be to ensure each article has links to the official website. Please click links to validate they work, because some communities have changed their domain name. Please don't just delete the link, but instead please find the correct link and fix it. Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Global city

Greetings. Didn't we at some point discuss whether or not to include/exclude references to whether a city has a global city designation. While I didn't take part (at least I don't think I did), I seem to remember a discussion that it should not be included. Perhaps it was on the talk page of a city. But my memory is that it was being added to several cities a few months ago. Regardless, could we have a discussion now? Just trying to head off the potential for numerous discussions on different city talk pages. Personally, I definitely don't feel it should be in the lead, if it is included at all. Looking at the Wikipedia article, there are several different ways to classify cities, none of which are perfect. And if one is selected, not sure it should be the GaWC. If mentioned at all, I think it should be mentioned in the economy section. Thoughts? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Heading

Why is the state included in the name of the city in the infobox heading? The state is the name of the state, not part of the name of the city. People who don't know this might be confused by this convention. For almost all articles on WP the infobox heading reflects the undisambiguated name of the topic as displayed in the article title. Why are we treating US city names differently? --В²C ☎ 19:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It is common on Wikipedia to put the article name above the infobox, though in few situations where the article name doesn't include the state where the City, State should be put above the infobox. The name of article names were determined in the past by Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#United_States and each country is treated differently because of traditions / customs / laws in each country. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Why, say for San Francisco, should San Francisco, California be put above the infobox?

Because that was the convention which was decided upon by consensus. Your example is almost a unique situation. There are very few cities in the United States that don't need the state to disambiguate themselves, e.g. San Francisco, Los Angeles, NYC, Boston. But with the exception of SF, all those other names are used by other municipalities within the US. Boston is used in AL, GA, NY, etc.; New York in KY and TX; LA in TX; and so on. So although the decision was made (based on AP standards, I believe), to have the link to their article simply have the name of the city, the infobox gives the full description of the name. It's what the editors who work mainly on US city articles have decided by consensus. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I know that's what was decided. I'm asking for the reasons. So far it makes no sense to me. Not for San Francisco. Not for Boston. Not even for Portland. The convention for infobox headings on WP is to use the undisambiguated name of the article subject as the infobox heading. See, for example, that the infobox heading for London, Ontario is London. This is not cherry-picked WP:OTHERSTUFF, it's the way all articles, not just place name articles, are handled. The infobox heading for Boston, Lincolnshire is Boston, for another example. Portland for Portland, New South Wales, but Portland, Oregon for Portland, Oregon. Why? Why are US city articles not following this convention? And "it was decided by consensus" is not a (good) reason to be different. --В²C ☎ 02:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I recommend the "name=" infobox field should be "City, State" for all USA city articles, even for cities on the AP list that don't include the state in the article name. On a side note, I still feel the State should be in the article names for the AP city articles, but that's beating a dead horse, though it's how I would vote in the future if it ever gets argued again. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

B2C, "it was decided by consensus" is a very good reason when discussion led to that consensus. So in the case of Portland, Oregon, you do not wish the infobox title to match the article title? Omnedon (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus decided the naming convention for the articles, not the header for the infobox. The general use of the infobox in most articles (not just US cities) is to use the article title by default, but that's not a requirement at all. Because the infobox has options, those options are more than available as evidenced by several featured articles that do not use "city, state" in the infobox header (and not just major cities either). Remember, this is a guideline, not an exact requirement. The reader's understanding of the subject is not diminished because "city, state" isn't present on the header a few inches from the title. The reality is that because the infobox is already within the article, using parts of the article title that are there solely to disambiguate are no longer necessary, just like we wouldn't use anything from the title in parenthesis in an infobox header. This is especially important in township articles where the title convention is "city, county, state" making for an extra long and unwieldy infobox title that is completely unnecessary. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

To answer Omnedon - 1) Consensus decisions are presumably made for certain, hopefully good, reasons - I'm asking what those reasons are. Saying consensus is the reason is just circular. 2) The convention is for the infobox heading to match the undisambiguated title - like Boston for Boston, Lincolnshire. Portland for Portland, Oregon would be consistent with that convention; Portland, Oregon for Portland, Oregon is not.

Sbmeirow, what is the basis for your recommendation that the infobox heading for US cities be "City, state"? My recommendation is that we list just city the name, and the basis for that is that that is the convention for all articles on WP, including all non-US cities. I don't see a reason why US cities should be different. --В²C ☎ 21:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The general usage for infobox headings on WP is NOT "to use the article title by default". The general usage for infobox headings on WP IS "to use the undisambiguated title by default". Why should the infobox headings for US city articles not follow this convention? --В²C ☎ 21:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Where is this usage defined? Omnedon (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Usage by definition is defined implicitly in, you know, usage. The only way I know to objectively assess usage on WP is with SPECIAL:RANDOM, as we've done here: Talk:Hillary_Clinton#SPECIAL:RANDOM_selected_examples. That list clearly shows that general usage for infobox headings on WP is "to use the undisambiguated title by default". I am not aware of any good reason for the infobox headings for US city articles to not also follow this implicit convention. Are you? Anyone? --В²C ☎ 20:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

So there is no policy or guideline that says this should be done, then? At HRC you said the infobox heading should match the title. Are you now changing your mind? Because if we go by what you said at HRC, then the infobox at "Portland, Oregon" should say "Portland, Oregon", as it does. Omnedon (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

For incorporated communities, I still feel "City, State" should be shown above the infobox, even for the largest cities that don't have the state in the article title. For example, the article Dallas should have the name "Dallas, Texas" above its infobox, which it currently does. Why, because some Americans don't have a clue in which state some cities are located, and I wouldn't doubt that its a lower percentage for non-Americans. If you mail a package, you don't leave off the STATE name for the largest cities in the USA, and the same goes when you fill out forms, because they always expect you to enter the city and state. For the most part, city & state is expected is far more situations than not. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

For unincorporated communities, I feel it should be similar to the incorporated communities when possible, except for naming conflicts, but still it should have the State name above the infobox. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

For neighborhoods within large city, I think the current trend is "Community Name". For example, the article La Jolla has the name "La Jolla" above its infobox. I don't have enough experience with these types of articles to argue about naming. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

For other communities, naming isn't always obvious, especially with naming conflicts, so it's not easy to state a hard rule here. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Omnedon, the undocumented convention clearly followed by many more editors than ever participate in any one discussion is that the infobox heading matches the undisambiguated title. In contexts where the title is not disambiguated, like at Hillary Clinton, sometimes we don't bother pointing out the undisambiguated aspect of that convention because it's irrelevant in that context. But the fact remains that disambiguation in the title is rarely reflected in the infobox heading. Now at least Sbmeirow has provided at least some semblance of a reason to make US cities an exception. I fail to see how conventions about addressing packages for shipping apply here, but whatever. --В²C ☎ 18:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no such convention. It seems that by default, infoboxes tend to use the article title if the name is not specified. I see no evidence that masses of editors are picking the infobox heading as you suggest. Omnedon (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It is true that the default for infoboxes is to use the article title if the name is not specified. However, leaving off the disambiguation is not the default - editors have to explicitly choose to enter the name without the disambiguation in there to have the infobox heading reflect the title without disambiguation, and that most definitely is the convention for articles with disambiguated titles, which is what is relevant here. That's what editors do about as unanimously as editors do anything unanimously on WP. That's as strong as evidence for consensus-supported convention can be. --В²C ☎ 19:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Most definitely? Based on what evidence? Omnedon (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Any SPECIAL:RANDOM survey of 10 or more articles with disambiguated titles demonstrates the convention to leave off the disambiguation in the infobox heading is ubiquitous among articles with disambiguated titles.

• Prince Ali (song) Prince Ali
• Vest (development region) Vest
• Bittou Department Bittou
• Kuyupınar, Göynük Kuyupınar
• St. Mary Roman Catholic Church (Detroit) St. Mary Roman Catholic Church
• Hasanabad, Kojur Hasanabad
• José Alonso (actor) José Alonso
• Kozy, West Pomeranian Voivodeship Kozy
• Mount Bigelow (Maine) Mount Bigelow
• Fortress (Miniature Tigers album) Fortress

If you're not convinced, try it yourself. Note how many articles with disambiguated titles but without disambiguation in the infobox heading you have to sift through before you find one with disambiguation in the infobox heading, especially if you don't count articles about US cities. --В²C ☎ 20:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it's the consensus. The US City project decided to adopt this style. It's been the consensus for quite a while, if you wish to change it, open an RfC. That would be the appropriate venue. Maybe attitudes have changed since the last consensus was reached.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

B2C, you can cherry-pick all you want. Ten articles out of all the available choices doesn't show that a convention exists. As Onel5969 says, this is the way it works for US places. Even if there was a general convention, it would not mean that it would have to be applied universally. There are reasons for the current usage. Omnedon (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Using SPECIAL:RANDOM to pick articles is the opposite of cherry picking. You get that, right? Ten articles is a decent sample size. Considering not one exception was found among them, and they were chosen randomly, that is enough to demonstrate the convention exists and is followed to a high degree.

Onel5969, I wouldn't start an rfc without first making sure there isn't some obvious good reason for the way it's done now. Apparently, there isn't. I suspect people did not realize they were bucking convention when this decision was made. That said, it is also apparent that some just like it this way and don't care about convention. I'll think about it. --В²C ☎ 02:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL -- that's easy to say. In any case, there is very good reason for the current usage here. Omnedon (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

It's much easier to claim a "very good reason" exists for a given WP:JDLI position than to actually state what the reason is, much less explain why it's "very good". --В²C ☎ 16:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Search for the discussions. I'm not going to repeat it for you here. Omnedon (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

B2C: No, I'm afraid you're confusing two distinct things: titles with elements that we choose and append strictly for disambiguation – e.g., Prince Ali (song) – and titles with elements that are present because they're also part of the common name – e.g., Missoula, Montana. As you should know, the addition of the state is not solely for disambiguation; it's also because the city, state construction is the common form frequently used by reliable sources to identify even otherwise uniquely-named places in the US. That this is so has been well-established in the many discussions at WP:USPLACE and is noted at WP:PERENNIAL, and is one of the reasons for the convention's continued retention.

Applied more widely, what you propose might just as easily argue for changing Oprah Winfrey's infobox title to just "Oprah", on the grounds that "Winfrey" is an unnecessary disambiguator due to the fact that there are no other notable Oprahs. This would of course be silly because Winfrey is not just a disambiguator, it's part of the name by which the subject is commonly known in many significant reliable sources, to say nothing of the fact that we have a specific convention governing how we handle such names. Likewise for US places. (Plus, as you yourself strongly argue elsewhere, it's Wikipedia's normal practice for infobox headings to reflect the form followed by the title.)

That said, if for some hypothetical sensible reason we needed to use the article title "Missoula, Montana (city)", then I'd probably agree that that parenthetical disambiguator "(city)" should be dropped from the heading of the infobox, which is the kind of thing your examples predominantly demonstrate. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's recognize that natural disambiguation is still disambiguation (see my list of RANDOM examples above, like the infobox heading for Hasanabad, Kojur is Hasanabad). But, okay, in some sense Missoula, Montana is a name for Missoula, but then Hamilton, Ontario is a name of that city in that same sense, and yet its infobox heading is Ontario. The convention for geographical places is to leave off the name of any larger geographical area included in the title in the infobox heading, except for US cities. Why the exception? It's a lack of consistency from a global perspective. --В²C ☎ 02:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You keep asking why. The answer is in the talk archives. You've participated in the past, as have many, many other editors. You know there has been extensive discussion. There's no point in simply asking "why" over and over, when the answer is available to you. Omnedon (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I started this section with the question. If the answer is in the talk archives, why in all of the bytes posted in response to my question is the supposed answer not simply restated here? What's so hard about that? Look, I get that in the US city, state is considered a name more than for other places, but it's not like "Hamilton, Ontario" is not a name for that city. Yet it being a name is not reason enough to use it in the infobox heading instead of just Hamilton. And it's not like you, among others, have not tried to answer. So far we have:

• "It is common on Wikipedia to put the article name above the infobox"
  • Indeed, but the convention as demonstrated by any random (not-cherry-picked) survey of titles is to omit any parenthetic or natural disambiguation from the infobox heading when the title is disambiguated.
• "Because that was the convention which was decided upon by consensus."
  • Of course. But why?
• "because some Americans don't have a clue in which state some cities are located, and I wouldn't doubt that its a lower percentage for non-Americans."
  • So what? Are the numbers significantly different for how many Canadians and Australians know in which provinces their cities are located in? Why is many not knowing the larger geographical region a given city is in a reason to include the name of that region in the infobox heading for US city articles, but not for non-US city articles?
• "the city, state construction is the common form frequently used by reliable sources to identify even otherwise uniquely-named places in the US."
  • Reliable sources including the larger geographical region to identify a place is not a characteristic unique to US cities, and yet it is used as a reason to include the name of the larger region in the infobox heading only for US cities. Why?

The inability of anyone to state a good reason that infobox headings of US city articles should be treated differently is telling. How can any reasonable person conclude anything besides there is no good reason to treat the infobox headings of US city articles differently? --В²C ☎ 16:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth should someone else go gather that information for you? What is so hard about doing it yourself? I mean, you participated in at least some of it yourself. In any case, Huwmanbeing and Sbmeirow have both given you some very useful information right here. This is a classic case of WP:IDHT, which is not surprising. Omnedon (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The only IDHT going on here is by you, who refers to what Huwmanbeing and Sbmeirow have said, but says nothing about my explanation of why their responses are not answers to the question. It's like you didn't hear that... --В²C ☎ 18:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

But they are answers. You just don't like them and choose to disregard them. Dig further, or please stop asking. Omnedon (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, they are answers. The same way that "herring" is an answer to "why did the police shoot that unarmed man?" I don't "'just' don't like them" and "chose" to disregard them - I go to great lengths to clearly explain why they are not reasonable answers; explanations that you ignore. It's like you don't hear them. --В²C ☎ 20:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

B2C: No, you're still clinging to mistaken assertions. Again: the appended state in this case is not simply disambiguation, natural or otherwise; it's also common usage as demonstrated by reliable sources, a point that's been repeatedly reaffirmed by the community that has consistently chosen to uphold and retain the convention – in discussions where you yourself have frequently participated. If we're looking for things that are telling, your refusal to hear that is certainly one.

Also, regarding examples like Hamilton: Hamilton is in Canada. Canada is not the US. Naming practices differ between countries, so the "Canada does it differently" argument doesn't mean much. Things like USPLACE and the US guidelines of the Cities WikiProject reflect the practices and conventions of the US, while areas outside the US may have their own guidelines which reflect local conventions there. Rather than enforce absolute homogeneity, Wikipedia has chosen to reflect some of those variations through the establishment of region-specific guidelines. That's reasonable. You're free to say otherwise, but please understand that doing so puts you at odds with a fairly fundamental and long-standing aspect of Wikipedia practice that IMHO you're unlikely to overturn. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The naming practices in Canada are not different. That's the point. Hamilton, Ontario is just as natural and just as much the name of that city as Portland, Maine is for that city. Canada does not do it differently from the US. And the way we treat infobox headings in Canadian city articles is the same, not different, as we treat infobox headings in all other city articles, except for those in the US. So despite the Canadian and US city naming practices being the same, WP infobox heading practices for these articles are not the same. Why? --В²C ☎ 20:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

What makes you believe that Canadian and US city naming practices are the same? Omnedon (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Usage in reliable sources. Here, for example, is how Hamilton, Ontario is referenced in the NY Times: HAMILTON, Ontario. [1]. How about Missoula, Montana? MISSOULA, Mont. [2] Huh. Okay, but that's an American source. Well, the Canadians do it too[3]. And it's in their addresses as well[4] If there is a difference in Canadian and US city naming practices in reliable sources, I'm not aware of it. Are you? --В²C ☎ 23:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to practices here on Wikipedia. Yes, in the real world, the practices are similar. Regrettably the same guidelines aren't applied to Canadian place articles. Omnedon (talk) 23:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would you think "naming practices in Canada" refers to "naming practices on WP about places in Canada"? Anyway, glad we figured that out. Sheesh. --В²C ☎ 01:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

B2C: Naming practices in Canada are identical to those in the US? Perhaps you should try replacing WP:MOS/Canada-related_articles#Places with a redirect to WP:USPLACE and observe the result. I'll have a bucket of popcorn ready. :)

Seriously, though: naming practices in Canada, Iran, Poland, or Burkina Faso don't determine US naming guidelines, US practices do, and the community has determined (repeatedly) that they support the current convention. If you honestly feel you can make the case that Canada is similar enough to the US that it should also follow US-style placename guidelines, that's fine, but that's a separate proposal that should be raised in another more appropriate forum.

Put simply, your push for "global consistency" is at odds with the reality that the globe itself is not consistent. We could strain for a completely homogenous treatment of the world's many heterogenous places, but we don't; instead we consider common usage within regions and make judgments about how and when to adapt our conventions. You may not like that that's how it works, but that's how it works. If you want to abolish regional variations in Wikipedia's treatment of the world's places, you're welcome to try, but (again) I think you'll find it's a battle so uphill as to be practically vertical. ╠╣uw [talk] 00:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Please distinguish "naming practices in Canada" (and in the US) from "naming practices on WP about places in Canada" (and in the US). Naming practices on WP are supposed to reflect naming practices in the real world. In the real world, city naming practices in Canada and the USA are similar. Why are they not similar on WP? The naming on WP for Canadian cities doesn't use the real-world practice of often including the name of the province when referring to the city as an excuse to include the province in the infobox heading for the article about the Canadian city; why do we use that similar real-world practice with respect to US cities and states as an excuse for including the state in the infobox heading of the article about the US city? --В²C ☎ 01:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

At some point, this got completely absurd. There have been numerous reasons cited, several others spoken about, which the editor who opened this discussion doesn't feel the need to take the time to explore. They would rather go on incessantly here, wasting other editors time, while ignoring consensus and calm rational reasons. To keep saying "why", and ignoring reasons is simply argumentative at this point. The editor has the option to open an RfC. Regardless, the complete repetitive "why", while ignoring any reason makes this a pointless discussion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

With this edit, I listed every reason given here. I then addressed each one, explaining why I believe each is not a good reason. That's the opposite of ignoring. You're the one ignoring - you, and the other defenders of this oddball convention, are ignoring what I'm saying. You're not even acknowledging what I'm saying, and you have the gall to accuse me of ignoring what you're saying.

Whatever, this is not that important, except it's just disappointing, frankly. --В²C ☎ 05:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Native name added to lead sections

An editor has been adding the Native Indian names to several US cities, such as Black River Falls, Wisconsin. I have seen these added to other US city/town articles, but have not found anything about this practise here at WikiProject Cities/US Guideline or elsewhere. Was there a consensus reached about this, or is there some policy about adding translated Native names? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be doing it at several Wisconsin pages. Patent nonsense. The settlement template for the infobox says "Name in the local language, if different from name, and if not English." These are not the local language, and have never been used to refer to the existing city. Perhaps we should make a specific notation on the guidelines page regarding the lead? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The IP has finally opened a discussion on the Madison talk page, here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I could see this possibly being a list article, List of Winnebago language names for cities, but I see no need to have this in the first sentence of numerous city articles. Additionally, names the IP is adding seem to conflict with older references, ie. Milwaukee = Tešišik or Teešíšik 'eeja.[5] [6] --Dual Freq (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Further reading" section of city articles

I have started a discussion at Village pump (policy) regarding the "further reading" sections of city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

When are notable people significant residents?

Quote: "Provide information, preferably in prose form, of any famous or notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city."

What is a significant amount of time?

There is a current discussion about this on Talk:Calabasas. Calabasas is a typical town where all kinds of celebreties buy expensive mansions only to leave again after a couple of years, but there are also notable residents that were not born there, but did grow up there or are doing so (the town is expanding). We need some kind of general consensus though to apply to every town. Lyrda (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The best practice is to provide proper context for the connection between a notable person and a specific town. For instance, saying so-and-so grew up in the town or so-and-so lived in the town for a few years rather than just listing people and why they're notable overall. That's why prose is better than a list. It's also important for instances like when someone is born in a city because that city has the main hospital, but that's their only connection to the city; their family wasn't living there and they didn't grow up or live there themselves. Another issue I've run into is for notable people who are connected to a town because they went to college there. In those cases, the practice has been to list them on the alumni page for whatever school is there, but not on the list of notable people from that town (unless they were already from there or lived there after school). In the Kent, Ohio#Notable people section, some alumni are mentioned, but in the context of them being alumni of the university. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not even verified properly in her article. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, of course it goes without saying (or does it?) the context and connection need to include reliable sources :) --JonRidinger (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Many town articles just contain lists though, as if it were a category. Meanwhile, the actual category (People from ...) is often missing on the person's own article. Lyrda (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Even in lists, the connection to the particular town can be mentioned along with the reason for notability. For instance:

• So-and-so Smith, an actor and noted physicist; grew up in Nowheresville
• So-and-so Martin, professional baseball player in Major League Baseball; born in Nowheresville
• So-and-so Jones, musician and author; lived in Nowheresville for many years (or the years could be specified)

And of course each would need a reliable source to verify the connection to the given town. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

As for the category, I've only seen such categories where there are a decent number of people from a given place. If the category hasn't been added to that person's article, it either doesn't exist/hasn't been created, or just hasn't been added yet. All depends on who is editing and how much attention is being given to that particular person and town article. Another point to make is to make sure people added to lists actually live IN a given town (i.e. within the town limits), not near it. We have articles for every location so can be precise in location. If they live in an adjacent township or in unincorporated areas of a county, that's where they should be listed, again, with reliable sources to verify. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

If I don't see the city listed in "notable persons" wiki article, then I remove the person from the city article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. In addition, even if the city is noted in the person's article, but is uncited, I'll leave a cn tag on the article, and remove it from the notable person list. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding dual-maps displaying both the Contiguous United States and the city's State

I propose that it is deemed appropriate to add dual-maps to all towns and cities in the United States, as it is beneficial for readers to have this information. Please provide your input so that a consensus can be established. This will not only resolve a current dispute over the City of Norwalk, Connecticut, but also establish a Status Quo. Thanks!--AirportExpert (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert

This was discussed previously by User:JonRidinger at Talk:Franklin Township, Portage County, Ohio#Settlement Infobox, and also here with no consensus. I support the use of multiple infobox maps, particularly on stub settlement articles where readers would benefit from seeing the location of a lesser-known place on a full US map. Template:Infobox settlement has perimeters to support multiple maps, and both examples there show two maps (a US pushpin and a state). Magnolia677 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

That was discussed between me and one other editor eight years ago on a very low-traffic page, so no real chance for consensus. It was also before the current parameter was added that lets editors have multiple maps in the same spot and was when pushpin maps were less used than they are now and most location articles still had the "dot-on" maps. I seem to remember the map issue (particularly the maps showing the boundaries of a specific locality) being discussed fairly recently as well, but can't remember where. Since the map parameters are there, I see no reason why the state and US maps can't be used in the infobox and have added them on quite a few articles already, including Kent, Ohio. There are benefits to all three levels of maps, even the ones that show the city/town boundaries within a given county. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The infobox can be easily over expanded this way, causing article clutter. The image maps should be able to show the location in the state and county. We don't need a second set of maps to convey this exact same point. —JJBers 20:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed that the one map showing location in county and state is all you need for the majority of municipalities. Those fancy three-part maps aren't nearly as accessible, especially on mobile devices where clicking the points for county vs. state vs. country is difficult.

And as said before, when an article like Norwalk, Connecticut already has a map showing its location in the county and state, it's useless to expand an already-too-large infobox to show basically only the state's location in the country. And if you don't know where Connecticut is in the US, that's why we link the state in the infobox and in the first sentence of the article (and you probably wouldn't be at an article on a small city like this anyway). So please stop adding these maps; I'd argue it's really only relevant for a city's place in the US when it's one of the top cities, i.e. the global cities in the US. So if you only check precedents that are major cities (like the articles on Chicago, New York City, and Miami), of course they're going to show the location in the country. But for small cities nobody outside of the US has ever even heard of, it's silly, excessive, and ridiculous. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I also think this is a very poor forum for this; this is not a heavily-trafficked area, so instead, opening a formal RfC in a larger place and contacting multiple city/general municipal WikiProjects will gain a much more fair, broad, and open consensus. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox settlement, which is used on 460,000+ Wikipedia articles, was a product of a consensus of editors, and that template has parameters for adding multiple maps regardless of the size of the article. There is nothing prohibiting the use of multiple maps. When readers view Gifford, Idaho, it's important they have an opportunity to view Gifford's location within the United States. If a state map is also available, even better. Infoboxes on stubs are always longer than the article anyway, so what's the sudden priority to shortchanging a stub article's infobox? We could remove Gifford's "silly, excessive, and ridiculous" elevation, time zone and area codes too if we're really pressed for space. Imagine the clutter if Gifford ever elected a mayor! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice example, linking an article I should AfD right now for barely any sources, barely any worthwhile content, and nothing really unique to the place at all. It's not even legally recognized, without even Census data, its own post office, fire company, or really anything else that makes a row of houses something distinct or independent. Your parameter argument is irrelevant; lots of infoboxes have parameters not relevant to specific articles. The maps are okay for global cities, like I said. And yes, stubs have many problems to fix. Overwhelmingly long infoboxes is certainly one of those problems. Let's AfD Gifford, this is ridiculous to have an article on what looks like only maybe five tiny farms in the dead middle of nowhere. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Just because one random stub uses it, doesn't mean it should be applied to every article. —JJBers 23:19, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please read this discussion from 2015: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 18#Should infoboxes for USA towns have US pushpin maps?. You'll note this issue was discussed extensively and no consensus was reached either way. I imagine a new discussion will produce similar results. There was also an earlier discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 11#US City Maps. And no, many articles use the multiple maps parameter, not just some "random stub", even some Featured ones. See Kent, Ohio and Ann Arbor, Michigan among others. The reality is that there's no consensus to use the US map, but there's also no prohibition against using it. I'd rather see the county map included in the display option too so only one map is showing, but all three are available. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Both of those were last promoted/reviewed in 2010. Things have changed since 2010... —JJBers 23:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Definitely a 7/8-year-old precedent on the Internet is remarkably weak, considering how quickly things are changed around here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The point was that it's not just used in a "random stub" as was previously stated. In addition to those articles, there are quite a few examples of it being used. Again, there's no prohibition against its usage and no opposition was raised in adding it as a parameter to the settlement infobox or any other infobox it's used in (such as the venues infobox). --JonRidinger (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

So if there's also no consensus for its keeping just the same as removing, then we should again just establish consensus between us Norwalk editors? As for your other point - I could also find many FAs that similarly don't have the US map, including my two last FAs on a municipality, where not a single person brought up the lack of a US map? Really, if anyone truly doesn't know where the state is within the country, there's a dozen links to the state and county that could quickly and easily answer that. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 23:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe this is just going to end having to go on a article by article basis at this point. I propose removing it for at least municipalities in Connecticut for now. —JJBers 00:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that proposal would find any more consensus than including them would. In the end, yeah, it's more of a local issue and will likely be a case-by-case basis. Using the multiple maps option isn't required, but it also won't prevent an article from becoming FA. It's still a relatively new option (last 2-3 years if I'm remembering right...at least that I've been aware) for infoboxes that many likely aren't even aware of. In the end, the guidelines here are just that: guidelines, not requirements. There's still quite a bit of flexibility in those guidelines in terms of images, maps, number of sections, order of sections, etc. The varying degrees of maps in articles is a reflection on that flexibility, the evolution of city articles in general (and the FAC process), and the obvious differences in editor preferences. I obviously prefer and recommend having the pushpin maps to show the city's location in the state and country, and then the county map to show its position there, not only so the article can stand on its own, but because the parameter exists for its inclusion in the infobox. --JonRidinger (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:INFOBOXUSE says that Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. So it does look like case-by-case discussion is the right path. —hike395 (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Can we remove the dual maps on all Connecticut municipality articles, since that's already well covered with other maps. (There is no CT municipality articles without a image map in them) —JJBers 00:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

My rationale for keeping the maps on both significant and insignificant pages (such as Miami compared to Norwalk), is that anyone viewing a page such as Miami is more likely know it is located in the State of Florida, rather than someone reading about Norwalk to know its location due to its lesser significance, making the map much more useful. Secondly, if the argument is that the maps should be removed due to their difficulty to read on certain devices (i.e. mobile devices), unless you are willing to remove these maps as well from articles such as Miami, I feel as if this is a straw man argument. The maps look the same on both articles, so if you remove it on one for this reason, you must remove it from the other. Thank you.--AirportExpert (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert

It still doesn't make a sense to keep it. Norwalk is shown and told multiple times that it's located in Connecticut. We don't need to tell readers again what state it's located. —JJBers 16:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

So is Miami and New York City. Would you be willing to remove it from these pages as well?--AirportExpert (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert

Yes, but we're just talking about Connecticut here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:29, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not my point. I want to create a consensus for every city. Why would this rule apply to CT, and not other states?--AirportExpert (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert

It's not going to happen, like Jon pointed out. We're not going to reach a general consensus, but JJBers and I are just talking about the Connecticut articles, and so far, we agree on removing the national pushpins. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@AirportExpert: This is going by a local basis. Stop arguing the fact that it should be applied everywhere, it won't. —JJBers 20:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I do not support this proposal for reasons already discussed. The pushpin map is beneficial and should not be removed or excluded from Connecticut settlement articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@JJBers: You are misunderstanding my point. I am simply asking the question of why this consensus only applies to CT and not anywhere else? This will help us determine the best possible solution for CT in regard to this matter. If the Consensus in for example, FL and NY is to keep them, why can't CT do the same? It seems to be a waste of time to go on a case-by-case basis, and argue about this for each city, or state for that matter.--AirportExpert (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)AirportExpert

(←) Listen, it's obvious we're never going to agree over the use of the map. Not every Wikipedia article has to be identical, it's fine for the ones you're passionate about to have the map. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the pin on the map is basically the same size as Connecticut means it really isn't much change between cities, making them look they're all in the same area. I feel that the whole push-pin map should be removed the Connecticut. Any other state...let the discussion fly. — JJBers 15:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The pushpin maps provide a visual to establish location relative to the country as a whole and/or the state. The dot being roughly the same size as the state on the US map is irrelevant. For Norwalk, a reader sees that map and can clearly see that the city is located along the east coast of the US in the northeastern part of the country. If they want to see the state map for a closer look, that option is readily available. But no, I think a proposal that unilaterally restricts a valid parameter is a bad idea, particularly for just one state. It would be one thing if we were talking about restricting the use of the "free text" or "free label" parameters for additional info (like how some infoboxes have the city council members listed and state reps), but not for a regularly used and perfectly reasonable option, especially in articles that are about specific locations and maps are the best way to illustrate that. Again, it's going to have to be a case-by-case basis. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with your reasoning entirely, but again, we're beating a dead horse here. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Since we're beating a dead horse, I deiced to go back to the original terms, pre-discussion. Requesting non-WP:INVOLVED close. — JJBers 17:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

And also, here's an article that does use the push-pin map with out dual mode on. Scranton, Pennsylvania. —JJBers 01:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Please Note - This is currently being discussed at Talk:Middlebury, Connecticut#RfC about pushpin map in infobox. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

History section instructions

This may have been covered, as I didn't do any research but I thought I would note my opinion. Instructions concerning the history section, and length, discourages using "second-level headings" as they purportedly encourage history sections that are too long. I totally agree with this on say a B-class or above, or even a well structured C-class, that has not yet qualified for B-class. A problem I have with too tight of "instructions", aside from the fact that "anyone" is encouraged to edit Wikipedia, is that as an article progresses through stages there may be some "sloppiness", or even things not exactly picture perfect according to "instructions". A newer editor adds to a forming article, what he or she deems interesting history, a relevantly named subsection, content, and reference(s). A "Johnny-Be-Good" editor, following protocol, strikes out the sub-section with some edit summary "we don't do it like that". That is fine if at that time there is enough content to branch out a "History of_" article then using the "Main" template. If an article is Start-class or a lower C-class there should be no "do it by the book" that might stifle some good editing that could be used to create a "History of_" article.

I realize this is an essay, and not a policy or guideline, but the noose is there to be tightened without some sort of exception to the "rule". Once a practice has been in effect for awhile it becomes a defacto guideline. The well meaning Barney Fife with one bullet protectionist editor (nothing wrong with protecting articles) may not observe that the history section is not really too long, or that in some cases it isn't as important to worry about a possible unnecessary sub-section, over good editing that can provide content for a future spin-off. Otr500 (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

How long living in a city to be notable there?

How long does a person need to live in a place to be considered notable there? Your input is welcome at Talk:Odessa, Texas#Roy Orbison on notable people list. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Essay or guideline?

This page opens with the two statements "This page is an essay..." and "This is a guideline..." Which is correct?

If it's an essay, the paragraph calling it a guideline should be removed (or better, reworded, since much of what is has, other than the "guideline" label is useful), and it should be renamed from "US Guideline"; if a guideline, the {{WikiProject style advice}} template (which generates the "essay" box) should be removed.

Policies and guidelines and The difference between policies, guidelines and essays may be helpful in reaching a decision; also WP:Essays.

I see the distinction has come up on at least one talk page, with two editors arguing over whether it is a "guideline" or "merely an essay," so it's probably worth clarifying. TJRC (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)