User talk:Ufwuct/Metro Area Guidelines

Some thoughts about possible guidelines for Wikiproject:United States Metropolitan Areas:

Guidelines

1. For articles about U.S. metropolitan areas, only official names and definitions (i.e., which cities and areas belong to the metro area) from the U.S. Census Bureau from the most recent decennial census (2000) are relevant.
2. Any mention of the CSA within a U.S. metropolitan area article should be secondary and de-emphasized so as not to confuse the reader.
3. Only official population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau should be listed. The official population estimate for the Metropolitan Area from the most recent decennial census should always be listed in the article, in addition to the most recent annual estimate.
4. The ranking of U.S. metropolitan areas should be based on the most recent U.S. Census Bureau population estimate for each metropolitan area. The population of a CSA is rarely the same as that of the metropolitan area and it is misleading to rank metropolitan areas according to CSAs.
5. A wikipedian's guess of what he/she thinks the U.S. Census Bureau will report in its upcoming (unpublished) population estimates are not relevant and should not be added to any article.
6. Estimates from travel websites, city Chamber of Commerce sources, city planning boards, etc. should not be mentioned where more reliable U.S. Census Bureau data is available. This should include ALL U.S. metropolitan areas.

Ufwuct 23:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caveats

Please take note that the U.S. Census Bureau has revised their definitions for many metropolitan areas in the past (adding or subtracting counties) and will likely do so in the future.

Also, please realize that many Wikipedians take a lot of pride in the cities and/or metropolitan areas in which they live (/have lived/want to live/have relatives, etc.). This is great when it helps to create better articles about U.S. metropolitan areas or cities. When it leads to edit wars, personal attacks, revert wars, vandalism, or insertion of erroneous sources or information, this is not acceptable. These guidelines are being put forth in an effort to reduce this type of detrimental behavior.

Although I have started this discussion, I don't "own" the project in any way, and I fully expect (and hope) that others will offer ideas on how to standardize these articles and how to make the atmosphere a bit more civil. Newcomers are also welcome to offer their opinions. Ufwuct 23:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard structure ?

I'm not sure if it's necessary yet, but I would like to hear opinions on a standard structure for U.S. metro areas articles. This one may be a little too structured for U.S. metro area articles; maybe a something a bit less rigid (yet still standardized) would work. Ufwuct 23:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]