Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Suggestion: rename project

To WikiProject Urban Settlements or something similar. WikiProject Cities tags are and will be used most of the time (90%+?) on villages and such (as they are more popular), and seeing the WP:CITY tag on villages is a bit confusing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So, if the article is about a small non-urban podunk town in the middle of B.F.E., it wouldn't be included? No, need to answer that, but maybe leave off the urban part. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 14:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Wikipedia:WikiProject Settlements then? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the name works just fine... I believe "city" is generic enough. Really, I don't think anybody really pays too much attention to the names of WikiProjects or would be confused if some BFE town was marked with the WikiProject Cities tag. There doesn't seem to be too much obvious benefit to such a rename. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 21:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't raise the issues if it were just towns. The thing is, as I wrote above, the tag is used on a lot of villages - probably more then cities and towns - and this is confusing.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Does raise objection in the UK from time to time. City status in the United Kingdom is honorific and something quite different to the rest of the world. I'd support WP:SETTLEMENTS but won't lose any sleep over it. --Jza84 | Talk 21:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to stand in opposition to the rename if there's a clear consensus among other editors. However, I'm typically against making such superficial changes without at least some evidence that there is some actual hardship caused to readers. Saying that something could be confusing doesn't mean that it is. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 23:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you certainly confused me - see below. Ben Mac Dui 13:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Cities/Settlements in California

If anybody is working on any sort of populated place (past or present) in California this book has some good information. It just has short snippets on each place name, but I've been using it for cities, unincorporated communities, and ghost towns in Yolo County, and it has been a great resource. Just wanted to share it if anybody is interested. Killiondude (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh I forgot to mention that almost the entire book is available to "preview" with Google Books. I've been using it entirely online. Killiondude (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

City population and area numbers

I'd hoped to better structure this since it's been bugging me for a while, but I've basically laid it out at Talk:Athens#Population_figures_.2F_infobox in response to a little population figure editwar going on there. Basically, where does the authoritative data for population of city, metro and urban areas come from? Best or latest? These numbers get changed on a daily basis, in every city article. Is there a best practice or can we create one? Census data tends to be every ten years, new figures come out much more often - which wins? Franamax (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

All US population figures come from the US Census Bureau. We post whatever their latest estimate is for each city.--Loodog (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Statistics Canada conducts a census every five years, and these should be considered authoritative for population and other demographic data. I use this data exclusively for the infobox and article intro. Provincial, regional and municipal governments may provide annual population and other estimates, which may be used for elaboration in the demographics section of each article. Mind matrix 00:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Airports...and other resources

Most major cities do not have airports! They normally require two mile runways which won't fit into most major cities which are urbanized. Airports properly belong in the metro article which encompasses the city and/or the higher level geographical grouping such as "state", "county", "province," etc. And generally, places, unlike WikiTravel, should not be looked upon as portals to another area. That is a tourist outlook. So I don't read the Paris article to see information about Versailles or Chartres, which are properly in other articles. I do read the Paris article to learn (or get a link to) the Louvre, Arch de Triomphe, and the Eiffel Tower, which are properly within the context of "Paris." We need help with this. Editors are putting anything "within sight" into articles with clear geographic and governmental boundaries. In Wikipedia, articles have clear boundaries. All an editor needs to do is stick to the WP:TOPIC. Student7 (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it depend on whether the article deals with any local government district which may be greater than the central built-up core (which may be thought of as "the city")? If it does, then details about an airport might be quite properly placed within that article. That is why your original pre-emptive change to WP:UKCITIES has been reverted, and a much clearer description of what might acceptable added. DDStretch (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In an article about a city, I would find omitting any mention in the Transport section of the major airports serving a city to be a serious flaw. older ≠ wiser 21:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the two posts above me. The San Francisco Airport is about 10 miles outside of the city limits, in another county actually. I don't see the sense in placing stuff about SFO in San Bruno or South San Francisco's articles (because geographically they are closer). If one goes to the SF City article, they'd expect to see something about the SF Airport. Killiondude (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, most place articles don't take credit for facilities they don't have. Second, one of the reasons for metro articles is to include everything in the region.

Third, if you think it through, why would anyone be interested in a facility that isn't there? You are WP:BIASed into thinking that WP:TRAVEL choices of a city are more important than, say the toilet paper they use, which is far more useful. Why not mention selecting Charmin over Bounty? Or their choice of Toyota (maybe not SF, but most places people have cars) over GM. These are simply travel choices, like TP choices. They are no more important to a casual reader than anything other irrelevant fact. Young people sometime view the place where they live (a city) as a portal to visit someplace else where they will be happier. It's fine for them to think that, but articles shouldn't be WP:BIASed in that fashion.

I would hate to see all suburbs surrounding a city to be described as a chopped down article of the metro, but that is what could happen if this error in logic is allowed to persist. (For staters, for 50 suburbs all surrounding a city claiming an airport that isn't there! If the city can do it why not each individual suburb?) Fortunately most don't at this point. Let's keep it that way. Student7 (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to understand why you would expect that the major airports serving a city would not be mentioned in the Transport section. Regardless of where it is physically located, a major airport is an integral part of the economic infrastructure of a city. older ≠ wiser 16:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Student7: Although your slightly over the top purported analogies about toilet paper are in a small way amusing, they do not help the situation, except perhaps to give the impression that attempts are being made to caricature the position you seem opposed to, which is hardly a helpful technique of argument here, and which may, in fact, backfire (though not, I hope, in any toilet-related manner).

The problem is that you altered, unilaterally, the guidelines both for WP:USCITY and WP:UKCITIES so that they reflected the position you feel ought to apply here, and you did this shortly after you started to remove material from a number of articles about airports. You then raised the issue both here and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Airports...and other resources, in this last case only after I had reverted the changes you had made to the UKCITIES guidlines and made some modifications to make the advice more clear. You then continued to remove sections about airports from various articles.

Most of these changes, but not all of them as I write this, have been reverted. It is clear that you do not appear to have consensus yet for the changes you are making, and so, pending a consensus view emerging, I suggest that you revert your own changes so as not to preempt the results of any discussion here. Whatever happens, I think it would be very unwise of you to carry on making any more removals of material about airports until the matter is further discussed. There is a fine line to be drawn between being WP:BOLD and being reckless, and I hope that the view is that you have not crossed that line from being bold into being reckless, but I imagine that any further removals until the matter is resolved would be viewed as being reckless.

I also think that the choice of some of the edit summaries used in removing the material are not particularly helpful: this summary and this summary, for instance, suggests that honest attempts to add material to articles by established editors are instances of confusing wikipedia with wikitravel. This seems to me, and possibly others, to be an exaggeration in that it pre-supposes that your interpretation of the various guidelines is the only one and widely accepted, which we are disputing, and that the editors who added the material were deficient in their knowledge in some way. This is not a good way to proceed; the edit summaries were badly phrased.

As for the substantial issue, it seems quite reasonable for transport sections of settlement articles to mention what facilities can be easily accessed by people in the settlement, even if those facilities do not formally lie within the settlement limits. This is because as previously noted, such facilities are often an integral part of the economic activity of a settlement. It is not the case that to include information about airports means that the articles appear to suggest that the settlements "claim" them entirely as their own, or falsely claim that the administrative control of the airports is in the hands of the settlements' authorities: the articles are merely providing information that any encyclopaedia would think useful to include for a settlement, even when they are not some (jumped-up) travel service, which you seem try to caricature the situation as being like. Let me put it another way: if all material were to be excluded from a settlement's articles that concerned things not formally in that settlement, then distances from state capitals, position within the larger state or country, and other such things would also be omitted. I don't think this is credible, and I note you seem to be single-mindedly concentrating on just airports here, rather than dealing with these other issues. The fact is that to remove these other aspects would be unacceptable and I think clearly so, and you probably know you wouldn't have a chance of persuading anyone round to your point of view; and for the same reason, removal of information about transport facilities and communications with other settlements (like airports) is unacceptable. DDStretch (talk) 17:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately for Wikipedia and readers sanity, most editors agree with me and stick to the WP:TOPIC when editing place articles, else all suburban articles would sound like every other suburban article and its metro city by claiming everything within driving reach and then some.

It is current common chamber-of-commerce thought that "every" city 'must have a) an Opera House, b) a sports arena, and c) an airport. San Diego actually does, I guess, but most don't. And to claim these when they aren't there is mere c-of-c boosterism.

It is great to have knowledgeable editors who a) live in a city or b) enjoy visiting a city, when attempting to insert info about that city. But when it comes to claiming people who never lived there, or construction that doesn't exist, or events that never happened, or if they did, not within the confines of the article, it crosses the line into "creative editing" and WP:POV and should be deleted. Student7 (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Fortunately for Wikipedia and readers sanity, most editors agree with me and stick to the WP:TOPIC when editing place articles, else all suburban articles would sound like every other suburban article and its metro city by claiming everything within driving reach and then some." You are being misleading again in what you write here in so far as you are assuming that your own interpretation is the correct one, and we have seen that it does not seem to be the case. Similarly, the hyperbole you indulge in when stating that what you have removed was equivalent to "claiming everything with driving reach and then some" is just plain willful distortion unless you have less intelligence than I am assuming you have on the basis of WP:AGF. So, don't shoot yourself in your feet again by making use of smear tactics to characterize what you object to. WP:TOPIC states "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Wikipedia has grown, many articles contain such redundant texts. Please be bold in deleting them." You will see that the content you have removed was there merely to "provide a link to the other article" and state why it was relevant in the first place to mention it and provide a link. DDStretch (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me try another tack with the few holdouts that are still left. What is the use of Metro articles? Are they 1) a useless redundancy that should be merged into the city (and all suburban articles) or 2) do they serve some other function?

What do you mean by "Metro articles"? I presume that has a meaning in the US, not the UK? If you mean a city's metropolitan area, then they serve function in the UK yes. For example, because of complicated and successive governmental and statistical arrangements we have Manchester, Manchester Township (England), Manchester (ancient parish), North Manchester, Greater Manchester, Greater Manchester Urban Area, Manchester City Region and the M postcode area. The Greater Mancehster Urban Area is effectively the Metro article for Manchester that I think you mean, and not only carries different meaning and content than the other articles, but also does have alot of value in the UK as a statistical unit. I presume this is also the case elsewhere in the world.

That all said, I'm not sure how that affects your arguement. As I understand it, to me it seems you're against the idea of saying things like:

"Airport X lies within the metropolitan area of Y, Z miles away from the city centre".
"There are no airports in X City, but Y Airfield lies in the neighbouring county, Z miles away".

The above are encyclopedic and if written well have context. Indeed Leeds Bradford International Airport lies in the City of Leeds, but is surely worth a mention in all the surrounding municipalities, including Bradford, which is in the name, right? I'm not sure I can agree with your objections and changes at all. --Jza84 | Talk 03:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(after ec)'[T]he few holdouts that are still left?!?!? So far, in case you hadn't noticed, no one has expressed agreement with your extreme and counterintuitive position. As for your questions here, they are non sequiturs. Of course metro articles are not useless redundancies. No has suggested they are. You seem to be the only one who thinks it would be appropriate to remove any reference to a major airport serving a city simply because it is outside the city limits. older ≠ wiser 03:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I see no one supporting Student7's unilateral removal of guidance about airports from the relevant guidelines, and no one reinstating Student7's changes to these after the changes were reverted because they were made with no prior discussion. Similarly, I see no re-removal of content from articles after your removal of airport content from them was reverted, either. Instead, I see that people have taken issue with your limited interpretation of WP:TOPIC and your mis-characterization of the issues here and elsewhere: for instance, others not active in this section on this have expressed their disagreement about the actions being discussed here

Saying it often enough, or loudly enough, or using value-laden language to describe those who disagree with you as "holdouts" will not convince, except cast doubt on the seriousness with which you are choosing to continue this line. It seems to me that there are clear reasons why your own point of view is not achieving anywhere near a consensus view, and yet you choose to label people and arguments as "holdouts". Unfortunately, it may probably lead people to begin to wonder why, I'm afraid; if so, many may well think you would have brought this upon yourself. DDStretch (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

"Holdouts" meaning that most articles aren't written to include facilities not within their definition. Most editors don't monitor Project pages.

You are going to need good references if you do this. Let me give an example from real-life. I will "enhance" the latter part of the explanation with fiction.

In Melbourne, Florida there is an actual airport within the city limits. I can describe this airport as much as I please and other editors allow. It is really there. Like most airports near a dominant city, it has suffered from lack of service as the larger city drew in potential customers.

The dominant city is Orlando,Florida which has its own airport within its borders or maybe just owns it, I don't know. This is where the fiction begins. Drawing a vector from Orlando souteast through Melbourne - on the southeast side of the airport, probably 75% of flyers still drive the long way to Orlando! Walking back on this imaginary vector, fewer and fewer people use Melbourne until the center of the vector is reached in Orlando where very nearly 100% of flyers use Orlando.

However, being the big Melbourne booster I am, I now insert in the Orlando article that people use the Orlando International Airport and the Melbourne International Airport (both correct names BTW). This would be errant nonsence.

What we have here is two classes of facts that I will call "A" and "B". Class "A" facts consist of real objects and events within the constraints of the article. Class "B" consists of stuff that the residents of an area allegedly use that are outside of the confines of the article.

These "Class B" items need real justification with serious WP:FOOT from WP:RELY sources, not just copy from travel agents or the chamber-of-commerce.

Laguardia is real tough to use during rush hour coming from New Jersey as is any NY airport from New Jersey. Newark is probably not a realistic fallback airport for Trenton, New Jersey. If it is, it needs to be justified with facts, not just boosterism copy. Without this, Wikipedia becomes a meaningless collection of pretentions. Student7 (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever point you may be trying to make has been lost in your speculative fantasy. A random perusal of articles for major U.S. cities shows that most do include mention of the nearby major airports, regardless of where they are physically located. So far, exactly no one has agreed with you that such mentions should be removed. older ≠ wiser 14:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with older / wiser. The whole "what if" scenario you wrote didn't really help your case. This Argumentum ad nauseam is now getting a little out of hand. Wikipedia works by consensus, and as it has been stated (multiple times by multiple people), no other person has opined with you. Killiondude (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So it's okay to mention any airports within a couple hours driving distance? How about other features such as turnpikes. Ten minutes away. 30 minutes away? What?Student7 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on the consensus of the article. If the turnpike is particularly important, then it would probably get a mention. If not in the main article, then possible in a sub-article. All these "what if" scenarios are handled on a case-by-case basis. There's no one-size-fits-all rule like you're trying to determine. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 21:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates format

Hello, I have traveled from WikiProject Geographical coordinates, where we seek wider opinions on whether {{coord}} should offer a N/S/E/W labeled format for decimal coordinates (example: 43°07′N 79°20′W / 43.12°N 79.34°W / 43.12; -79.34) either as an option or by default, or if the existing unlabeled format (example: 43°07′N 79°20′W / 43.12°N 79.34°W / 43.12; -79.34) is sufficient. Please comment there if you have an opinion on this. Thanks! --GregU (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Article updates

Article updates are availaible at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Article alerts. It has also been transcluded to the Main project Page below Articles currently under review. No human activity needed. ArticleAlertbot will take care of the updates. Does anyone feel this is incorrect? Kensplanet^T _C 08:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooo. Nifty. Killiondude (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect? No! I think it's fantastic! Thanks for setting that up. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 16:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Automating this is a good idea. There are a few things that need to be changed:

I think it needs to be edited to keep with a more simple listing of just the name of the article under review and perhaps a date of nomination. Adding links to nominators and discussion severely adds too much information to the list, and I think it would be far better to keep it simple.
Please move the Featured Article & Featured Article Review listings to the top -- as the highest article rating category, it should be listed first, and not after GA/GAR.
Also, where it says 'Featured Article Reviews', this needs to be fixed to separate out the 'Featured Article Nominations' from 'Featured Article Reviews', which are two separate processes. WP:FAN is for non-FAs to be reviewed for FA status; WP:FAR is for current FAs to be reviewed to see if they still meet the existing criteria for listing.
Requests for Comments should also not be listed with the review listings, as it is not a review category. Please remove it. If there are any requests for comments, these should be added to the 'announcements' below, which is where they should belong.

Other than the above issues, it looks good. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's not possible. It's format is entirely written by a Bot. We cannot change it. The contents will be rewritten the next time the Bot updates. Can User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts help or better if we contact the person who runs the Bot User:B. Wolterding. It's not possible for us to keep the page updated daily. But the Bot will keep it updated daily.Kensplanet ^T _C 18:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If we cannot change the format of the bot, or if the writer of the bot is unable or unwilling to make changes, then use of it should be discontinued. Especially with the serious issue of placing emphasis of GA/GAR over FA/FAC -- that's a huge issue that really needs to be corrected. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you Sure? Who's going to update the Aricles for Review daily. Sometimes, they are not updated for nearly a month. Kensplanet^T _C 14:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated the article alert template, changing are options to include only the featured and good article categories, excluding featured/good topic candidates, and including peer review. I've dropped requests for comments from our options since it not a formal article review process; RFCs instead should be posted either to this talk page, or to the announcements section, located immediately below the review section. I am still not sure if this is going to solve the problem of having FA categories listed before GA categories, which is where that belongs. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of the guys that run Article alerts and I'm currently browsing the 200+ subscribers we have now, and I have to say I'm pretty taken aback by the nature of comments like "If we cannot change the format of the bot, or if the writer of the bot is unable or unwilling to make changes, then use of it should be discontinued." Dropping this simply because you don't have absolute control over the order of things, or that things like RfC are included...?? I mean you do what you want for your project, but those comments seem pretty extreme. Anyway make sure to drop by WP:Article alerts, we've got some new features (some waiting to be rolled out) that you should at least consider. Since you are specifying which workflow to cover, you could miss out on some nifty features. You can also leave feedback on the discussion page, and make features requests/bug reports, etc... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

London

I'm a bit concerned about the London article. It's currently a GA, but even from a cursory glance at the lead I'm confident that this article would fail a GA-review. We have several outstanding "citation needed" tags, as well as dead links and uncited claims. London is a Top priority for this project, and is one of the most important cities in human history. Perhaps this project could apply some collective TLC? --Jza84 | Talk 15:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Requesting help with PR on Almu, Ethiopia

I've had Almu listed at Peer Review for some days now, & the only feedback I've gotten is an automated script, which hasn't been very useful because it was designed to provide advice about achieving GA status, not for what I was looking for -- some opinions about my choice of the statistics I pulled from the 1994 Ethiopian National Census. This isa test edit to see if I'm on the right track for other Wikipedia users. My goal is to provide the most useful or defining statistics from this document for every town it covers, & at this moment this article includes far more than for the average Rambot-created entry. On one hand, I don't want to bury the reader with too much information (this census provides extensive statistics on age break-downs & the housing of Ethiopia, for example), but on the other I want to provide enough to answer expected or reasonable questions about each town. Please spend a moment reading the article (no, you don't need to know anything about Ethiopia other than it is in Africa) & offer your opinion. (Who knows -- maybe once Ethiopia has been handled in this much detail, other editors might follow suit with articles on better documented countries like Germany & the UK. I assume their census reports are available under a license that makes incorporating their material into Wikipedia doable.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Dundee FA status

It was mentioned in the Dundee talk page that the article no longer met many of the criteria for FA back in 2007. I imagine the requirements have either changed significantly or the article has degraded through subsequent editing. I've therefore nominated it for FA review. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish has nominated Dundee for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes ... Infobox Settlement v. Geobox

I've spotted a couple places where {{Infobox Settlement}} has been replaced by {{Geobox}} (one example at Ketchikan, Alaska). What is the WikiProject's position on the use of infoboxes for cities? Is there value in changing, or remain with the current standard? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much difference between either template; mostly cosmetic changes. I do not believe there is any formal WikiProject position on this. -epicAdam^(talk) 19:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As most cities use Infobox Settlement rather than Geobox, it's probably not very helpful to convert one or the other articles from Infobox Settlement to Geobox. -- User:Docu

Neighborhoods

What are the notability criteria for neighborhoods? I assume not every neighborhood is automatically given an article (like every city/town is)? Do we just follow standard "significant coverage in reliable third-party sources"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no special notability criteria for neighborhoods, just the general notability guideline you quoted. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 18:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Neighborhoods are unlike cities, towns, or many other entities in that they may have no official existence and have undefined boundaries. While official communities are presumably listed somewhere, neighborhoods may only be known by word of mouth, meaning that we can't find any verifiable sources about them. So I think it's especially important to make sure there are adequate sources first, as called for by the general notability guideline. Will Beback talk 19:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Could some of you guys and gals please take a look at the article for Webster Springs, West Virginia and reassess it? I ask because I'm the one who expanded it and feel it should be left to an unbiased third-party. If you have any questions drop me a line on my talk page, I'd be happy to hear from ya. Thanks, Cra sh Underride 20:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Re-assessed the article to C-class. Comments left on talk page. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors can request an assessment for stub, start, C, B, or A class on this page. For GA and FA status, you must nominate the article at WP:GAN and WP:FAC. I would recommend going to at least B-class prior to GAN, and A-class prior to FAC, but neither status is explicitly required prior to nomination for either of those statuses. Rather GA & FA have specific criteria that must be met, which you can see here: WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Akron, Ohio

This is a general call for help from any experienced editors on the project. The article on Akron, Ohio is in pretty bad shape and seems to have been hijacked by a user who edits the article and virtually nothing else. There are about three of us who are trying to fix the article and bring it up to a better standard (currently C class) but it seems most of what we do is constantly removing excess cruft and repeating much the same over and over on simple things like what pictures are appropriate for a section. If any of you could offer input on the talk page to help this user understand Wikipedia policy better and/or help improve the article, it would be much appreciated! --JonRidinger (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators. All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. §hep ^Talk 00:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

need peer reviewers for the Spokane, WA article

I nominated the Spokane, Washington for peer review almost a week ago now and the review has only produced one quick suggestion on how to improve the article. Ive been trying to seek out reviewers myself that are involved in the WikiCities project (which resulted in the one comment on there so far), and still hardly any luck. I encourage all potential reviewers out there to give this article a chance, your time and effort wont be wasted! Thanks, Anon134 (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hillsboro, Oregon

Hillsboro is at FAC, please leave feedback on the nomination page. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Connecticut and Infobox Settlement

There are about 160 articles on places in Connecticut that use {{Infobox Settlement}} somewhat different from other areas:

official_name		        Chester, Connecticut		Suffield, Connecticut	Naugatuck, Connecticut
subdivision_type		[[NECTA]]			[[NECTA]]		[[NECTA]]
subdivision_name		New Haven			Springfield MA		Waterbury
subdivision_type1		Region				Region			Region
subdivision_name1		Connecticut River Estuary	Capitol Region		Central Naugatuck Valley

Hartford, Connecticut uses a form closer to the one of other US cities:

|subdivision_type         = Country
|subdivision_name         = [[United States]]
|subdivision_type1        = [[U.S. state|State]]
|subdivision_name1        = [[Connecticut]]
|subdivision_type2        = [[NECTA]]
|subdivision_name2        = Hartford
|subdivision_type3        = Region
|subdivision_name3        = Capitol Region

If it's ok, I'd go through the articles and adapt the others accordingly. -- User:Docu

Ok then, it's done. -- User:Docu

Thanks for going through the Conn. town infoboxes. I noticed a couple of infoboxes that I randomly sampled were not displaying the NECTA entry properly, however. I can't figure out why though. --Polaron | Talk 16:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Help with prose at Gulfton, Houston - How to get it to FA level?

Hi! I would like to have the prose at Gulfton, Houston improved to an FA level, but I need some outside help to ensure the prose fits. There was the first GA review here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gulfton, Houston/archive1 - I fixed the images, but the prose still needs some help. Would anyone mind looking over the article? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

List of members

Come on, to have something like "the shitty country" stated there for a wikilink to country of Serbia right there on a wikiproject page is wrong. Why is a member of this wikiproject or of wikipedia in general allowed such leeway with such ethnicly insensitive language, I'm not Serbian but as a Jew I know what racism and ethnic hatred can do in this world if allowed to even exist in the smallest amounts. An Albanian, or a sympathizer of their plight should also know better than to return the ethnic hatred that SOME, and hopefully a very small minority, of Serbians have towards them.24.182.142.254 (talk) 01:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry. I'm sure that was something that was slipped in and was unnoticed by others. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. I will fix it immediately. We don't allow that sort of behavior on Wikipedia, so please don't think that is the norm. Killiondude (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Detroit needs more references, or it could lose its featured article status

I found many unreferenced statements in Detroit - also there is an original research concern in the section "Architecture" - Please address these. If not, Detroit could lose its featured article status. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Bratislava

Crossposted in Wikiprojects Cities, Hungary, Slovakia [alphabetical order]

Since a long-running and banal edit war over the names by which the Bratislava article should refer to the town was going nowhere, I locked the article down three weeks ago and invited informed and persuasive discussion. There has been none, and today I've turned down a request to unlock the article as I've no reason to think that the edit war wouldn't resume.

This is a Featured Article into which a number of thinking editors have put a lot of work, and it would be a great pity if it ended up listed in WP:LAME. Your informed, dispassionate input would be most welcome on that talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I took a quick look through the history of the article and got the impression that the most constructive editors had been, in alphabetical order:

User:MikeGogulski, only six edits after August 2007
User:MarkBA, indefinitely blocked last year, but see this
User:Svetovid, no edits since November 2008
User:Tankred, left June 2008

Taken together, the talk pages (and block logs) of these four show a considerable frustration with (and, I infer, eventual defeat by) nationalists and fanatics of all stripes. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

FAR on Mumbai

I have nominated Mumbai for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cirt (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Akureyri

Akureyri has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Harrisburg, Illinois

Could someone please review and add this page to the WikiProject Cities? It is a good article nominee.71.171.133.69 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a good article already, but it is listed for peer review right now. I'll add the WP Cities banner to it. Killiondude (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 71.171.133.69 (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

US Cities historical population figures

Some of you may be interested in a discussion I have started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Guideline concerning the lack of consistency among the tables used in US Cities to show historical population figures. Thanks, Shereth 23:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Puerto Williams

Puerto Williams is a settlement with some 2,200 inhabitants in the southern tip of sout america. It has a sea port, bank, kindergarden, an airport, restaurants, hotels, a school, a police station, a marina, a museum, a tourism office, a univeristy centre and is the capital of a Chilean province.. could this place be considered a city? Dentren | ^Talk 14:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It can be considered a "city" for guideline purposes. The point being that there is no guideline for places smaller than official "cities." It is still described by whatever appellation it is given it by the state, of course, which might not be "city"! :) In point of fact, Puerto Williams sounds a lot more robust than most settlements of 2,200. Student7 (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

population question (shocker)

According to the US Census, the 2007 estimated population for Raleigh was 375806. Editors are changing the number to 385507, citing raleighnc.gov. Is that fine or should we stick with Census numbers only? (I assume it's the latter. If not, APK needs to erase some hidden comments.) APK straight up now tell me 22:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You're correct. "City proper population (US Census numbers only)" from WP:USCITY (near the top of the page). Killiondude (talk) 22:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I just wanted to double-check. APK straight up now tell me 23:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Coordinates in prose

Is there a consensus as to if coordinates should be included in prose or not? See Fernley, Nevada, where it says "Fernley is located at 39°35′55″N 119°12′54″W", which is essentially meaningless unless you know where that is off the top of your head (location based on major landmarks the reader can identify with is more useful in my opinion). All it does is give you a link to the geography page, however if the coordinates are located in the title/infobox you have that link in two other places in the page. I looked through a couple of FAs and there seems to be a mix, some have coordinates in the geography section, some don't. I looked for a MOS for city pages and didn't find it (is there one?)--kelapstick (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

When the coordinates are given elsehwere, such as in an infobox, there is no need to repeat the geographical coordinates within the prose of the article. I would assume that most of the city articles out there have infoboxes and therefore don't require a repetition of the coordinates in the text itself. It would be immensely preferable to replace it with a more intuitive sort of description ("Fernley is located in northern Lyon County", "Fernley is located in western Nevada" or "Fernley is located 50 miles northeast of Lake Tahoe" would be acceptable examples) in lieu of coordinates. I would suggest that this is not a pressing matter, but perhaps a guideline could be established encouraging editors to replace the coordinates with something more intuitive on an on-going basis. Shereth 17:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shereth; if the coordinates are in the infobox, then there's no need to repeat them anywhere else, especially since it's not intuitive the way a well-written prose description can be. Omnedon (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FAs under WP:UKGEO and using WP:UKCITIES usually (if not all) use co-ordinates in the prose. FAR and even TFA has never objected to this and I was assured (when I challenged it) that WP:CITIES had encouraged this practice of co-ordinates mid prose because the infobox is just a summary of what's in the main body. Although intially reluctant about this, I think it's quite good practice and useful for our readers in producing a comprehensive account of a settlement. I think this is adding value rather than spoiling articles. --Jza84 | Talk 18:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw a link in the section above to WP:USCITY, in the geography section it says "If a coordinate (latitude and longitude) is included in the infobox, remove any existing article coordinate from this section."

I guess this answers my question for US cities. Thanks for the input.--kelapstick (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Climate Table Links

Unresolved

Hello, there is a dispute brewing over the reliability of http://ustravelweather.com versus http://www.weatherbyday.com. User Mikevegas40 (talk · contribs) created climate tables in many cities (like Medford, Oregon which is the one I noticed his work at). He linked them originally to the first site which he admits belongs to him. Now, apparently he lost the old domain name and today went about updating all his old links. This action was taken to the admins noticeboard and it was decided that a consensus should be reached here. Before consensus was reached, at least one user (Allstarecho (talk · contribs)) began reverting them back.

I would like a consensus to be reached before this turns worse than it has to be. The climate tables need to be sourced, and the link "http://ustravelweather.com" is no longer reliable. There is nothing in policy that says a user cannot host content on their own site and reference it from WikiPedia (provided it is licensed under GFDL). The user agrees to this, so the question is whether or not http://www.weatherbyday.com is reliable for the purpose of the climate tables.

I think it is and am a little ashamed at how this is turning out, and my involvement is turning personal so I am going to leave it in the hands of other capable editors. Thank you for your time. ZabMilenko 00:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be said that the web sites, his first one and the second one he went and spammed at least 175 articles with, were #1, unsourced themselves. Where did his site get the weather data? They don't attribute any other source for where the weather data displayed on his site comes from. #2, his site was created as pay-per-click Google adsense web site to generate money. Wikipedia user goes to his site to view the weather data, sees a Google advertisement, clicks it, and Mikevegas0 gets paid. That's spam. So yes, I reverted almost all of those edits he made. Other users reverted as well. An Admin warned him for spamming. Sites such as noaa.gov and weather.com are appropriate, reliable third party sources.. a homemade spam site for generating income, is not. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 01:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would support using NOAA as the primary source, as that should be the source used by the majority of commercial sites anyway.

However, Mikevegas40 (talk · contribs) now appears to have begun removing the tables he added entirely, rather than await resolution via discussion. If his site is determined to not be appropriate, the solution would be to change the ref tag and update any values in the table (if needed) - not to purge the tables entirely. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking a really naive question, but where exactly is NOAA's data on monthly average temperatures and precipitation available for us to link to? I know they have various interactive CGI scripts that can show data, but is there something more user-friendly and readily available to link to, in the manner of sites such as weatherbase.com, where I can just reference, for example, <ref>http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weather.php3?s=051714</ref> so that everybody can see the data is what I said it is? Because as far as I know, NOAA hosts tremongous amounts of data but is decades behind other sites in terms of making it available to the average user, which is the only reason why all these climate data sites even exist: they're making NOAA's data available to the public in an easy to read format. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I would think that while weatherbyday.com and weather.com are probably reliable they must be getting the data from somewhere which should be the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather Service. Climate data is set by the World Meteorological Organization, who link to the NOAA as a worldwide provider of climate data, and as an encyclopaedia Wikipedia should follow those standards due to the chance that commercial services are not using the standards and the fact is that the more people that handle the data the greater the chance of errors creeping in. However, as noted at User talk:Soap#Weather and User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#weather.com searching the NWS site is very difficult. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 02:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I can provide evidence that weather.com has errors in its climate data which in my opinion probably result from careless mistakes made by whomever was tasked with copying it over from the original database. For one link, compare the weather.com averages for Baltimore MD (which is currently the source used on Wikipedia's Baltimore article) to the actual data available at NOAA (thanks for the link). Weather.com shows temperatures much higher than the original data -- the difference is far too much to be accounted for by urban heat island effects, and in any case, even if there were a weather station in Baltimore with those records, it's clear that weather.com's climate data isn't a perfect copy of NOAA's climate data and thus should not automatically inherit reliability from NOAA. I believe that currently weatherbase.com is the best site on the Internet for climate data if you take both reliability and accessibility into account. However I can't "prove" they are more reliable and while I would be willing to do maintenance work on the climate data to enhance its accuracy, I would want to make sure that there is clear approval for weatherbase.com (another commercial site) before using it. For the purpose of disclosure, I used to maintain a climate data site similar to Mikevegas's, but the site has been offline since February of 2003. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I should add that weatherbase.com is not error-free either; they seem to have been affected at some point by a bug that confused "0" with "no data" and makes some data look incomplete. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes a large commercial site superior to a smaller one? Somehow my site is spam, yet weather.com is a reliable source. Rotten Tomatoes is on every movie related page on wikipedia. I guess big is somehow morally superior.--Mikevegas40 (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I am getting emotional and I apologize. I should assume that even the people that I disagree with are acting in good faith, although I would ask that they try to assume the same of me. The word spam hurts. It seems to me that if the source is not good enough to credit as a source then the tables created by that source need to come down. My sites are the source of the tables in question, and the data came from the NWS and was compiled by me. I know I gave up all ownership when I posted them here, but it seems wrong to turn around and say they came from somewhere else. --Mikevegas40 (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If the community agrees that your site is a reliable source, then I have no problem with using your site. It may even be determined that multiple commercial sources would be acceptable (which - honestly, I think is likely as the NOAA source is a royal pain to try linking into).

But, it's up to the community to discuss yet. Meanwhile, nothing is hurt by leaving the data within the tables attributed to the old domain while the discussion takes place. However, if your site is determined to not be reliable for whatever reason (I'm not claiming that it's not - I honestly don't have an opinion as yet), then the table format can still remain - the attribution updated, and the factual figures within the table updated/verified to whatever new source(s) are selected. The adding of the tables is still attributed to your username in the "history" tab of each article (all edits are traced on the history tab for compliance with the GFDL license), which is the only attribution for formatting structures that is required. The listed source in the article supports whichever factual figures are used within the table, not the table itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the Google adsense issue here, where do you get the weather data for your website, Mike? You don't say where on your own site. Is this information you are gathering via scientific instruments or information you have gathered from another source such as NOAA? I think, again aside from the spam, that we should just cut out the middle man here and go to the source, presumably NOAA. And you used the Rotten Tomatoes web site as an example earlier.. it is widely accepted on Wikipedia that Rotten Tomatoes and IMdB are not reliable sources and really shouldn't be used. Unfortunately, it's not enforced. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What is the adsense issue? Why are the popups and video ads on weather.com any better than adsense? The source for my data, as I mentioned before, is the NWS. The National Weather Service is mentioned on almost every page of my site, either in the text or in the meta tags, or often both. For instance, the description meta tag for the Alabama state page is: "Looks at the weather in Alabama using NWS Data and helps tourists and local residents make long term plans. A great resource for tourists and local residents interested in Alabama weather.", and the description meta tag for Birmingham is: "Takes a look at the normal and record weather in Huntsville Alabama using Weather Service Data". --Mikevegas40 (talk) 03:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I want to skip spam in this case. I just want accurate data from the source. If that is noaa, that's where we should go. Nice to have precise links as someone mentioned and not a vague one. Having "out of date" info for a summary table is a little preposterous. Weather doesn't fall into the breathless "news at 11" category. It might change one degree or one inch of rain over a decade. I can live with that in a table.

Also, this only seems to address US cities, as usual. What about Canadian and, well, other non-US cities. I have no idea how to verify weather claims for cities in Asia, other than "does it seem to make sense?" test. Student7 (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We're using NOAA as an easier way of saying "The database known as GHCN which is available at NOAA"; it covers the whole world, and doesn't imply that NOAA itself collected the data. It's true that there are stations not included in the GHCN data, but unless we plan to put a climate box for every town with 100+ people we shouldnt ever need them. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Without touching on the issue of the reliability of the data, there is a certain amount of impropriety in an editor creating multiple links back to an apparently for-profit resoruce that the same editor owns. I hesitate to pass judgement on said editor's motives; it may well be that they are merely interested in the dissemination of the information, but the appearance of improper behavior is still there. Editors should not be linking to websites they own, and it is as simple as that. Shereth 14:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Akureyri/GA2

Hi, could someone from this WikiProject give their view on the above article, which is at GA reassessment? I don't think it is quite GA quality, but I would like an informal second opinion, just to be sure. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Notable natives

I notice that WP:CITIES suggests that lists of notable residents are acceptable. This seems surprising to me, since a resident (How is that defined?) is not at all influential to a city. That someone lives (or had lived) in a certain city doesn't change that city at all. Surely, in the case of a politician or civic leader, that might be true--but the lists we see throughout these articles are not so limited. That a news anchor or musician came from a particular town means nothing to the town in any substantial way.

Wikipedia's so-called discussion pages are terrible vehicles for communication, but I managed to find an archive that shows a recent discussion. It seems this ended in no concensus for the removal of the section. Where was the concensus for its inclusion? -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Including long lists of notable natives in articles directly both gets very long to be included in the article and are highly vandalized by high school kids that think for some reason that they're notable because they're in a garage band that plays out of mom's basement. However, if written well, a notable natives/residents section can add to the article, and I think the consensus is developing among the higher-level review processes (WP:GA and WP:FA) towards writing this out as prose (see Hillsboro, Oregon as an example). I've adjusted the text on the guideline for US city articles to favor prose form for this section. Dr. Cash (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What does it add to the article, specifically? It's just an un-encyclopedic list; it's trivia. Your reasoning seems to be that other groups like it, so it should be done. Is there any more to it than that? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I do agree that bulleted lists of "notable people" are not what we want in articles. Too much maintenance and too much risk of vandalism. However, I have seen some very well written articles on cities, at the higher-level review ratings (think GA & FA), having prose-based notable people sections. This works quite well and, while some may still think this is trivial, just because it's rather trivial doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia.

As for having separately linked lists of notable people, linked to under 'see also', those specific lists are not covered by this wikiproject. I don't have a problem with them existing necessarily, but they are kind of minor. Dr. Cash (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Having just been through an exercise where I had to fight for inclusion of a bunch of people I never heard of nor care to again, I think I am now in favor of WP:BURDEN. It is up to the lister to "prove" that the person is tied to the place. The notability is "proven" by the blue link, but an editor should not have to "work" to come to a conclusion that the person did indeed live in Midville. A relatively WP:RELY footnote should prove this. Each article stands alone and the place article should not be dependent on the bio IMO. Student7 (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability might be demonstrable by the remaining article on Wikipedia, thought it usualy isn't. The article deletion and {{notability}} process is lethargic and pretty broken, and lots of topics are here which don't really meet notability requirements. Even supposing it does, I don't think that the influence of the resident is demonstrated simply by the existence of a wikipedia article. The professional atheletes, for example, often listed as "notable residents" most often grew up in the town in question, then went to college somewhere else, then live somewhere else--with nearly zero meaningful influence on their city. (Usually, anyway.) -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about notable natives at the Village Pump. Not sure to what extent it has already been discussed elsewhere, but if you want to share your thoughts at the pump with regard to Wikipedia policy/guidelines, feel free to contribute there as well. --JBC3 (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all settlements are notable and deserve an article?

This discussion is a serious one gaining traction at the village pump to become policy. It is a proposal to remove the unofficial policy that all settlements are notable by default and therefore can have an article as long as there is something referenced to the effect that it does exist. Personally I think that topic should have come here first, since this is the wikiproject covering that topic. Those who are interested in saving the many hamlet, settlement, and minor civil divisions that may get AfD just because nothing majorly famous happened there may want to go and throw in their two-cents.Camelbinky (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield in WP:FAR

I have nominated Sheffield for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver in WP:FAR

I have nominated Vancouver for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 10:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Should non-Census sources be allowed for individual city articles?

Because there's a discussion about it here you may want to contribute to if you have feelings about it.--Loodog (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WP Cities banner

I wonder if it is in error that the banner has appeared at Talk:Gigha. As settlements go they do not come much less urban anywhere in Europe. I realise the scope of the project is broad, but if you do so intend (and I don't mind one way or another) you might consider changing the projects name to "WP:Settlements" or similar as certainly virtually every article about an inhabited place in Scotland would qualify. (Alternatively, we could start WP:Rural and include New York and Tokyo). Yrs, mystified, Ben Mac Dui 13:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cities, towns, and various other settlements on Wikipedia - so Gigha falls under {{WPCities}}. Kensplanet^T _C 14:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not about the scope of the project, but about the name of it, which BenMacDui suggests is misleading. Editors do not routinely go to projects' pages when they visit talk pages, and just seeing the Cities banner can give the impression that the banner is misplaced. The request to change the name is reasonable, and, indeed, the quoted scope of the project shows the project is not restricted to merely cities, and so the quaoted scope just adds weight to the original point by BenMacDui. The distinctions between cities, towns, and villages, and hamlets may be greater in certain countries than others, and the means by which settlements are classified according to that list of types may differ and have different legal processes associated with their assignment by local or national governments. I think this project could reduce reliance on a particular jurisdiction's interpretations of the differences between them by choosing a much more neutral term, such as BenMacDui suggested. DDStretch (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with this. I think renaming the project is something that is going to help the project by way of getting less banners removed through confusion and more contributors joining the project as the banners gain ground. --Jza84 | Talk 14:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support from me too.. Kensplanet^T _C 14:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to but in on this so late, but the 'Cities' banner has been causing confusion on the Worcestershire project too. The only 'city' in Worcestershire is Worcester. Everywhere else in this rural county are small towns, villages, and hamlets. I agree that 'Cities' on the banner is a misnomer; there are strict conventions in the UK about the use of the word city.--Kudpung (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Manhattan GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Manhattan for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Systematic inclusion of GNIS unincorporated communities

User:Carlossuarez46 has been going through the United States Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System (GNIS), looking for GNIS-listed U.S. unincorporated communities that do not currently have WP pages. For each such found community, he has created a WP article with a corresponding {{Infobox Settlement}}. He has also included these communities in the corresponding county templates, e.g., {{Mono County, California}}.

These edits have sparked discussion on various talk pages (with myself, User:Hjal and User:Norcalal): no consensus has come out of the discussion, and interesting WP-wide potential policy questions have been raised. Carlossuarez and I agreed that we should bring the discussion up to the community, to see if we can reach a broad consensus on these issue.

To my mind, there are three main questions in the discussion:

Should GNIS be considered a WP:Reliable source for the current existence of a community?
When should a GNIS entry become a WP article?
When should a GNIS entry be mentioned in navigation templates (such as county templates)?

Let's separate these discussions into three subsections: —hike395 (talk)

Should GNIS be considered a WP:RS for communities?

GNIS comes from the United States government, so does have a prior assumption of reliability. However, I've seen enough problems with GNIS to raise doubts in my mind as to its reliability. If we decide that GNIS alone is or is not enough to establish that a community exists, then this would affect the decision on the second question.

My doubts about GNIS come from contradictory evidence that I've seen with my own eyes, and from sources that WP would find reliable. Examples of GNIS errors in Mono County include:

Dog Town, California. Listed by GNIS as a community.
- However, State of California describes it as "Ruins lying close to the cliff bordering Dog Town Creek are all that remain of the makeshift dwellings".
- Census Bureau assigns it to Block 3174, Block Group 3, Census Tract 1, Mono County. 2000 Census Population = 0
- No zip code returned by usps.gov
Dunderberg Mill, California. Listed by GNIS as a community.
- Census Bureau assigns it to Block 3187, Block Group 3, Census Tract 1, Mono County. 2000 Census Population = 0
- Panoramio photo shows a pile of rubble.
- No zip code returned by usps.gov
Lake Mary, California. Listed by GNIS as a community.
- Census Bureau assigns it to Block 1210, Block Group 3, Census Tract 2, Mono County. 2000 Census Population = 0
- The book Old Mammoth: A First Hand Account ISBN 0-931378-04-4, (1994), Adele Reed describes Lake Mary as an old mining camp from the late 19th century that collapsed.
- usps.gov says Lake Mary is unacceptable as an address, requires use of Mammoth Lakes, California instead.

I can find more, but disproving each of these is quite a time consuming task. Instead, I would propose that we consider GNIS as not definitive for the existence of a current community -- before WP states that a U.S. community exists, it should have another supporting reference /to attest to its current existence/.

Comments? Thoughts? —hike395 (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

GNIS is generally considered reliable but I do not know to what extent, as there is little in the way of information regarding the methodology by which the populated places in their database are collected and named - did they take the word of some guy who lived at a street corner? We simply do not know. I believe that the GNIS is highly reliable for geographical information but I question the reliability of the information for demographic purposes, which is essentially what is happening here. In any event, GNIS fails WP:PRIMARY in that it is unquestionably a tertiary source - acceptable as a source of summary information but unacceptable to satisfy WP:RS. Shereth 13:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether the community is currently inhabited in no way affects its notability and hence its acceptability as an article here. As I have discussed with Hike395, if s/he has reliable sources that show that towns indicated by sources which are dated are now former towns - he should edit them appropriately. To date, s/he has resisted doing that in favor of this discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but there should be an attempt to find out if it was a true community in the past or just some named location. Not all entries in the GNIS are of equal value. --Polaron | Talk 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

USGS differentiates between the two: one is a populated place; the other is considered a locality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

One reason for depending on the GNIS is to avoid judgment calls -- it is, at least, quite straightforward to say, "If the GNIS lists it, it should be in Wikipedia." I can understand the logic there, but I don't entirely agree with it in practice; I also have found examples of various types of errors and (IMHO) misjudgments in the GNIS database, and I don't think it should be used as a single reliable source. When they are available, county history books are excellent citable sources for this sort of thing -- at least to show that a named settlement did in fact exist. Whether or not it now exists is another question, of course. Omnedon (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that there are errors in the GNIS database - I have also found some - just like in any other source. The rate of errors is probably no worse than any other WP "reliable source", some of our most reliable sources erroneously reported that a rape occured involving Duke University students or that Iraq had WMDs or referred to a missing person in the present tense long after his/her death which is confirmed later. Reliable Sources need not be error-free or we would be left with the Biblepedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. But the remedy to that problem is to cross check multiple reliable and independent sources. A single database entry in a source known to be error prone in regards to population (and thus supposed notability), needs to be backed-up by another reliable and independent source. --mav (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Hike about criteria we should use. The Dog Town example is a particularly apt howler of an error; I drove by this "populated place" several times before noticing the sign and ruins. Dog Town is well-know enough that I'm generally shocked that USGS has made such an obvious blunder. This, and many other examples, put the whole database in suspect and thus anything in there needs to be backed-up by independent reliable sources. Not to mention that no article should be the result of a single source, let alone a database with known very obvious errors. I'm going to be in Mono County on vacation next month and will be taking photos of many of these "populated places." That's not to say that we shouldn't have info about all these places in Wikipedia, but that can be done in list/table-form for places that do not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (preferably some sources outside of government databases or published gazetteers). Of course, the Dog Town article does meet this criteria. Many others have not demonstrated this; it is not other Wikipedians job to disprove that a topic is notable. The onus of proof is on the person adding the article. --mav (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment solicited by Hike395.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The solicitation was related to Hike being called a vandal by you and an implied threat of being blocked for removing links to the disputed articles that you added (a link here was added later). Prior protests about related articles, this discussion, and Hike being a user in good standing all indicate that Hike most certainly is not a vandal and did in fact need the assistance of another admin. --mav (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Much has been said here already. As to the specific question posed in the section heading, Should GNIS be considered a WP:RS for communities? -- my answer is a qualified no. GNIS is clearly a reliable source. However, it includes a vase amount of information and there are many gradations of items categorized as "populated places". Some are historical locations of former, sometimes temporary settlements, such as logging or lumber camps. In general, if the ONLY source available for a place is an entry in GNIS, that is not sufficient for a stand-alone article. GNIS is a reliable source for corroborating and supporting details (such as coordinates, elevation, sometimes dates or alternative names), but a bare entry in GNIS is not a solid basis for creating stubs. Such places can and most likely should be listed in an article for a larger geographic division, and there should be redirects created, but without additional sources GNIS alone should not be used as the basis for creating stubs. older ≠ wiser 13:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue many local editors are running into is one that speaks to the quality of the encyclopedia. After scores of additions of unincorporated communities by User:Carlossuarez46, it is clear that in places like Humboldt County, California (other editors mention Marin and Mono Counties) the use of United States Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) has led to the creation of articles related to places that do not really exist or at least certainly are not notable. One example is Dinsmores, California. There has never been a "settlement" or community at the location listed, so how does a Wikipedia contributor disprove that? Obviously there will be NO other references to a place that has never been. In this particular example, I have consulted the Dinsmore family and it is clear that there has NEVER been a settlement related to the plural of their name, with the exception of a hunting cabin and a couple outbuildings, which were never located at that elevation. Of course, all will realize this is "original" research. But all will also realize the point I have made. Of particular interest here is the fact that there has never been a notable community at the altitude listed in the Dinsmores, California, article at any point in the history of the county. There are dozens of these and other problems now that all these additions have been made. It truly is a mess and it is unfortunate to say the least. For one such as myself who became involved in the encyclopedia specifically to address inaccuracies in articles related to the California North Coast and its history, I find this particularly tragic. I do not relish the fact that places that never really existed cannot be disproven by their nature of never having been. 20:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)User:Norcalal

Well said. We all need to remind ourselves that the burden of proof is on the person adding the article that it is notable. I don't buy the argument that settlements are not inherently notable; normal standards for notability still apply. A single reference to a source known to have wildly wrong info on what is populated or what a place is really called, is not sufficient proof of notability. A list is enough until more reliable sources can be found and enough info can be brought together to write something larger than a stub. mav (talk) --02:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wellput and well crafted. Now what form will the list take? I will be happy to begin to adjust the Humboldt County, California Template ASAP, once there is some consensus on the list. User:Norcalal 08:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the sample of such a table at 'Merging into list aricles' below. To that I'd add a small locator map and place for an photo and link to Wikimedia Commons for more photos. Somebody should start such a list and others help edit it until we can agree on the format. --mav (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Stubs are perfectly acceptable, see WP:STUB. Some editors, it seems you are a little to credible to original research and disproven claims of non-existence. As I said below, lists complement articles - anyone who wants to systematically redirect valid stubs will be guilty of vandalism and dealt with accordingly. If you don't like stubs, change our guidelines, and you can have 1/2 of more of our articles on deletion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

From WP:STUB—Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article. Merging permastubs that have no verifiable information other than what is provided by GNIS into relevant articles is not only not vandalism, but the sort of thoughtful editing that should be encouraged. older ≠ wiser 03:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm perhaps late for this discussion, but I note a couple FAQ entries at the GNIS website. They are about the "historical" tag but seem to relate to this discussion. This one says, in part (emphasis mine), "A feature with "(historical)" following the name no longer exists and is no longer visible on the landscape. Examples: a dried up lake, a destroyed building, a hill leveled by mining. The term makes no reference to the age, size, population, use, or any other aspect of the feature. A ghost town, for example, is not a historical feature if it is still visible." And this one, "The term “historical” as used in the GNIS means specifically and only that the feature no longer exists on the landscape. It has no reference to age, size, condition, extent of habitation, type of use, or any other factor. For example, a ghost town is not historical, only abandoned as might be noted in the historical notes field." I take these statements to mean that GNIS "populated places" may be, in fact, ghost towns. Pfly (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And, btw, I posted a lengthy comment about the Dinsmore/Dinsmores thing over at Talk:Dinsmore, California. Pfly (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

When should a GNIS entry become a WP article?

Given that GNIS entries can be historical or defunct communities, when should they become WP articles? Always? I'm curious what other editors think. —hike395 (talk) 08:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

When it meets the GNG. When reliable sources can be found covering the settlement in a substantive manner showing that the place is notable. In debates there is a certain "historical precedent" oft cited that populated places are deemed inherently notable because the assumption is that, somewhere, reliable sources exist to prove the case. I question this logic. Presuming the existence of sources when none can be found is a dangerous precedent to set. Shereth 13:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Inhabited places, including formerly inhabited places, are inherently notable. Because wikipedians who bother to look during a one-week afd session have nearly always been able to come up with sources for anything that is in GNIS is further inidcation that the sources likely exist. First, all these articles have a source. Second, the 3 mentioned in particular have two sources. If people actually read WP:BEFORE they would either exhaust their own searching or they would find the same sources, likely. For example, in the 3 cited places by Hike395, s/he initially contended that they didn't exist, now s/he contends that they exist but are no longer populated, showing what a little work can achieve. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Inherent notability has no basis in policy. Attempts to formalize this concept have so far failed to achieve consensus. --Polaron | Talk 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Before anybody makes an article for Wikipedia and plops into onto the community, he or she should find more than one source declaring the article to be about a WP:Notable subject. This is just commonsense and common courtesy to the rest of us. It is annoying to be confronted with an article about a non-Notable subject, based upon something a bot or a bot-like editor has dug up. Nevertheless, if the GNIS itself makes a convincing case that a geographic location is Notable, then an article could (not should) be developed. Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Some unincorporated communities are (or were) simply collections of a few houses and other buildings, often at intersections of roads and/or railroads; and it's not uncommon for such communities to shrink to almost nothing for a variety of reasons. Also, smaller communities are sometimes consumed by nearby growing cities. However, there are separate communities which are not incorporated but which have named streets that appear on maps. As one minor criterion, I would suggest that a community which has multiple named streets is probably notable. Communities without this feature might still be notable, but that would depend on other factors. Again, published county history books are invaluable for this purpose and are easily cited when they are available. Omnedon (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Only when significant coverage can be demonstrated beyond an entry in the database or mention on a map. Omnedon's first two sentences are dead on about these places but I don't think we have a street criteria (although that would likely work in most cases). What I'm concerned about is whether or not we can find enough reliable material on any topic to be able to write more than a paragraph about it. If not, then the info should be in a list or considered for outright deletion. --mav (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment solicited by Hike395.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

See above about the solicitation - it was related to an accusation of vandalism and an implied threat to use admin powers in an edit dispute related to this talk topic. --mav (talk)

I agree with others here who have described that a mere entry in GNIS alone is not sufficient basis for a stand-alone article. older ≠ wiser 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

When should a GNIS entry be mentioned in a navigation template?

I believe this is a separate question from the article one, above. I would suggest that the bar for appearing in a navigation template should be higher than that of having an article. An entry in a navigation template competes with other entries for user attention (while navigating). I would propose that we limit the appearance of a town in a navbox unless it is incorporated or a census designated place. Or some other criterion for appearance: I would love to hear other suggestions.

Comments? Thoughts? Suggestions?

Thanks for your attention! —hike395 (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

When reliable sources exist to show that the place continues to exist as a populated place. Navigation templates are not the place for former, defunct or "ghost" towns. Gazing at aerial photos and deeming the place populated because "it looks like there are buildings" does not count - that is original research. Shereth 13:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates have included former settlements and whether they should continue to do so is not really a big deal one way or another. I agree that gazing at photos and trying to analyze them: there are building, there aren't, it looks like a town there, or it looks barren is pure OR. That's why I've asked Hike395 for a reliable source for the extinction of population at the sites s/he says are former. It seems as though with a modicum of effort s/he may have found it and now s/he can edit appropriately rather than citing his/her original research. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that in a lot of counties, you would have hundreds of these. It defeats the purpose of ease of navigation. There should be a higher bar for what goes in the templates or it would be overwhelmed by useless links. --Polaron | Talk 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hike395 has no particular reason to vet the existence of a town one way or the other. It is up to the original author of the article to do that. Anyway, infoboxes are cluttered up with too much stuff as it is, and the "one size fits all" approach of these boxes is generally a very bad idea. Yes, the bar should be very high. And here I will not contradict myself. Yours very sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All articles I start are sourced per WP:V - if you think that there are other sources out there that contradict them, it is your choice whether to add them or not. No one needs permission to start articles, and whether info boxes are cluttered or not is purely your opinion - is there a consensus based on an objective set of criteria for when places should be in the template and have reached the high bar that GeogreLouis wants to set? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that Hike395's restrictive list also should at a minimum also include places with active named post offices. Living, as I do, in a state where 45% of the population lives outside incorporated municipalities, I am aware of a lot of postal cities that are neither incorporated municipalities nor CDPs. Additionally, however, I think that there is value in listing all distinct unincorporated communities that lie outside the boundaries of any subcounty local government unit. As an example, I believe that all of the unincorporated community redlinks listed in Template:Campbell County, Tennessee belong in the template (and articles will be created some day). Some of these (such as Newcomb and Pioneer) are postal cities, most (such as Elk Valley and Stony Fork) are the locations of active or recently closed public schools named for the community, and some were postal cities until relatively recently when the US Postal Service closed some post offices (such as Elk Valley) that were not near major highways. (The USPS now serves those areas from post offices in similar-sized unincorporated communities that happen to be closer to the Interstate.) --Orlady (talk) 14:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think such templates should have a hierarchy, listing incorporated places first, CDPs and then significant unincorporated communities followed by a link to a complete list of unincorporated communities. But the issue here is the creation of articles on unincorporated communities whose only claim to verifiability is an entry in a database with 2 million other named places. I don't think we should have separate articles on topics that can never be more than a microstub with an infobox due to a lack of significant coverage. See WP:N. --mav (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment solicited by Hike395.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And what is your objective standard for significance that differs from WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." Emphasis mine. Note also "sources" is plural. See above about solicitation. --mav (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A comment in a previous section drew my attention to Dinsmores, California, where we are presented with an article that consists of a line of text, a boilerplate infobox and then a navigation template that absolutely overwhelms the article. The real irony is that the existence of articles on places of questionable notability and the subsequent addition of them into the template is precisely what leads to the existence of articles that are overwhelmed by a bloated navbox! Template:Humboldt County, California is a fantastic example of why the resolution to this question is so important; the utility of such a vastly overpopulated template suffers considerably. Shereth 20:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that Orlady's comment about post offices is valuable: I would refine the definition of a community to be "a place that you can use in an postal address". I'm still researching how to cross-check such places against population. In relatively vacant areas, it is difficult to get systematic verified populations of communities. For example, June Lake, California had to get a study done by Mono County to figure out its own population (tourism and second homes cause a lot of complexity).

For use in county templates, I would suggest including all places that can be used in a postal address, and creating a list article to hold other GNIS unincorporated communities, and link to the list article. —hike395 (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a good start but I do not believe it should be exclusive; if a community is verifiably extant and currently populated there is no reason it cannot be included in the county navbox. Shereth 14:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but I am concerned that the concept of "verifiably extant" may be ill-defined and require a large amount of research per link in the template. Is GNIS enough? Do we require multiple sources? At least (for U.S. communities), I can go through and check each template entry against usps.com and get a binary answer. I can also use usps.com to find a list of all communities in each Zip Code. This doesn't extend beyond the U.S., though. —hike395 (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For better or worse we are stuck with discussing US locales, since the GNIS list is what brought this to the forefront. I understand the desire to create a brightline cutoff for inclusion in templates, and if one is to be created using the USPS as a source is probably about as good as it is going to get. Still I fear that otherwise "important" communities may be left off by using an exclusive criteria. Perhaps it is just me, but I would rather leave the door open to other locations that can be proven to be sufficiently notable. Shereth 15:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging into list aricles

Granting that verifiability is all that is needed to discuss the topic somewhere, do all such places merit a stand-alone article? Is there some reason why these can't be presented in list form, grouped in an appropriate manner. Most of these places will probably not have enough written about them individually and will essentially become a perma-stub. If all the article has is boiler-plate text, it would be better presented in list form. --Polaron | Talk 01:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. These lists could in fact be featurable if done well. But individual articles on many of these places could never have more than a cople paragraphs of verifiable and reliable info in them. My criteria for merging is if an article can never be longer than a stub, then it should be merged. --mav (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong support --- Polaron, what a great idea! When I look at the discussion, above, I see a lot of concern over notability and maintainability of the GNIS articles and templates that contain them. But, I think that Carlossuarez46's core desire to add the GNIS information to WP is noble: the information in some form is useful for our readers. Polaron's suggestion completely sidesteps the false dichotomy of "include/exclude" information, avoids the debate over GNIS reliability, and minimizes the concern about template expansion. Great idea! —hike395 (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Later: I've been thinking about what such a list article might look like (initially, at least, before it gets to FAC). It could contain a structured table of data, with a column for remarks. Here's a sample (don't take the row data too seriously):

This is a list of locales in Mono County, California. It comes from the USGS Geographic Names Information System, as a list of unincorporated communities in Mono County, California. The population of each of these communities has not yet been verified.

Location name	GNIS link	Coordinates	Remarks
Dunderberg Mill	[1]	38°06′14″N 119°15′02″W / 38.10389°N 119.25056°W / 38.10389; -119.25056	Two versions are current on how the place got its name: first, that it was named after the Union Navy man-of-war USS Dunderberg, and second, that it was named from the nearby Dunderberg Mine.^[1] Dunderberg is a Swedish word meaning "thunder mountain."
Dog Town	[2]	38°10′13″N 119°11′51″W / 38.17028°N 119.19750°W / 38.17028; -119.19750	The site is registered as California Historical Landmark 792. A landmark plaque by the side of nearby U.S. Highway 395 marks the location.

What do other editors think? Improvements welcome! —hike395 (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC) ||

Strong support for the idea that minor settlements ought to be handled in some kind of list/gazetteer format; no opinion just yet as to the format. The above is one possibility, but we should really first settle the question of whether or not to merge these kinds of articles into lists before getting down to brass tacks about how to do it. One question that must be answered, however, is the creation of some kind of objective criteria to determine whether a location is suitable as a stand-alone article or whether it should remain in the list. Shereth 12:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose violates the Five Pillars and goes against nearly unanimous outcomes at AfD and the thoughts of folks at the village pump where inclusion of geographic articles is being discussed. Also, it would be purely subjective to determine which unincorporated areas get lumped into lists and which don't - a subjectivity that is avoided by individual articles. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You could conceivably list all of them and then have links to particular entries that have a lot of stuff to say that won't fit in a paragraph. --Polaron | Talk 18:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's pretty simple to determine which go in a list and which get standalone articles. Just use the standard Wikipedia guideline: if it passes WP:N, it gets an article. If not, stick it in a list. Shereth 19:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a great measure of support for the proposition that every inhabited (or formerly inhabited) place passes WP:N, so while your proposal seems moving to the right place, in practice we won't get there. But, your point has something to it that can be made objective as a compromise that may work for all: making a list in addition to keeping the articles would be sensible - as the list couldn't contain all the information that stand alone articles do or it would become unwieldy - the map is an obvious thing, and what gets added by various other users after the list is made - and we could have the template include the list for all unincorporated communities as Other unincorporated communities in Foo County, Fooland - to each individual unincorporated place's exclusion from the template - so that those template purists would be pleased. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this: Create a list and the keep the GNIS stubs on individual places. Keep direct links to the single paragraph GNIS stubs out of the template but link to the list instead. After a few months, I'll nominate all the GNIS articles that are still stubs and just repeat info already in the list for deletion/redirection to the list. My ideal solution would be to merge the content of the GNIS stubs into the list and redirect them right away. But I can wait a few months to give them a chance. Others may want to do this right away and if a consensus emerges to do that, then I hope you will go along with it. --mav (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you have against stubs? We have plenty of them; they aren't a blight but an opportunity. Your position of anti-stub is so out of the normal range of opinions, I don't think you have consensus to implement it, no matter who shows up to this debate nor how one-sided it is. See WP:CONSENSUS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with stubs, so long as there is enough encyclopedic info from reliable sources available to eventually flesh them out into good articles (even if they are on the short side). What I don't like, are stubs that can never be more than stubs due to a severe lack of info about them. Much better to start with a list/table and spin off separate articles and summarize list/table descriptions once those descriptions start to get too long. --mav (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

When the stubs have no verifiable information in them other than what is listed in GNIS, they are little more that permanent clutter. From the WP:STUB style guideline you cite in a previous section: Note that if a small article has little properly sourced information, or if its subject has no inherent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article. older ≠ wiser 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Where there is lack of sourced information, agreed. In Mono County, the only article without any sources as to its existence is Swall Meadows, California - although I would guess they could be found without much effort, as well. Again, deletion and redirection is the result of an inability to find sources, not whether they look like today. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong support on this compromise, too. I think having a list articles of locales to link to in the template will remove the clutter. I don't mind having both a list and a number of developing articles: it was the template clutter that I most strongly objected to. I volunteer to make such a list article for Mono County. —hike395 (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Support, as this is more or less the recommended approach to article development. Start with a list or a parent article, and only split when there is sufficient material to support a separate article. older ≠ wiser 14:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that the members of this project start to formulate an agreed upon format for such lists and create an example for a single county by copying info from all the unincorporated stubs and summarizing from the non-stubs. Only when that is done for a county could anybody, IMO, be able to successfully nominate the stubs for that county for deletion/merge/redirection/whatever. --mav (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference CGN was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[CGN-1] Cite error: The named reference CGN was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

Suggestion: rename project

Cities/Settlements in California

City population and area numbers

Airports...and other resources

Coordinates format

Article updates

London

Requesting help with PR on Almu, Ethiopia

Dundee FA status

Infoboxes ... Infobox Settlement v. Geobox

Neighborhoods

Assessment

Akron, Ohio

Coordinators' working group

need peer reviewers for the Spokane, WA article

Hillsboro, Oregon

Connecticut and Infobox Settlement

Help with prose at Gulfton, Houston - How to get it to FA level?

List of members

Detroit needs more references, or it could lose its featured article status

Bratislava

FAR on Mumbai

Akureyri

Harrisburg, Illinois

US Cities historical population figures

Puerto Williams

population question (shocker)

Coordinates in prose

GA Sweeps invitation

Climate Table Links

Talk:Akureyri/GA2

Notable natives

More on the lists in the articles about cities

Not all settlements are notable and deserve an article?

Sheffield in WP:FAR

Vancouver in WP:FAR

Should non-Census sources be allowed for individual city articles?

WP Cities banner

Manhattan GA Sweeps: On Hold

Systematic inclusion of GNIS unincorporated communities

Should GNIS be considered a WP:RS for communities?

When should a GNIS entry become a WP article?

When should a GNIS entry be mentioned in a navigation template?

Merging into list aricles