Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconCities Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

State of city-oriented WikiProjects[edit]

While working on bringing Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville back to fully active status, I've noticed that many other city-oriented WikiProjects, particularly in the US, have become largely inactive. And this is despite all kinds of work left to do (in my project alone, I can attest to this). Is this a matter of there being much fewer active Wikipedians in general, or is it something else? At any rate, maybe there should be some effort to reawaken these projects. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 21:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects in general are not very active, it's a common problem no-one has really found a solution to (assuming one is desired). CMD (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would be akin to desiring getting more editors involved generally, and I definitely desire that. That's where it seems the problem lies. I haven't witnessed any particular antipathy to WikiProjects. We just have much fewer active editors. Stefen Towers among the rest! GabGruntwerk 00:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly think that some city-oriented WikiProjects should be a task force under this if they are not alive. Some people here may be able to help. Arhan D (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Norfolk, Virginia[edit]

Norfolk, Virginia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Tameside[edit]

Tameside has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 21:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Wigan[edit]

Wigan has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Chambersburg, Pennsylvania[edit]

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists § Should Template:Dynamic list be used in sections that also have Template:Main?. Notifying you all because this will affect basically every city article that has a noted people section. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Virginia Beach, Virginia#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Kraków[edit]

Kraków has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Omaha, Nebraska[edit]

Omaha, Nebraska has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Bendigo needs you![edit]

WikiProject Bendigo is currently seeking interested editors to join the project. If interested, please add your name to the project's participants list and start editing! Lotsw73 (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Evanton[edit]

Evanton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Scarborough, Ontario[edit]

Scarborough, Ontario has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information on poverty, slums and pollution missing on purpose?[edit]

I was working on the article on Dhaka today and noticed that it had almost no information at all about problematic aspects of the city. Sure, traffic congestion was mentioned. But there was hardly anything about the fact that about 30% of Dhaka residents live in slums (!!), that access to water and sanitation is very poor for those people, that the city rivers are very polluted, that low-income areas are often affected by flooding (made worse from climate change). I've added a bit of that now.

Also, almost all of the photos showed a glitzy, shining metropolis, nice buildings and so forth but not a balanced picture of what the city really looks like. So I am just wondering: was that on purpose? Is there perhaps even a kind of policy to show cities of the Global South in their best possible light?

I agree that it would be wrong to let all the problematic aspects dominate a city article on Dhaka totally but to sweep them all under the carpet can't be right either. Who are the people editing this article mostly - is it Global North editors, travel agencies, historians or wealthy people from Dhaka who have little contact with the more difficult sides of their city? Two example publications that I used today are here and here.

More info is on the talk page of the Dhaka article but I came here to ask if there is perhaps a kind of policy or quiet consensus about how problem aspects of cities in developing countries should be reflected in their Wikipedia articles. This would also apply to e.g. Nairobi, Delhi. Pinging User:Sadads in case he'd like to comment. EMsmile (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka#Demographics looks fine, because the slum topic is a small fraction of the overall size of the article. Maybe renamed the section "People living in slums" to just "Slums"??? • SbmeirowTalk • 00:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is fine as long as there isn't a high percentage of content on this subject matter compared to the overall size of the article. We need to ensure that editors don't abuse this topic in a way that promotes racist or bigoted views. This is related to the opposite topic... afluent rich communities... it is generally frown upon to use lots of overly positive fluffy wording for such communities, in the same way should minimize the use of negative or offsensive terms for poor communities. In general, should stick to facts as much as possible, and minimize personal commentary. • SbmeirowTalk • 00:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Northallerton[edit]

Northallerton has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm Talk 02:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox style for city related articles[edit]

Hi everyone. I invite you all to participate in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#City related articles infoboxes to come to a common interpretation about the infobox image format for the city related articles. It would be of a great help. 456legendtalk 02:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical population figures[edit]

Has there been any discussion about whether village and town articles should include historical population data? I think it is absurd for an article about a village with a population of 500 to include a lengthy table of historical population figures. Obviously the current population should be mentioned, but I don't see any general interest in changes in populations over time in the vast majority of articles. 167.98.155.153 (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP[reply]

It's not any more absurd than high percentages of UK village/hamlet articles not having any population data. 98.164.0.128 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not like a telephone directory. A telephone directory shows current information only. But Wikipedia is (or aspires to be) an encyclopaedia, so past information is worth retaining. If it is worth having articles on places like Hovingham, then it is worth recording that the population of Hovingham in the past was nearly double what it is now - and being specific and quoting dates and numbers makes it verifiable. So yes, tables of historical population figures are a good thing, providing that they can be supported by sources.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific article you mention does not contain a table of historical population. It certainly can be worth mentioning significant changes to populations, but consider a specific case: given that UK census data from 1841 onwards can be obtained, should the article for every town and village in England contain a table showing its population at every census? I see absolutely no value in that. I see it as counter to the very idea of an encyclopaedia, which is not a repository of data, facts or figures, but a body of work which explains and provides context to data, facts and figures. A couple of relevant excerpts from policies:
If you think there a policies or guidelines which would support the idea of lengthy tables of population data as encyclopaedic, I'd be interested to know which ones they are. 167.98.155.153 (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP[reply]

Minneapolis, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rural settlements & rural localities?[edit]

Should "rural settlements/localities" categories (e.g. Category:Rural settlements in Ukraine / Category:Rural localities in Russia) and subordinate cats & articles be tagged with {{WP Cities}}, or are they too small?   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  21:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since they are significant enough to have articles written about them, and numerous enough to be categorized, I think they meet the spirit of WP:WikiProject Cities#Scope, even though they're not explicitly mentioned.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:İskenderun#Requested move 22 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 05:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Manpool#Requested move 2 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Póvoa de Varzim[edit]

Póvoa de Varzim has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]