Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 4

Metropolitan Areas WikiProject?
I was wondering if anyone would be interested in creating a wikiproject on U.S. metropolitan areas. At present, the articles are a mess, and mostly use obsolete definitions, rather than the new ones (the new ones being the Metropolitan Statistical Area/Micropolitan Statistical Area/Combined Statistical Area rather than Metropolitan Statistical Area/Combined Metropolitan Statistical Area/Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area). For instance, we still have an article Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area, even though Baltimore and Washington are now in separate Metropolitan Statistical Areas (although the same Combined Statistical Area). It seems to me that it would be nice to try to bring some order to the chaos, and to have articles on the officially defined metropolitan areas, as well, perhaps, as on the officially defined urbanized areas, information about which is also available. Anyone interested? john k 04:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not happy with the project (Indian city template)
I'm not happy with the current guidelines for the Wikiproject cities. I've tried to make a standard for Indian cities based on Mumbai which I featured recently. Here's the full link: Wikipedia_talk:Notice board for India-related topics/Indiacityproject. I plan to add two sections ==utilities/Infrastructure== and ==Housing==. Please take a look at it. Critique always welcome.

Indian cities template 3 Apr 2005 version
 * ==Sections==
 * These are the sections that should be included.
 * ===Lead in===
 * The lead-in consists of text that comes before the Table of Contents. The lead-in should summarise key aspects of the city, what it is known for and its significance. The origins of the city name can also be included here. The lead in should contain a minimum of two medium sized paragraphs. A photo of the city or a famous city monument can be included here.
 * Rating: Compulsory
 * Length: 2-3 paragraphs
 * ===Origin of name===
 * If there are many theories of the name of the city and the etymology which would unnecessary lengthen the lead in, consider adding this section. The origin of the name is important and should be included in the article.
 * Rating: Section optional; inclusion important
 * Length: minimum one large paragraph, or two small paragraphs.
 * ===History===
 * The history section is one of the most important sections of the article. It should describe the key events of the city starting from its origins to the current. As far as possible avoid political history except for key instances crucial for the city's change. The history section should be around four to five mid-sized paragraphs. If it exceeds six paragraphs move the detail to a separate article titled History of xxx, and provide a summary of 4-5 paragraphs here highlighting key points in the city's development. Do not use subheadings.
 * Rating: Compulsory
 * Length: 4-6 paragraphs; summarise/précis if longer, add detail to another page.
 * ===Geography===
 * This section is also compulsory. Describe the city's geographical coordinates, location in India, altitude, area, region (Konkan, Deccan etc.), if coastal city etc. If applicable also mention rivers, lakes, creeks and islands within and near the city. Hills and highest point may also be mentioned.
 * Climate is compulsory. Mention the seasons, weather, when the city gets its rains and annual rainfall. Give the average temperature and if possible temperature records. Also give the range of yearly extreme temperatures. Eg. The annual temperatures range from a high of 42°C to a low of 2°C. The climate section can also be a standalone section. See Mumbai.
 * If information is available then add a paragraph on the geology of the city. This information is optional. If the region falls in an earthquake prone zone; mention that too.
 * If adequate information on both the climate and geology is available, then the two may also be included as subsections under Geography. See Sikkim.
 * Rating: Compulsory
 * Length: Varies. Try not to exceed 10 paragraphs if geology and climate are both included in geography.
 * ===Economy===
 * Describe the primary economy of the city, the major industries, businesses etc. Also mention the primary occupations of the city residents. A list of major companies can also be included.
 * Rating: Compulsory
 * Length: Not more than four paragraphs.
 * ===Government and politics===
 * Mention how the civic administration is run. The executive and legislative wings of the municipality and how many subdivisions are there in the city. The police department can also be mentioned and how many Indian districts the city contributes. The courts can also be mentioned here.
 * Mention the how many seats the city contributes to the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and the state assembly. Also list some of the political parties. Political history can also be added here.
 * Rating: Very Important
 * Length: Not more than four paragraphs.
 * ===Transport===
 * Mention intra-city public transport (don’t use transportation, its American English) eg. Buses auto rickshaws, cycle rickshaws, taxis, trams etc. It should be in prose form rather than in bulleted points. For external transport mention how the city is connected to the rest of India: airports, flying clubs, railway station and buses. Important train and bus stations can be included.
 * Rating: Very Important
 * Length: Variable, avoid more than five.
 * ===Demographics===
 * Mention the population here, if it is a metropolis, mention the city and metropolitan population. Also mention the density, literacy, sex ratio. Mention the break up of religious groups. If information is available the slum population and crime rate statistics can be included. Include inline references.
 * In paragraph 2, mention the languages spoken in the city and ethnic groups.
 * Rating: Very Important
 * Length: maximum three
 * ===Culture===
 * Mention what city residents are called. Mention popular cuisines. Film, architecture, art can be added be added. Include art galleries, museums and public libraries present in the city. Clothing too can be included. Notable musicians, authors, actors etc can be included.
 * Mention festivals in the city, the important ones and how popular ones are celebrated.
 * Rating: Very Important
 * Length: not more than five.
 * ===Education===
 * Write about schools in the city, the boards that they follow and the education pattern. Important schools and colleges can be mentioned. Mention universities and prominent institutions and other educational centres.
 * Rating: Important
 * Length: maximum three.
 * ===Media===
 * Write about the newspapers in the city; radio stations in FM and AM. Also include how television is received in the city &mdash; terrestrial, cable, DTH, CAS. Also include print publications in the city.
 * Rating: Important
 * Length: not more than three.
 * ===Sports===
 * Mention the most popular sport in the city. Also mention the stadiums present in the city for each sport. Also mention what sports are popular in schools, colleges and the most viewed sports. Prominent sportsmen from the city can also be included.
 * Rating: Important
 * Length: not more than three.

I don't like the Notable Natives section on a main city page. It has ample scope for misuse as a POV. I mean, who decides that a person is "notable"? I would rather have it linked off the main page, keeping only the really famous people mentioned in sections such as Sport/ History etc. Another point I don't like is the lists of all the city museums, parks and what not to a page. I raised strong objections to the Seattle article, but was never addressed. A highlight of the famous museums etc would suffice. == 20:03, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding your point about the complete lists of city museums, parks, etc.. This is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no space limitation. There is no reason why a complete directory of city facilities cannot be present.  What "would suffice" in your opinion is incomplete in mine.  --ChrisRuvolo 21:25, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Though this is not a paper encyclopedia, wikipedia has a page size reccomendation. When reading an article, I would like to read the main points about the article on the page, not a vast list of all the museums etc. The entire list of museums and would be better served on another page linked off the main article. This would keep everyone happy. == 19:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * How many museums does an average city have? 5?  Less?  Making room for a short list like that shouldn't be a problem.  Longer lists for larger cities can certainly go on a second page .. but you didn't mention that option in your original comment.  Both Seattle and NYC (for example) have such pages already: Museums and galleries of Seattle List of museums and cultural institutions in New York City  --ChrisRuvolo 19:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologise for not having mentioning that in my first statement. In general editors tend to list all the sporting venues, places to see and so on on the page. (I've used museums as an example). If all the places are added, the end result is a bloated page of locations. :) == 20:34, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed revised city template
I like to propose a revised general city template based on: Current Template of a U.S. City based on WikiProject: Cities - Structure Proposed template for any city
 * Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/Indiacityproject
 * WikiProject Cities for
 * Seattle, Washington and
 * San Jose, California
 * History
 * Law and government
 * Geography
 * Economy
 * Demographics
 * Sites of interest
 * Colleges and universities
 * Sports teams
 * Notable natives
 * (Miscellaneous topics and similar lists)
 * External links
 * Lead section
 * History
 * Government and politics (name change from Law and government)
 * Notable mayors and officials
 * Crime
 * Infrastructure (NEW)
 * Transportation
 * Utilities
 * Medical centers, hospitals, health
 * Social services (Social welfare?)
 * Media
 * Print,Television and cable, Radio, Internet
 * Geography (expand subject - includes older Sites of Interest)
 * Climate, geology, Flora and fauna
 * Neighborhoods
 * Housing
 * Landmarks and architecture
 * Parks, gardens, and other recreational sites
 * Economy
 * Industries, Companies, shopping centers

Please comment Petersam 07:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * People and culture (NEW -- expansion of older sections Demographics and Notable natives)
 * Demographics
 * Annual cultural events and fairs
 * Performing arts
 * Museum and art
 * Libraries
 * Sister cities
 * Notable natives, residents
 * Education (name change from Colleges and universities)
 * Schools, Colleges and universities
 * Sports (name change from Sports teams)
 * (Miscellaneous topics and similar lists)
 * Sister cities
 * References
 * See also
 * External links
 * Further reading

Proposed Chicago style template
From Talk:Chicago, Illinois as of 14 May 2005 with first major revision on 12:11, 22 Dec 2004]. I think the following sections should be considered for this article or Chicago Sub Articles (not lists... prose):
 * === Sections to be added/revised/considered ===
 * History
 * Law and government
 * Crime (proposed)
 * Social & Contemporary Issues (proposed)
 * Environment (proposed)
 * Geography
 * Climate
 * Bodies of water
 * Agriculture (proposed)
 * Flora (proposed)
 * Maps (proposed)
 * Urban Area
 * Suburbs
 * Economy
 * Major industries and products
 * Taxes
 * Demographics
 * Households
 * Age
 * Income
 * Demolingustics (proposed)
 * Education (proposed)
 * Public education (proposed)
 * Private education (proposed)
 * Charter schools (proposed)
 * Libraries (proposed)
 * Colleges & universities
 * Communications and media
 * Arts & culture
 * Museums & Galleries (proposed)
 * Zoos * Aquariums (proposed)
 * Cultural Centers (proposed)
 * Buildings & Landmarks (proposed)
 * Music (proposed)
 * Film & TV (proposed)
 * Theater & Stage (proposed)
 * Folklore (proposed)
 * Cuisine (proposed)
 * Parades & Holidays (proposed)
 * Sports
 * College (proposed)
 * Professional
 * Stadiums (proposed)
 * Health & medicine
 * Transportation
 * Taxis (proposed)
 * Bicylcing (proposed)
 * Tourism and recreation
 * Events & Festivals (proposed)
 * Shopping (proposed)
 * Attractions
 * Infrastructure (proposed)
 * Utilities (proposed)
 * Religion (proposed)
 * Notable houses of worship (proposed)
 * Sources and further reading (proposed)

Including the 2 sections above (Indian cities and template for any city), this is a possible third template for WikiProjects Cities... Petersam 07:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Far too many sections and subsections. Think for a moment about what this would look like in the TOC.  This is the sort of outline my high-school English teachers would have described as "a crutch, not an orgnaizational tool".  I'm not sure what your "Communications and media" section would contain, given that you've put television in with film (huh?!) under "Arts and culture".  In any event, I think this sort of organization can only result from an unjustifiably strict reading of main headings like "Geography" and "Economy".  Here's a much slimmer outline:

I'm not sure where I think religion belongs. In most cases, it's not a significant enough story to escape from "Demographics". Likewise education; I don't think it merits a top-level section, but might belong under "Economy" or "Government" or even "Geography" in some cases. 121a0012 17:31, May 15, 2005 (UTC) I hope the above aren't sub-headings. If it has to be a Featured Article, a minimum number of sub-headings should be used so as not to overwhelm the Table of Contents. = Nichalp ( Talk )= 09:07, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Intro
 * Geography (includes all aspects of physical and political geography; e.g., location, climate, land use, ecology)
 * History (which I think should come after geography so that the historically-relelvant geographic information will already have been introduced)
 * Government and politics (optional, if significant enough to escape from "Geography")
 * Economy (includes major employers, corporate headquarters, infrastructure, hospitals and educational institutions where significant)
 * Demographics
 * Architecture (optional)
 * Media (information: newspapers, magazines, radio, TV; should state Nielsen DMA, Arbitron ADI, major out-of-town newspapers if any)
 * Leisure (includes entertainment, arts, culture, museums, recreation, sports, shopping, tourism)
 * References

Suggestion
The WikiProject should devise two or three types of "outline" templates. One for big cities that are considered as "Metropolitan": Such as Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and others for small towns and small urban cities. Small urban cities don't have the same area or land space as large cities and therefore can not provide the same amount of information. Some small urban cities are not large enough to have their own stadium and sports team. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The template is only a guideline or suggestion as stated at the top of the project page. So smaller cities which do not have a section can leave it out. No need for more templates. Petersam 22:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Aerial photographs
I've begun a personal project to photograph towns and cities from the sky. Since I fly on commercial aircraft, this is rather hit-or-miss, but over the last few weeks I've documented about 50 cities and towns in Indiana and a few more elsewhere. I would like input on the value of the effort and the structure of photographs and their inclusion on city and town pages. --Tysto 2005 July 8 23:10 (UTC)
 * What will this add over satellite services like World Wind, maps.google.com, Google Earth, and TerraServer? --Beirne July 8, 2005 23:48 (UTC)
 * (Note that world wind's closeup colour urban areas are aerial photography, not satellite). Overhead photography can be rather bland, whereas normal aerial photography can add some much-needed perspective.  Note also that only WorldWind imagery is unambiguously usable in wikipedia.  Google's is copyrighted, and TerraServer is something of a curate's egg (it doesn't have a PD source that worldwind doesn't, as far as I can tell). -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk July 9, 2005 00:26 (UTC)
 * I should clarify my statement. I'm not sure it is worth the effort to duplicate what is available elsewhere for free.  I understand that Google and TerraServer are only free as in beer, but I'm not sure it is worth the effort to try to make a free (as in freedom) version of something just because the other material is not free.  The links to Google and Terraserver provide easy access their cities and allow for a variety of views.  Also, distant perspective shots mainly show the city in relation to its surroundings.  One doesn't really learn much about the city.  Where the pictures might be useful is if the town isn't covered in good detail by the satellite services and an overhead closeup is available.  --Beirne July 9, 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Invitation from WikiProject Chicago
If you are a resident of Chicagoland or just someone with an interest in the city, come join Wikipedia: WikiProject Chicago. This project is seeking to coordinate efforts to expand the coverage of Chicago-related topics on the English Wikipedia and to finally make Chicago a Featured Article. This is a brand new WikiProject, and members are needed, so please come and contribute anything you can. We plan to bring the Chicago article up to the standard set by this WikiProject, which by the looks of things is no easy task, so please come and help out. 03:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Categories for Honolulu, NYC, D.C.
There are category changes being voted upon. I support the CITY NAME, STATE NAME pattern discussed on the project's main page. (SEWilco 15:15, 21 August 2005 (UTC))
 * CFD Honolulu, Hawaii
 * CFD Category:New York City, New York
 * CFD Washington, D.C. related categories

(Manchester) Richmond, Virginia
I was so happy to read the information regarding this section of Richmond, Old Manchester, which is too often avoided in these texts. It was a vibrant little community across the river from the city, Richmond. I would assume that the retail industry along Hull Street and its surrounding neighborhoods would reveal the differences and similarities of the two communities upon both banks of the James River. And one never reads about the slave market once here. I also know of its very old African American community with its business and baptist roots. It has been mentioned to me that retail in downtown Richmond was once bustling and a leader throughout the south. When I share old and new photographs or even bring friends from Boston, New York or Paris home to my Richmond, they are surprised and overwhelmingly assert their appeal for its natural beauty. "Why would you want to leave Richmond for Harlem, New York?" Just the 5th district itself, so centrally located geographically, with neighborhoods like Woodland Hts, Swansboro, Carytown, Carillon, Byrd/Maymont, Randolph, Hollywood and more, has great monuments, grand homes, small homes, the ornate Byrd Theatre, a stadium and lots of trees with sounds of falling, rushing water over rock along the river. Oh so Richmond; so unique for a city, which has a country feel just as well. The text about Richmond, including Old Manchester, captures well the facts and romance of this historical real city. I look forward to how it will develop for the casual reader. 172.144.13.112 01:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Composite Placebox
People working at WikiProject Argentina have created a generic, customizable set of templates to characterize populated places, following the model of the composite Taxobox of WikiProject Tree of Life. Please take a look at Template talk:Placebox-begin. Suggestions are welcome. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 11:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

GR links
GR produces links to Geographic references with the same appearance as Footnotes, a numbered link. But this conflicts with Footnotes links within the same article in several ways due to these reserved GR numbers not being within the same article. Could a different notation (maybe GR1) be used by GR? (SEWilco 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC))
 * Any approval or disapproval over using [GR1] or GR1 so as to avoid conflict with other references? (SEWilco 07:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC))
 * I have no objection to any formatting of the references, so long as I don't have to run the bot over every 30,000 article and change anything. &mdash; Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Change completed. (SEWilco 05:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

Infobox
The following are discussions concerning various infobox template formats. Feel free to add you thoughts and suggestions on the matter. Pentawing 04:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Infobox city pt
Can you please be so kind as to leave the portuguese cities infobox alone. We made few simple templates to suite our needs and political organization, please do not substitute it for something more complicate and that does not reflect the way country is organized. Also, next time please ask before doing a major change. Thank you João Correia 21:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize João, I thought the infoboxes we're similar enough that they would be acceptable. Would you be interested in helping us improve Infobox City so that it would be appropriate for Cities in Portugal?  I'll keep my hands of the pt template in the mean time :), thanks. harpchad 23:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sorry about the harsh comments.
 * It's only that we made templates for the portuguese cities and municipalities that reflect our specific political organization, and that link directly to pages explaining it. It may seem to you that the cities template is only used in a few pages, but the municipalities template is very widely used. So in my opinion there is nothing to be gained in changing them for a standard, more complicated templates, that don't contain this info. And especially, please do not do a major alteration before O.K.ing it with some one first. Cheers João Correia 11:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Template Revision: Vote
I've revised the infobox template a bit, using a slightly different format than some of the other cities. Personally, I really don't like the existing infobox, which does not include the city skyline within the infobox. Most city pages prefer to add a skyline image directly above at the top of each page, which makes sense. But without this included inside the infobox itself, it tends to draw lots of problems. First, several city pages include the infobox further down on the page, with the first text section in between the infobox and the top skyline image - this just looks bad. Secondly, other city pages seem to have a problem with the image width and infobox width being different sizes (see the San Francisco, California article on this one). Third, it doesn't seem to make sense to me to have the city name HEADER at the top of the infobox (as standard), yet below the city skyline image (e.g. not at the top of the page). Please take a look at the discussion and VOTE on the Talk:Los Angeles, California article. Dr. Cash 01:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Infobox - suggestions needed for single standard format
There are currently two major infobox formats, with examples shown below. I believe that we should decide on a single version which would supersede all of these formats. Any suggestions is appreciated. Pentawing 05:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I prefer the option #3 (far to the right; Boston, Massachusetts example). The primary reason is that many city pages include a city skyline image at the top of the page, and I don't think it looks very good or professional to have the city skyline image outside of the image box. Using the skyline image with one of the other two options, looks like bad form, as well as makes some of the opening paragraph text appear between the image and the infobox, forcing the infobox further down on the page. I also think that the text is clearer and easier to read on this option as well. The other two infobox examples have smaller text that might make it harder to read for some people. Data is also better organized and the table definitions are more visible, though option #1 (far left) is organized reasonably well, too, with the major heading areas marked. Option #2 (middle) appears the worst, as data is not separated very well and stuff just appears thrown in there. Dr. Cash 06:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems that someone has figured out how to place an "optional" entry for skyline images into the Infobox City template. Because of this template's cleaner appearance, I am beginning to target city articles with the US City Infobox template and replace those templates with the Infobox City template version. However, city articles with the version on the right above will remain for now. PentawingTalk 07:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * this decision need sto be redone, a it is strongley biased toward the box toward mr cash, not all of the infoboxes in user are displayed on this page for discussion. Secondly i strongley disagree with any use of an image outside of the map, seal and flag to be used in the infobox. As faras i stand i see nothign that say that a prroved design has beeb issued in the use for city infoboxes, and that any attempt to force a standard as cash has done will be rejected with out an clear discussion on all alternatives being used or that are to be proposed. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am merely suggesting a single general city infobox format (to me, it is redundant to have more than one format, though I am aware of infoboxes for cities exclusive to Florida and New Hampshire). Nevertheless, for the Template:Infobox City, the skyline image entry is optional (if no image is specified, the entry does not show up). If you could suggest another format, please do so. PentawingTalk 02:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My standing is NOT to include any image other then the map, seal, and flag, in the box. Include an photographic imge, all bu degrades the image in quailty and size, by limiting the size of an image to the size of the infobox, which for the majority of images that are used in city articles as the top image shrink them, thus degrading the guailty of the image, or it would leave the determining of the size of the infobox, particular in width, on the size of the infobox, which is not perfered fore the reson that it will at times overly distort the infobox size. Even setting the image as an option only goes to perterpuate this problem, The photographic image should be outside of the box,. Also the examples above do not accturcaly reflect the alternatives aviable, but basically is modified version of the the cashman version, which he has decided to impose as the staandard based on the disision of the infobx to be used only on the LA page. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your arguments, though as I noted before can you suggest other formats other than the two that are listed above so that at least others can see what alternate styles are being considered? Thanks. PentawingTalk 03:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to say that i do find this dissapointing, you say their are three versions yet you only list 2, and you did not take the time, if you only listed the two, to examine if their were other boxes in use, i doubt that now, considering that cash has imposed his standard, i could be given equal consideration for an alternative. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 03:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I have a problem with the styling of the U.S. city infobox (to me, it isn't a clean design). On the otherhand, the styling of the infobox on the right is equally problematic (border lines are clearly visible). As a compromise, I reinserted the original U.S. city infobox and removed the skyline image from the infobox on the left (whose visual style I prefer the most). PentawingTalk 04:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Like i stated above, "i doubt that now, i could be given equal consideration for an alternative.". --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Due to the exchange above, I must clarify what the true intent of this discussion is: it is to come up with a single format and style for city infoboxes to (theoretically) replace the myriad city infoboxes (especially for U.S. cities) so that there is a uniform appearance throughout all city articles. There has not been a final decision concerning format (though it is informally leaning towards the infobox on the left, which has several optional features not displayed on this page). Every attempt by me has been made to ensure that nobody is being ignored on this issue. Actions that appear to ignore other people's opinions have been mostly unintentional, and for that I apologize. Hence, if you do have a formatting/style idea for the infobox, please list them here. PentawingTalk 04:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps I should respond before Boothy443 paints me as a real bad guy with bad intentions. My intentions are only for the best. I no longer favor the option on the right. With the recent changes to the Infobox City template (left option), most notably the option to include the city skyline image within the infobox (but also a few other minor changes), I think this is the best option. My opposition to having the city skyline image outside of the infobox is primarily that this option tends to make articles look unprofessional and of lower quality (and I'm looking at the overall quality of the article, not just image quality). Placing the skyline image separate tends to put the image first, followed by some text from the opening paragraph, and then the city infobox lower down on the page. I believe the pages look best when the skyline image is connected to the infobox with no text in between. I also think the article as a whole looks best with the infobox at the top of the page (instead of having to scroll down), as well as having the skyline image at the same width as the infobox. I have not noticed any serious degrading in quality of the skyline image at all. Dr. Cash 04:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh give me a break with your proffessionalsim bs, it is far mre unprofessional to have the imge be degraded in quailty in size by forcing into a box, then it would ever be including it in the box, But apparently you support the maiking an photo look more unprofessional then you box. But what ever this argument was baised by not providing an accurate respresentation of all alternatives being used in favor of the nominators perferd versions, and a de-facto standard was issued on the standared decide on one article now being imposed on all articles, what a joke, i guess the collbatrave effore is dead. --Boothy443 |  trácht ar 05:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly have no clue where to even begin to respond to your comments. Dr. Cash 06:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You know what don't. In the end a standard was imposed w/o any meaningfull discussion or so called consensus, w/o the full respresentation of all aviable alternatives, nor were contrubutors brought in who have worked on alternatives rbough in to help creat a standard. Oh well thats wikipedia for you. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Personally, US city infobox looks the cleanest, easiest to read, and, for what it matters, the prettiest. I like the fact that is uses gray to shade in sections to help seperate them. Other than the skyline option in the Boston, Massachusetts template there's nothing else I really like about it. It looks sort of boring with the cell borders showing up (totally 1995), without any bolded text, no shading, and no personality. --Every1blowz 20:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems that Dr. Cash has begun to replace the now none-existant third option with the the first infobox style. Hence, I have removed it. PentawingTalk 03:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Elevation?
Shouldn'e elevation be in the infobox? Around here (Colorado), city limits signs tell that more often than they do population. 70.218.186.253 19:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC) user:kkinder
 * See Template:Infobox City. The entry has been added. PentawingTalk 07:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Map size
I left some comments at Template talk:Infobox City regarding use (map size problems) of the infobox for cities in certain states that are oriented n/s (e.g. New Jersey). To solve my problem, I created a modified version of Infobox City, which also incorporates some other changes (e.g. added "Founded" date). If these changes are acceptable to you, I suggest the changes be merged back into Infobox City, to create an infobox that's useful for more cities. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 18:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

New comparison of Infobox city and Infobox U.S. city
Please compare the following two infoboxes. Is there any reason why Infobox city and Infobox U.S. city cannot be merged to make one standardized template? While there are some slight differences, they are basically the same infobox. Please state your opinion on what, if anything, should be done.&mdash;MJCdetroit 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that merging these two infoboxes is a good idea. I like the visual layout of US_City, but prefer the additional information in City.  To facilitate merging these two templates I've created Template:Infobox_City_Merge.  I've added it beside the other two for comparison.  Please comment, test, improve, fix, etc.  But don't use the Merge template on articles other than sandbox. harpchad 23:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks great. The only thing I don't like is the "WGS-84 (GPS)" below coordinates. Another thing, the guys at Template:Infobox_country just remade the design of that template an it looks really, really cool. Is there any chance this infobox could share a similar look? --Enano275 00:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I updated the Merge template to remove the GPS and WGS references. I agree that they don't add much.  I looked at the new country infobox and I think I prefer the visual style from US City.  Both of the city boxes have quit of bit of row hiding built in as well that the country infobox lacks. harpchad 04:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How would the issue of the slightly different named fields be handled. Example: Population_metro in infobox city and metro pop in infobox U.S. city?  Would the pages (~175) using Infobox U.S. city all have to be changed over manually or could a bot be made?&mdash;MJCdetroit 03:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's definitly going to be the hard part. I did a quick count and US City has roughly 150 pages whereas City has about 650.  That's why I choose the variable set from City for the Merge template.  I think we get a consensus on the format and update the City template.  Then mark the US template as deprecated until the pages can be updated.  A bot would probably work, but we'd need somebody with permissions to use one. harpchad 04:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Totaly aginst the merging of any of the themplates. Their should be one U.S version and not a one for all template. The templat in any for is and continues to be a extemely US centrict templat, and to roll this out as the perfed city templat for all cites is wrong, if you are not going to talk to or ask for help form other user regarding the numerious other infoboxes in use. Also the new merged template has numerious faults to it as well. First of their are no seperations line at the top seperate the sections like the image/symbols/motto/nicknames, this is an espically large parblem if the mott and nickanme are long, as they will just look like they are one floing thing with a link in the middle, also seperation lines add a cleaner and more refined look. Since this should continue to be a temple that focouses on United States, their is no need to have a country or state section, even if it was international i dont belove that a county section is need at all. The pouplation section should stay the ay it is in the US box. The censsus year should like to an apppropate census year article, which their are, the fliping of denisity and metro, makes it looks like the density refers to the metro areas not the city. Percentage water should saty. Coordinates should stay in the GPS format, and should show the standard that they are, other wise this become a very us centrict focus. Any way one day is harldy a discussion to decided what is deprecheted or not, and if mrked as so i will revert. As the creator of the US box, I am also conidering a total overhaull of the template which i plan to do over the weekend, but the pushing of the one use template for all citites, is a bad idea, in every way. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we are asking for help, that's why this discussion is happening. The merge template was just meant as a talking point to facilitate the discussion about merging these infoboxes, i haven't seen any claims that a decision has been made.  Your input, and assistance if you're willing, would be appreciated.  I think your concerns can be addresses, let me try to take them one at a time:
 * Separation lines in motto/nickname space field: I can work on adding them, though anyone else is welcome to contribute as well
 * Country/State section: These are optional, they are constructed from the subdivision_type and subdivision_name fields.  If you examine the markup you'll see that they are easily left out where not needed.
 * Census link: The problem with forcing that link to a census page in the template is that even in US articles there may not be a corresponding census. In the example article the population came from 2004, but there is no 2004 census article. A census link is easily included manually. i.e. |population_as_of = 2000
 * Population fields: I see your point about the ordering, I'll adjust the template
 * Water percentage: I'll see about adding this as well
 * GPS: I'm not sure what to do here, GPS is a US system, putting a link in directly to it doesn't address GLONASS and Galileo. WGS has the same issues, we might want the link to be to ETRS is Europe for example.  Maybe we can add an optionally hidden field here.  I'll play around with it.
 * I want to invite you to assist in making the merge template useable. I think having a unified look to all city pages, US or not, is a good goal.  I think if we get together on this we can make the template flexible enough to meet everybody's needs.  Feel free to add changes yourself, that's why the merge templet is out there, so that we can experiment collaboratively without affecting any articles. harpchad 13:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally For. (support) - For the simple reason that, should the Encyclopedia Britannica use infoboxes for each of its 'big city' articles, I would expect that they all be in the same format. Still, the present infobox cannot accomodate the administrative/demographic makeup of many European cities, as, unlike many North American cities, 'city limits' in many 'cites' there do not expand with the agglomeration. Take Paris for example, whose city limits have not moved an inch in almost a century: as an agglomeration it covers an area thirty times its city size, yet nothing outside Paris' city limits is called 'Paris'. For this, in order not to make the city seem as a reasonable burg of 2 000 000 people, it becomes necessary to also indicate the real urban growth. Or, in other words, for this template to become an international standard, there must be included some way to accomodate 'cities' whose dense growth spills over their official city limits - a demographic reality best represented by the UN-standardised Urban Area. Also, the term Metropolitan area has a much-varied use (and abuse) through Wikipedia. First off, very few countries share the same definition of this term, a reality well-highlighted by the Metropolitan area article, so without explanation (inclustion criteria, density, etc) this term remains ambiguous to the layman reader. Instead I suggest, under the "Metropolitan area" and "urban area" titles, indicate also the land surface being talked about and population living within. Not only would this eliminate all ambiguity, but would also give a precise indication (through area/population comparison) of where the agglomeration ends, the commuter belt begins, and the respective population density of each. There is an accepted version of this present in the Paris article as the Template:Major French Cities, but possible revisions are being discussed there. Thanks for any commentary (here) on these points, and their possible integration into the present 'cities' infobox template. T HE P ROMENADER 13:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To Boothy: I honestly see no reason to oppose so hardly to a merge. Yes, it would take a lot of work, but they are so similar that a merged infobox would take good things from each infobox and make a perfect template for this purpose. Regarding your concerns, I think we could agree to make an infobox that would suit every city's needs, it just has to be discussed. Also, a unified template would center all the work that is being done in only one infobox. Imagine all the people constantly working on each of the two infoboxes doing a joined task. I think we could open a formal discussion on this where people could vote. --Enano275 22:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think there are two ways to accommodate this. We could make the metro/urban area fields similar to the subdivision fields, where both key and value can be defined.  Alternatively we could add a separate urban area field and it would display one or both depending on which was filled in.  I'm leaning toward the second option for backward compatibility with the existing City template.  The flexibility of the key/value option is tempting though. harpchad 18:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I recently added an urban area field in both Infobox City and Infobox U.S. City. It is an optional field which only shows up if the appropriate entry is filled. There is currently no indication of the surface areas of either metro area or urban area though. Polaron | Talk 20:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the Merge template into Infobox City. I've begun checking pages using This List of pages using Infobox City. It looks good so far. Please do some spot checking on pages you contribute to and make sure everything looks good. harpchad 20:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The website field seemed messed up (gave the address twice and added brakets to the end). I changed it.  I only tested a couple of pages.&mdash;MJCdetroit 20:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's one to watch out for, I've noticed in a couple of places that either (or both) the imagesize or mapsize entries don't contain px. i.e. some say mapsize = 250, which results in a huge map. I've corrected the one's I've found to be 250px.  Looking at the previous version it appears that that variable was ignored due to an incorrectly formatted Image tag. harpchad 14:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have a couple more suggestions to make:
 * Taking those dashes away from in front of "city" "urban" and "metro" - to separate from sub-headings - and for better comprehension make the latter two "Urban area" and (at least) "Metro area"
 * We are still discussing this on the Paris page, but for the time being the Template:Major French Cities has a separate section, since the UA and MA are not the administrative 'city' but a greater demographic growth 'on' the city, dedicated to this UA and MA info. Please have a look at Paris for example - I do like the cross-comparison ease of area/population fields, and with this method it wasn't necessary to take space for an 'area' heading for us to understand that it is area we're talking about there.  T HE P ROMENADER  17:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote
Discussion and edits to the modified Template:Infobox City have slowed down. I think it's now time to vote on the following:
 * 1) Deprecate Template:Infobox U.S. City by adding Template:Tdeprecated.
 * 2) Place Template:newinfobox and Template:infoboxneeded on all articles that currently include Infobox U.S. City.
 * 3) Include a commented-out copy of the Infobox City empty syntax with the infobox notices along with a note to copy values, uncomment the new template and remove the old.
 * Strongly Support - A uniform infobox, when practical, is preferred. I believe we've captured all of the elements from the U.S. version in the new Infobox City while still keeping it flexible enough for international use. harpchad 03:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support&mdash; The infoboxes look so similar as they stand now anyways. A standard infobox has worked very well over at Template:Infobox country.  Instead of a few editors per country article trying to improve many different infoboxes&mdash;there are many editors trying to improve one standard box used in almost 200 articles.  The same can be done here equally as well. Let's do it and get it done. &mdash;MJCdetroit 05:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong oppose, the so called new box is nothing less then an editors nightmare. Has to may variables that need to be used for it to be eaily used in any article, as well as that the numserious amount of variables only takes up article space that to coude be put to better use in article txt ahtne templat txt. Hardly any of the problems that i point out were taken in consideration, basiclay glossed over, leding to the oversized and bloadted desing that will be basiclay forced as the standars. I for one to not plan to change the useg of the current templat on the articles that i monitor, regardless of this decision of this process, which his been nothing less then dissapointiong, consider that this decision is being apparenlty mad for wiki wide with no input from other editors of other place infoboxes. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This template has 41 variables, but quite a few are mutually exclusive For other very widely used templates shock-ful of potential variables, see cite_book(28), Infobox University(also 41) and taxobox(Over a hundred potential variables). Circeus 14:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am completely for this merge, but I must insist, so that this template have an effective international use, that there be an "area" field for both the Urban Area and Metropolitan Area fields: the definition of these vary greatly between some countries (and are one and the same for others), so giving the exact area of each would elminate all ambiguity, as area can be compared to population for a real and calculable definition of population density for each statistical area. In fact, adopting this into this template would be a HUGE step in clearing up city 'real size' ambiguity (and 'bigger than' competitions) through all of Wiki. An occasion to to some widespread good here.  T HE P ROMENADER  13:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Done and Done, See the Philadelphia example above (the values are obviously bogus, just an example). I added two optional rows for Urban and Metro area, both use metric units with optional English units. harpchad 15:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Egads! I've only one thing left to say then: Strong Support.  T HE P ROMENADER  15:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support. As I said in a comment above. --Enano275 19:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support There has been a successful effort to consolidate University Infoboxes as well. There were 40+ infoboxes prior.  -- Reflex Reaction  ( talk )• 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. good stuff. -Quiddity 17:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the deprecated tag to Infobox U.S. City as well the newinfobox/infoboxneeded tags to the articles. harpchad 18:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Boothy443 seems intent on starting an edit war. He's made un-summarized reverts on several of the city articles I updated yesterday.  He also removed the deprecation notice on the US Infobox.  It seems that consensus doesn't matter, Boothy443 will do whatever he pleases regardless of our work here.  Does anyone have any suggestions on how to resolve this dispute, perhaps a straw poll would help decide the situation, though based on his comments I don't get the feeling think Boothy443 is interested in the community's opinion?  harpchad 11:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would recommend you nominate the template for deletion at Templates for deletion. &mdash;Jnk [ talk ] 12:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I placed the deprecated tag back. I added some examples and left some comments on the U.S. City infobox talk page also.&mdash;MJCdetroit 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I went through a similar experience with a similarily-behaved user not so long ago - I would also suggest nominating the old US template for deletion. Also perhaps leave a same message on every page updated with the new template - this way others will be aware of the changes and can help maintain them. T HE P ROMENADER 14:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions, I'll go ahead and make the nomination. I was hoping we could do the cleanup first so that we could avoid substing or breaking any articles, but I guess that's not going to be an option. harpchad 15:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not that I am not in favor of this, but shouldn't all the articles be switched first? I'll attempt to switch some but this would have to be a community project in order to switch over to the Infobox city standard before U.S. city infobox is deleted. &mdash;MJCdetroit 17:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a "holding cell" at the bottom of the TfD page for templates that have met the guidelines and process for deletion, but need to be removed from other pages before they can actually be deleted. This may not be ideal, since a lot of work has yet to be done before the template is deleted, but since there seems to be some disagreement with Boothy443 over the deletion this will allow a broader community concensus about the deprecation of the template to be formed. (And as a side effect, if the deletion is successful you may attract more editors from the TfD page to help in the conversion of pages still referencing the old template.) &mdash;Jnk [ talk ] 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I forgot about that (probably because I have never had to used it before). My concerns were met. Delete it. &mdash;MJCdetroit 20:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Vote on the deletion of Infobox U.S. City here harpchad 15:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 15:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Design Tweaks
Moved to Template_talk:Infobox_City

"CDP" nomenclature
I was reading the entry for La Riviera, California which starts like this:
 * La Riviera is a census-designated place located in Sacramento County, California.

Then down in the body of the article are lots of sentences like this:
 * As of the census of 2000, there are 10,273 people... residing in the CDP.
 * The racial makeup of the CDP is...
 * In the CDP the population is spread out with...

Though I've figured it out now, at first I had no idea what "CDP" stood for. At first I assumed it was something like "Central Business District", that is, that these sentences were referring to some central, built-up part of the place, as opposed to the whole place. I now see that the term "the CDP" is being used in this article exactly as "the city" or "the town" would be used in an article about an incorporated city or town. But I think it's poor -- besides being potentially confusing, it's just kind of clanky style. I changed the first sentence to "La Riviera is a census-designated place (CDP) located in...", to try to help readers make the connection with the TLA. But I think it would be better to replace all instances of "the CDP" with something friendlier, perhaps "the locality" or "the place" or "the town" or simply (in this case) "La Riviera". And of those I think I like repeating the actual name best. The repetition will be mildly clumsy, and it would be nice to use a placeholder such as "the town", but if there is no euphonious placeholder term for a census-designated place, we might as well just repeat the name, since I think using "the CDP" is more clumsy, not less. The other question is, if people agree and if I want to make this change, does anyone have a bot that could make the change to all CDP's which follow this same pattern? There are hundreds of these CDP's, and I'm certainly not going to edit them all by hand! Steve Summit (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your revision of the first sentence is welcome. However, unlike municipalities, where there are clear boundary lines, the boundaries for CDPs are somewhat artificial. While the census works with local authorities to define CDPs, the boundaries set off frequently do not match exactly with local understanding. For accuracy, I think it is important that any demographic or geographic information from the Census Bureau be identifed as being associated with the "CDP". Other references not from the Census could use other terms such as community or locality though. older ≠ wiser 15:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can make this change, if not disapproved here, I prefer "La Riviera is a census-designated place (CDP) located in..." . Let me know any other changes that you think should be made across the U.S. census articles, and I'll see if I can help. Rich   Farmbrough 01:17 24  March 2006 (UTC).
 * There may be 10,273 people in the CDP, but the town with the same name may have a different population, since it may have different boundaries. Also, if a CDP is not incorporated, you can't just change it to "city" or "town". The best you can do is spell out the meaning of CDP the first time it is used (in some cases thereafter, you can repeat the name of the place for "the CDP"), and wait for someone who knows the place to change the other instances to an appropriate word. GUllman 05:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Descendent WikiProjects subpage?
I just updated the list of descendent WikiProjects, but the list should really be on a separate subpage (much like the list of US State WikiProjects is at WikiProject U.S. states/List of state WikiProjects). That would make it so that there was one single list that could either be linked to, or transcluded, at each of the descendent WikiProjects. Blank Verse 12:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would grade Nashville, Tennessee as a B-class article. Kaldari 22:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

ZIP (or other postal) codes
I've noticed a dearth of ZIP codes in U.S. town articles. In New York City, zip codes aren't mentioned until the section on Government, and they're absent completely form most towns' articles. Would it be a good idea to train a bot to insert zip codes into U.S. city articles (and other zip codes for other countries, if possible)? Even just inserting a sentence like "CityName has the postal codes foo, bar, and zed." would be a good improvement. Postal and telephone area codes are both pretty important information for an encyclopedia to have. Phoenix-forgotten 19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)'
 * I've made a point to include zip code information in the first paragraph for everyone of the 80+ neighborhoods of Pittsburgh though the city site doesn't have them listed. I think it is a good idea to include them Hholt01 18:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Birmingham article
Can you please help me get this article to featured status?? --Sunfazer | Talk 15:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Mumbai
An anon User:59.95.12.175 keeps removing the the Urdu spelling of the the name, quoting that there are not many Urdu speakers in Mumbai so it is not required. I would appreciate any outside intervention. Srik e it ( talk ¦  ✉  )  11:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say the most de facto guideline is to follow the example of the navigational signs (not the advertising signs) that are found around and within the city. If all the traffic signs are bilingual, or if the signs are in different languages in different regions of the city, this indicates that the city acknowleges and has accommodated the cultural differences within the city. If, however, there exists a unifying language that everyone understands to get around the city, then the title of the article can be in this language, and the translations given when minority groups are discussed. GUllman 20:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)