Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 7

Sister Cities
On articles such as Washington, D.C., the list of sister cities does not match what is provided by Sister Cities International. In this example, the portion of the article even says itself that only 10 of the entries are listed on that website. I understand that agreements may be signed outside of Sister Cities Intl., but where can that information be found? Is there another general website that I am missing, or is this something that should be referenced for each city not listed at Sister Cities Intl.? My particular concerns is the trend of new and/or anonymous editors of adding new sister cities to numerous city articles without any indication of whether such is true or not. Sláinte! --Thisisbossi 16:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When lack of a local source is unable or hard to find, I've found that Sister Cities International's website is a good definitive source for these. But I have noticed that there can be some discrepancies. For example, looking at Los Angeles, California, and there are some cities not on the SCI website that are on the Los Angeles Sister Cities website. In this case, I've gone with the local source as the better one and removed SCI from being referenced. Dr. Cash 20:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do we consider Sister cities notable? Are we sure it passes WP:NOT?  The information seems trivial at best. Alan.ca 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think they're definitely notable. But I still wouldn't put the priority very high. They show some interesting symbolic relationships between two cities internationally. Many cities have public displays of their sister city relationships as well (see Los Angeles, California, Louisville, Kentucky as examples). Dr. Cash 04:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sister Cities are "notable" since they are cities, and all cities are "notable." The Sister City relationship doesn't have to be "notable" to be appropriate content for an article, it just needs to be verifiable.  It seems like it would be good information to include in an enclopedia article, since it is interesting (to some of us) in itself and because it provides a useful research lead, both to the local Sister City committees and the frequently "notable" people involved and to news articles about the Sister City relationship.  For example, one of San Jose's sister cities is Dublin.  It started because our Irish-American mayor made friends with the Lord Mayor of Dublin; they both ended up leading delegations to the other's city, which generated lots of news coverage (plus, I got to meet the LM and his entourage, since they were interested in garbage and wastewater treatment); the Lord Mayor became Taoiseach of Ireland, which meets just about any notability standard that could be thought up here.  Similar exchanges involving "notable" personages are typical of sister city relationships, depending on the size of the cities.  Regarding pairs that aren't listed on the SCI website, I think that some were affiliated with the organization, but dropped off when the local committee didn't manage to sustain itself.  Others might have been products of the People to People Program.--Hjal 06:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding media
What is appropriate for inclusion in a Media section for a city? Local newspapers, radio, and TV stations seem like locks, but recently, users have been adding online news sources dedicated to covering a particular area in the Media section of several cities on my watchlist. (For example, OwensboroReport.com for Owensboro, Kentucky and MuhlenbergNewsOnline.com for Central City, Kentucky.) Some of these look like blogs to me. A link was also added to a local classified ad paper in one instance. What guidelines can I cite in terms of links in the media section? Acdixon 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider reviewing WP:EL and WP:NOT. Alan.ca 01:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review requested for Madrid
A Peer review has been requested for Madrid, the article about the capital city of Spain, and an article within the scope of WikiProject Cities. Please feel free to edit the Madrid article to improve it and/or leave a comment at Peer_review. Espana Viva  18:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update! There was a list of concerns provided quite some time ago at Talk:Madrid/Comments. Alan.ca 11:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've started to peek at it too. &mdash;MJCdetroit 13:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy the comments referred to above directly onto the peer review page. Thanks again! Espana Viva  20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

City Infrastructure
I would think that a city's infrastructure - water, electricity, sanitation, transportation, parks & gardens, cemeteries - are essential to its operation and say a lot about a city's region/culture. I see great use in adding this category to the Wikiproject:Cities - does anyone else share this opinion, or see logic in this suggestion? THE PROMENADER  08:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you provide an example of an article where you have included this content that you feel exemplifies the inclusion in other city articles? Alan.ca 03:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for ThePromenader, but I can offer examples I've noticed around here:
 * New Haven, Connecticut
 * State College, PA
 * --orlady 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO the New Haven article doesn't sway me either way. However, the State College, PA article is an example of a list bringing down the quality of the article.  Do you know of any FA class articles with such a section? Alan.ca 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't claim those were good examples; they are merely examples I had run across recently. I agree that the State College content is poor. Also, I am dismayed to see that the New Haven article does not mention shipping facilities in the city's harbor. --orlady 16:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * San Jose Utilities includes the "infrastructure" for water and wastewater, plus garbage & recycling services, gas and electricity, and cable. Transportation is in the section just above this one.  Since cities were frequently founded because of their water supply (and have sometime failed when their water supply failed), this seems like enclyclopedic information.  High tech firms look at the price and dependability of energy, availability of clean water (having Hetch Hetchy water may mean not having to purify much or at all before use in manufacturing), and treatment plant capacity and discharge restrictions, just as they look at highway access and rail spurs when they choose new locations.  OTOH, not every city has cemetaries in town—San Francisco evicted almost all of theirs 100 years ago.--Hjal 05:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems the San Jose article is 73 kb in length. My main concern when considering these options for official coverage is that we may be creating huge articles that are overwhelming to read and maintain.  Do you know when San Jose was reviewed for FA class status? Alan.ca 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As someone unfamiliar with San Jose, I find the utilities info in that article to be informative. However, the list of stuff that the city recycles could stand to be trimmed: "The list includes all plastic categories 1 through 7; aerosol cans and paint cans; polystyrene including "packing peanuts" and hard foam packing, such as in electronic and computer products' boxes; aluminum furniture; small metal appliances; metal pots and pans (including cast iron); and clean cotton, linen, polyester, rayon, and wool fabrics (for example, blankets, clothes, cloth diapers, rags, and sheets)." (I will go trim it.) --orlady 16:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Progress chart
I replaced the featured article listings on the page with a progress chart, similar to progress charts that have appeared in other wikiprojects. The progress chart was originally put together by the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Team, and I just updated some of the numbers. They should be correct as far as I can tell.

So, it looks like most of the articles tagged for this Wikiproject are unassessed and unrated. So I guess there's a lot of work to do with the tagging. But on the bright side, we've got 36 articles that are currently rated as Featured Articles, so that's great! Dr. Cash 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, I created that chart/bot process and it is included in our Assessment Department page. Changes to the table are documented in WikiProject_Cities/Assessment. Alan.ca 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding Template:Infobox City to all U.S. Cenus Areas (41,903 cities/towns/townships/villages/etc.)
I am considering adding the Infobox City template to all place articles in the United States (41,903 of them, mostly from the Rambot). Please read and contribute to the discussion at the template's talk page: Template talk:Infobox City --CapitalR 11:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

City template
The page says "There are 3 proposals for a revised city template, see talk page", but the talk page doesn't list any. Are there still proposals, or is there a standard template? In particular, was there resolution on the "notable natives" section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eostrom (talk • contribs) 06:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Wondering this myself. The main page itself is a mess. There are two different city templates on the main page... MahangaTalk to me 22:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the archives. I did a quick check and found a brief mention here and the first few discussions here.  As far as I can gather (it was before my time here, too) there wasn't much discussion or consenses.   B rien C lark Talk 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prefer the "notable natives/residents" to be well down in the article for two reasons. 1) the article is about corporate identity not individual accomplishments. Cities aren't notable because certain people live there. 2) more practically, this section gets vandalized more than others. Vandals may not get that far in the article. Other sections take more intelligence to vandalize!  :) Can this be changed? Student7 19:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem on WP:FAC
Jerusalem is currently undergoing a featured article candidacy. The FAC page is transcluded below (feel free to remove it from this page if the FAC gets too long):

A city peer review
Hi. I wondered if you have a moment to check that the outline of Minneapolis, Minnesota meets WikiProject City's goals, and if you have any suggestions or a model city to follow. A ton of work, but it is now separated into a main and daughter articles and has a template at the bottom serving as an index which seems to help on the smaller related articles. Here is a link to peer review in progress in case you have time. Thank you from a fan. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello. Some feedback came during GA review, but none here or in peer review. So I am going with a hybrid of your outline based on the advice of the two people who have edited Minneapolis and have some familiarity with your project. Of cities that are featured articles, Mumbai has always looked liked one of the best to me (no second level headings). Among U.S. cities that are featured, the present Minneapolis outline is closest to Boston, Massachusetts and Ann Arbor, Michigan, along the same lines as Mumbai. Sorry to depart from the standard but I guess it was meant to be flexible. -Susanlesch 06:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

City definition debate - Halifax, Nova Scotia
Hi, I have been having a raucous debate with another user over the use of the word city on this page Halifax, Nova Scotia. I think the debate boils down to this - because the Halifax Regional Municipality is a rural, suburban and urban area, with a single municipal government, it is hard to call it a city. However, the former city of Halifax does not exist in any legal way... further the adjacent suburban and urban areas all run together, its one big conurbation. Anyway, please have a look at the talk page and tell me what you think, I am tired of the argument but I think the user is wrong, but I am at wits end. WayeMason 01:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion for standard city format
I think it would be useful to have guidelines regarding the introduction of city articles, as there is too little consistency. My suggestion would be:
 * City name and population (only ONE estimate or census)
 * Metro population (only ONE estimate or census)
 * Brief note about founding/historical roots
 * Nicknames
 * Its economic basis
 * Other characteristics commonly associated with the city, unique to it (e.g. LA: entertainment, Detroit: music contributions, Houston: energy and NASA, etc....)

I just cleaned up Long Beach's intro and it had 5 paragraphs on tourism. Any thoughts?--Loodog 00:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, in a note that applies to the introduction as well as the article as a whole, I'd like the phrase "is known for", to be heavily contraindicated.--Loodog 01:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that only one estimate or set of census data for population is enough. However, I've found that the population and demographic information are typically the most heavily edited text in city articles, especially from anon users. If we were to implement an only one-source population rule, it will be difficult to regulate all the city articles.


 * This brings up the second difficulty, which I've come across in the Riverside, California article. An editor properly sourced a reputable 2006 population estimate and inserted it into the introduction, demographics, and city box. However, the remaining demographic information (metro area, ethnic breakdown, etc.) was still either from 2000 census data or 2005 ACS data, making the demographics now incomparable. In addition, lists like List of United States cities by population and List of United States metropolitan areas become incomparable as well, since they source the 2005 ACS data. Undoubtedly, an editor, when faced with an only one-source population rule, will choose the latest most-up-to-date population estimate, creating the above-described mess.


 * The remainder of your list seems to be comparable to a version recommended on the WikiProject page.


 * Lastly, you cite the reasoning to keep "is known for" information with the last bullet of your list: Other characteristics commonly associated with the city, unique to it (e.g. LA: entertainment, Detroit: music contributions, Houston: energy and NASA, etc....). &mdash; B rien C lark Talk 03:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not what I mean at all. What I'm trying to avoid is when articles say, in the intro, "2000 Census puts at, but a 2005 estimate puts it at ," when the numbers are virtually the same anyway.


 * The version you cite is recommended has no guidelines on introduction, which is what I'm talking about.


 * "Is known for" as an exact phrase is clumsy,peacocky, and OR. It's this exact phrase I'd like exterminated.--Loodog 21:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, you're referring to just the introduction. I understand now. I agree that only one population estimate should be listed. I disagree with "when the numbers are virtually the same anyway." Since I left my message, a well-meaning editor inserted a 2006 population estimate in lieu of the 2000 census data in Lake Elsinore, California. The difference, which was close to 10,000 people, represented a 32% increase in population.


 * So which is better? To have the most up-to-date population numbers, or to have comparable data? I tried to have both in the introduction of Riverside, California, without listing two population figures. It's not perfect, but I think a good compromise.


 * As far as the exact phrase "Is known for", I agree that it's not usually the best choice of words. For example, the introduction to Hollywood, Los Angeles, California does a nice job while not using the exact phrase. &mdash; B rien C lark Talk 00:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We could make some sort of guideline for listing only one population unless differences are greater than x%.--Loodog 00:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea, but the semantics might be difficult. Whatever number we choose, it will arbitrary and some people will think it's too high or too low. And that's assuming most people could properly calculate the percentage. We could leave it vague, like most Wikipedia guidelines. Something like, "Except in rare occasions, the use of only one population estimate should be used in the introductory paragraph."  This would provide the rationale to prevent editors from keeping two very similar statistics in the introduction, while also providing wiggle-room for those that think a change of x% is enough to warrant in the introduction.&mdash; B rien C lark Talk 02:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm adding this to the guidelines on the project page.--Loodog 02:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Flagstaff, Arizona
Just for your attention - the city of Flagstaff has passed GA status. LordHarris 11:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

City template proposal
I've worked up a proposal for the city template, with better descriptions for individual areas, and accounting for many of the popular section I have seen in several city articles recently. Please take a look at WikiProject Cities/Proposed Template, and let me know what you think. Dr. Cash 01:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Discussion on this topic was moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Proposed Template. Please discuss this there. Dr. Cash 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Dominican Republic and Latin America Cities...TO ALL WIKIPEDIANS

 * Hi I am part of the Wiki Project Cities and i want to encourage wikipedians to not only edit cities of the United States and North America but to try to expand all the cities around the world. There's a lot of important cities in Latin America which haven't receive enough importance and their articles Miss a lot of info...We should make wikipedia a place were everything can be found. Here are a couple of Cities in the Dominican Republic and the Caribbeans that need a lot of help.


 * Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
 * Santiago de los Caballeros, Dominican Republic
 * Panama City, Panama
 * Guatemala City, Guatemala
 * Santiago de Cuba, Cuba
 * Havana, Cuba

and Much others to be fixed and expanded....If anyone is interested please let it known in my Talk page...(lets make this cities look better)EdwinCasadoBaez 05:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Amsterdam
I would appreciate if someone familiar with editing articles on large cities could take a look at Amsterdam. The sections are a bit of a mess, and some advice on when a subarticle (e.g "Education in Amsterdam") should be made would be useful. --User:Krator (t c) 19:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox anyone??
I noticed that there isn't a user box for members to use so I made one! How does it look? Any comments or suggestions? -- Hdt83 Chat 05:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but one suggestion, due to the fact that this project is more than just cities, it would be nice if it said something more encompassing like, "...articles about cities and various other settlements." This would better match the scope of the project. Here is an example of the suggestion.  &mdash;MJCdetroit 18:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox:



Navbox
I have looked over several city articles—particularly the FA-class articles—and have noticed there is no navbox template for cities. For example, the Houston navbox is currently a modification of the US state navbox. I also found other navboxes rather small. I propose we discuss and plan the creation of a city navbox. --I Are Scientists 22:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. Here is one and some related which you're welcome to ignore if they don't help or critique if they do. Today I removed some from the city article because they were slowing down loading. The city template used to incorporate some of those parts but I moved them to independent parts so that the plain top city template could go on all of its child articles without adding too much weight. Thanks for raising the topic. It will be interesting to hear what other template stories people have. -Susanlesch 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the examples. I looked at the template of the navbox for Minneapolis and discovered that it was just the template for a generic navbox. I think the US state navbox would be a fair example of what the city navbox should look like (including the city's flag in the upper left corner) with several modifications to fit, of course. --I Are Scientists 01:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. I made it generic to match the "50 largest U.S. cities" template and whatever other people cook up. At one time it was quite not-generic, with a flag like a state (I remember wondering if it might matter that some of the flags are copyrighted). Just a record of why. Best of luck in your discussion. -Susanlesch 01:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles on city boroughs
Does an article on a city borough need to include info that applies to the whole city, for example, climate data, city newspapers, city council? If so, does it matter that this info would be repeated in all that city's borough articles? Epbr123 16:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Boston, Massachusetts FAR
Boston, Massachusetts has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Population figure
Does the population figure need to be mentioned in lead if its shown in the adjacent infobox? Epbr123 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Maps and infoboxes
Greetings!

I have been working in collaboration with Ixnayonthetimmay to produce a number of high-quality, high-resolution SVG format city boundary maps. I was really unaware of the WikiProject here and now that I've found you I want to take this idea here and get some feedback as well as ideas. Please be aware that it's largely US-Centric, but as the US Cities wikiproject seems dormant I figured I'd come here for information.

Let me attempt to summarize. A large number of the sample maps drawn by either one of us are available on Wikicommons, under the same user names. Feel free to poke over there to get an idea of what we have been doing. In short, the goal has been to replace the "Red Dot Maps" that have so long been the standard on US city pages with larger, more accurate maps depicting city boundaries within a county. The cities in Arizona are largely complete as far as this goes, and I have switched over to trying them out with Michigan cities (specifically Metro Detroit area). This has provided the additional challenge of trying to sort out the difference between incorporated cities, townships, villages and the like! I think we've done a decent job thus far but would like some feedback to make sure that the format we are using is OK.

Secondly, in doing so, I have been updating a number of city articles with the Infobox City template, adding information in as it is available to me. As the demographic and geographic information is largely culled directly from the article and this is something of a repetitive task, I have decided that a manually-assisted bot would be hugely helpful in this regard. I have put together a rough script that would do this work for me, but again, before seeking bot approval (and unleashing it on the city articles) I wanted to come here for some feedback on the idea.

Essentially the bot script I have written would do this. First, it checks to see if the article already has an infobox template. If it does, the script is designed to change only the map (I'm using a fairly standard naming scheme for the SVG maps) and leave the rest of the article and infobox intact. If there is no infobox, the script then does two things. First, it scans the article for the existence of a "Red Dot" map, and if it finds one, removes it. Secondly, it parses the demographic and geographic information that exists within the article. Since most US cities follow the same scheme as far as this information is presented it is fairly easy to parse and populate an infobox with it.

The script does not make automated edits, but requires user supervision. This is for several reasons. Firstly, since the task of drawing maps is onerous and takes a lot of time, I generally do one county at a time and the script is designed to implement the new maps. More importantly, however, is the fact that occasionally an article is not formatted per the "norm" and the script doesn't handle these well. Additionally, when an infobox is added a lot of times the screen formatting gets upset if there are other images in the article and requires the human touch to tweak them back in to shape.

Anyway, I'm hoping to get some constructive feedback on the format of these maps that we have been working on as a sort of community approval to proceed :) I am also interested in writing up a bot approval proposal for my script to help out, but before doing so would definitely like some input on the idea from you guys.  Or, for all I know, one already exists out there and I am duplicating the effort.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Sound good, but you may want to check with User:CapitalR, as he was putting together a similar effort (sans the maps). Maybe you guys can join forces.&mdash;MJCdetroit 03:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a fairly complete database (in the form of an Excel spreadsheet) with all of the data for 41,300 cities/towns/etc. in the U.S. for the infoboxes that I would be happy to share with anyone interested in adding information (all demographic info, timezone info, zip codes, state, counties, all areas, lat/longs, elevations, FIPS codes, and some other assorted info). I've been working on a bot over the past few weeks to get this into Wikipedia, but there's many problems that I still need to work out (mainly the integration of existing infobox data with the new data; I don't want to overwrite what people have already done).  I also have a number of MATLAB scripts that I've written to generate maps (similar to the maps in St. Paul, MN and Miami, FL).  That project has been put on indefinite hold, however, at least until I can get the bot working and running for the infoboxes.  As it stands now, the bot will only move existing maps into an infobox, but will not add new maps to an article if they don't exist.  My amount of free time isn't nearly what it used to be, so my progress is slow going, but I promise it will eventually get done.  --CapitalR 13:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The other major problem is mapping Wikipedia article names to the U.S. census records. This is no easy task; I already tried once and failed (my mapping had about 3% error, which, when multipled by 41000 articles, is way too big).  I'll eventually have to come up with a better way to map the articles names, so if anyone has done this or wants to do this, that would be a great help (I'll give you the Excel file with all the names of the places).  --CapitalR 13:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've actually got a script that is about 90% complete that generates SVG maps based on the census data. There seems to be a push toward vector graphics on Wikipedia, particularly in cases of diagrams and things like maps.  On the US Roads wikiproject they have a consensus to move to SVG maps when possible due to the better scaling of vector images.
 * I have also run into the problem of making a script that could edit existing infoboxes without deleting existing information, and, more importantly, to discriminate between which version (the current or the one I have available) is more updated/correct. I do seem to have a surplus of time on my hands lately, unlike yourself.  I sure wouldn't mind trying to assist or see how we can synergize our efforts to get things moving better.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as an update to anyone who might be interested, I've completed my map generating script. It's not 100% automated - the state minimap has to be added in to the county maps manually for style purposes, although highlighting areas after the minimap is added is an automated process - so it will still take a while to generate all the maps. Nonetheless I will have it start generating generic county maps as a base over the weekend.

I will refrain from uploading the maps for a while longer though, just to ensure some consensus on the move from raster images over to the vector format. Also, as I stated before I am interested in getting a script going to assist with updating the articles themselves. CapitalR has indicated that he was working on a bot for this so I want to refrain from stepping on his toes, first, but if it's ok with him I'll proceed. And as long as it's ok with everyone else :)  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Belgrade on FAR
Belgrade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Todor→Bozhinov 13:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Capitals? Task Force Capitals?
Greetings Wikiproject Cities! On WikiProject Council/Proposals I have proposed the possibility of making A Wikiproject Capitals to focus strictly on national Capitals. Some Wikipedians have proposed a Task Force of this Wikiproject to do the job. I am commenting here to get your suggestions on that nomination since the Wikiproject would be a descenadnt of yours or it would be Task Force of this Project. Thanks!  •F e l i x• T 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I would strongly oppose a separate wikiproject on national capitals. National capitals fall under this wikiproject, specifically through the importance aspect of WPCITIES (all national capitals are assessed at 'top' importance). A specific Task Force under this project might be good, but a whole separate wikiproject is going way too far. Dr. Cash 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alrighty then, thanks very much for the thoughts. I will try to propose this as a Task Force if that is alright with you all.  •F e l i x• T 13:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dr. Cash. Capitals would fall under the scope of this project in the same manner that towns, villages, hamlets, townships, unincorporated communities, sections of municipalities, and neighborhoods also fall under this project. &mdash;MJCdetroit 13:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

assessment requests
There's a small assessment backlog at WikiProject_Cities/Assessment that nobody seems to be attending to, so I'm linking it here in the hopes that someone comes along and takes an interest in Bratislava. — Mike Gogulski ↗C• @ •T↗ 11:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was given a B a long time ago. But it has been significantly expanded since then and deserves a new rating. Tankred 21:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)