Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline/Archive 4

Land use ordinances
I found this guideline (or essay) helpful. I find one glaring omission, however: land use ordinances. Certainly the manner of their discussion should be circumscribed. These are relevant to the history and cityscape sections. Some articles already have a discussion of contemporary land use ordinances, such as Houston.

I am currently discussing the appropriateness of land use ordinances within an article about a city at Talk:Punta Gorda. It is obviously germane, despite the omission in your guidelines. The question is what is an appropriate manner in talking about local regulations? If the discussion is limited to talking just about the number of zoning districts, the number of overlays, and their names, then we would not be saying anything helpful or interesting. It would just be trivia. On the other hand, land use regulations define what a city looks like, at least in some cases.

I am not claiming that I have developed an appropriate way to talk about land use within the context of an article about a city. I just wish there had been a conversation about how to do that before deleting my content. After all, how do you have a dialogue about context when the text is removed from the context? Sincerely, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This discussion is at Talk:Punta Gorda, Florida. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Nicknames in lead
Seems to me that this fact is fairly minor and should not be in the lead. It should go later on, with a good source or sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree, as long as people don't consider abbreviations to be nicknames, such as KCK for Kansas City Kansas. No matter the location in the article or infobox, all nicknames must have good references, or those nicknames should be deleted. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 01:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Notable people guidelines
I think this section needs further elaboration. It is for people born or who had lived there a substantial time but not for persons who only went to college in Foo.

Consensus is but not stated that- Athletes who played for a Foo sports team aren't automatically from Foo. That someone who only died or was buried in Foo isn't from Foo. Also people sent to jail in Foo aren't from Foo. The last case is coming up due to Paul Manafort being put in a Warsaw, Virginia jail.

I think the guidelines need to be elaborated on. That said, most editors aren't even aware of them but does give those of us who patrol notable people sections a guideline to point to....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) School (High School, College, ...) article <--- any notable student / faculty / employee of this school. If a student never lived in the community before or after school years, then don't list them in the community article of where the school is located. Need to debate faculty that worked at a school and lived in the same community for an extended period of time.


 * 2) Prison article <--- any notable prisoner / employee of this prison. If a prisoner never lived in the community before or after being in prison, then don't list them in the community article of where the prison is located. Need to debate employee that worked at a prison and lived in the same community for an extended period of time.


 * 3) Community article <--- anyone who lived a substantial amount of time in the community, which includes being raised in the community. Exclude people per above statements about students and prisoners.


 * 4) A notable person could be on multiple lists, for example if person lived their entire life or most of their life in one community, then could be in the community article plus one or more of the following: high school article, college article, prison article.


 * 5) Should debate born or died in community, if the person didn't live substantial amount of time in it. For example, if parents live in some community then went to a hospital in another community ONLY for birth, should that baby really deserve to be listed in the community where the hospital is located? For similar reasons, if someone died in a hospital in a community where they didn't live, should they deserve to be listed in the community where the hospital is located?  Also, should a person be listed in a community if they died in it while traveling or visiting friends / family / business / ...?  Also, should a person be listed in a community if they were buried in the community but didn't live in it?  I would vote NO for all of these examples.


 * 6) There are some grey line areas, such as if a person lived outside the city limits of a community, but live close to it, such as living on a farm, then I prefer to include them in the community article instead of putting them only in the county article.


 * 7) • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 18:47, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Census in demographics
I recently had an edit reverted where I removed outdated 2000 census data in an article that already had the 2010 data added (Nantucket ). I can't seem to find any guidelines on this. Is there a reason why we would want to keep the old data? What is the criteria for inclusion? For example, before the 2010 data came out, it's not like it was the 1990 data and the 2000 data together. Grk1011 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to keep the old data. I can't find any discussion about keeping both sets of stats. &mdash; JJ Be rs  20:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * For short community articles, I typically keep each decade and split into 2000 & 2010 subsections, but for long community articles I typically keep only the latest decade. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 19:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * There is little reason to keep all the detailed statistics for old censuses in prose (which is incredibly lousy design to begin with). However, it may be worth having a table with the total population figures for past decades. older ≠ wiser 21:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Gatlinburg, Tennessee
A discussion is taking place at Talk:Gatlinburg, Tennessee about whether historic sites located outside of Gatlinburg should be included in the article. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Religious establishments
What about religious establishments (i.e. churches, mosques)? Where should they be talked about if necessary? PseudoSkull (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If religious stuff already exists, then I move it into a new subsection at the END of the "Demographics" section. I don't go out of my way to add this type of stuff, because I've seen people argue over it in the past, but I don't know how everyone feels in 2018.  Though most people are aware, "Remember, Wikipedia is NOT the Yellow Pages", thus this type of section shouldn't be a list of every church in a community.  My guess is that it would be better to summarize at a high-level point of view, such as... the number of protestant churches / catholic churches / mosques / ... might pass the test.  For a small community, it might be ok to list every church, if the total number was one or a few, but as the number increases then listing should be avoided. Fox example, some very small communities in Kansas might have only 1 or 2 churches, and lots of tiny communities might not currently have any open churches because at some point they got too small to support a priest coming to their community.  Some tiny rural communities might only consists of houses plus a church but zero businesses, so it would be kind of silly to not say anything about this one church.  In some situations, a church might be very notable or a notable person might be tied closely to the church history, so it might be more important to say something about the church, or link to it in the notable person section. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 04:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Image sizes in city articles
This guideline addresses the topic of images in city articles. The input of other editors would be appreciated regarding image sizes at Talk:Bellows Falls, Vermont. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Comparison with the larger region or state/province/county
Under Demographics, the following guideline is written: Comparison with the larger region or state/province/county is useful. I am asking for some clarity on that statement, as it is currently used in ways that appear offensive.

On the Beverly Crest, Los Angeles page, there is an entire section that lists the 10 whitest neighborhoods in Los Angeles, and where the Beverly Crest neighborhood fits in that ranking.

This ranking appears on numerous pages including Malibu, California, Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles, Topanga, California and others.

What benefit is there to creating a section that highlights the whitest neighborhoods in the city? Is that correct usage under these guidelines?

I would prefer that section be removed, along with opinion/statement from the Los Angeles Times: “The Los Angeles Times considers the neighborhood "not especially diverse” ethnically within Los Angeles given its relatively high percentage of Caucasian residents”

I would hope that data for that neighborhood can stand on its own without further comment or interpretation:

''The breakdown was whites, 87.5%; Asians, 4.0%; Latinos, 3.4%; blacks 1.7%; other races 3.3%. Iran (28.6%) and the United Kingdom (8.6%) were the most common places of birth for the 25% of the residents who were born abroad.''

Phatblackmama (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The content came from a template called "10 white neighborhoods in Los Angeles County". I'm not sure why it was created, but the template name sounds racially-biased, but heck I might be wrong too.  I removed the use of the template in 8 of the 10 communities that still had it.  Time will tell if other editors try to restore it's use.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 21:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you Sbmeirow  for removing them.


 * However, I am still questioning the guideline Comparison with the larger region or state/province/county is useful.


 * In non-white, minority neighborhoods, this guideline – comparing one neighborhood to another – leads to statements like this one over on South Park, Los Angeles: “It is notable for its dense concentration of residents… their high ratio of single parents, their low rate of marriage and their low median household income. “ Basically, an editor is saying the neighborhood is notable for being a ghetto.


 * I feel a statement such as ““Just 3.4% of South Park residents aged 25 or older had completed a four-year degree in 2000, which was a low figure when compared with the city and the county at large” should be reduced to the less judgmental ““3.4% of South Park residents aged 25 or older had completed a four-year degree in 2000,”


 * To be clear, I am not challenging the data. But going back to the original guideline, I am questioning how “useful” it is to highlight that South Park, Los Angeles is “third on the list of Los Angeles city neighborhoods where adults over age 25 failed to finish high school”.


 * Can this guideline be re-written or somehow defined so that data can not be used against low-income minority communities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phatblackmama (talk • contribs) 21:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I removed the commentary from the demographics section of the South Park article so to be less biased. I'll let other people comment.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 22:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Metropolitan Connecticut
Editors to US city articles may wish to contribute to the discussion at Articles for deletion/Metropolitan Connecticut. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Rename page
The article's name is misleading if the template box should be heeded, "This page is an essay on style. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to format and present article content within their area of interest. This WikiProject advice page is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." In my experience, those citing this advice page refer to it as a guideline. In some cases, it is cited as being vetted and having consensus. As long as this page is titled ".../US Guideline," editors will cite it as a guideline. If it is not a guideline, then the page title should be changed. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Oldsanfelipe. While I support this WikiProject and have benefited from its work, the guidelines here should not be confused with Wikipedia Help:Menu/Policies and guidelines. Perhaps you could rename them suggestions or recommendations? -SusanLesch (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

"United States preferences" • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 19:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

"Affluent" in lead section
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Riverdale, Bronx regarding the use of "affluent" in the lead section. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox settlement versus this essay
The template for settlement example shows "Chicago" in the infobox official_name parameter, not "Chicago, Illinois". You would page all the way down the page to see the Chicago example. Before I began removing the, state name from U.S. city infoxes, I asked someone in TeaHouse (I think) and they pointed me to the Template:Infobox_settlement. However, this essay/ guideline, does not follow the template settlement.

Has this WikiProject on Cities addressed what exactly should go in the "official_name" parameter? I didn't find anything here in the archives about it. Most infoboxes have the state name in the map parameter. Most city page article names also have the state name. The infobox is being bogged down by the state name and I think the infobox template shows it best as "Chicago" for official name, not "Chicago, Illinois" What do you think? --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Chicago is a bad example, because it doesn't follow the "City, State" naming method. Years ago, I remember seeing some discussion that decided that USA city article naming would follow some major USA newspaper writing style guide, where the largest ## cities would not include their state in newspaper articles.  I don't remember where it was discussed (might have been in talk section for some major city), I don't remember which newspaper writing style guide (should be able to find them via google), I don't remember the exact number of largest cities (30 or 50 ???). •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 21:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)  I did some searching and found this Naming_conventions_(geographic_names). It's based on the "AP Stylebook".  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Chicago" is the example in the template infobox. I understand what you say about big cities but not everyone in the world knows the states of even the big cities. So I don't think the reason Chicago doesn't show comma state is for the reason you're implying (that everyone knows what state it's located it). I don't think that's why Chicago shows as Chicago. I think the template wants it that way for all cities.  The wikipedia article is about the city or barrio or markaz or whatever within that state, municipality or governorate or whatever. And the state name, or municipality name or governorate name is sometimes part of the article name, and if it's not, the state name, municipality or governoreate or whatever is found somewhere else, often multiple times, within the infobox.  So then why does it need to be repeated at the very top of the infobox?  It's just an observation and a conversation I had with someone somewhere .. but I'll never find it.. LOL--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My #1 statement was mainly about the article name, instead of what's above the infobox. I prefer the article name to have the state, but that happened before I started editing.  Also, I prefer the state to be included above the infobox too. •  Sbmeirow   Talk  • 07:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The article on Honolulu is just named Honolulu. So because the article name doesn't include "Hawaii", then the infobox SHOULD include it in parameter name. But on most articles where the state name is already part of the article name, would you agree that the state name is then not needed in the infobox name or official name parameter?-- The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 2) There are multiple name fields available for the infobox. Personally, when I cleanup city articles, I delete the "official name" field, and add or fill in the "name" field with the article title or it's common name in a few situations.  The reason I remove the "official name" field is some editors put the legal name in this field, such as "The City of XYZ", which is redundant for the infobox and not the most common way to use the name for that city.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 21:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * LOL, I disagree. If you look at the template it shows "Detroit" in the name, and City in Settlement Type and official name "City of Detroit". To me that is correct, looks correct and I don't see why this essay wants to deviate from the template. In my opinion, it is the state name that is redundant when added to the infobox parameter = "name" or "official name". I think "official name" should remain in the infobox as some places do have a different  official name i.e. Municipio Autonomo de Lares. The official name should  be included and not removed, IMHO. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * There isn't any MANDATORY RULE that "official name" field must be used instead of "name" field. Am I suppose to LOL too? I don't know why someone hasn't updated the examples in the settlement article?  By the way, it says at the top of the Chicago example "NOTE: This differs from the actual Chicago infobox in order to provide examples."  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 07:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I specifically asked someone about the examples in the settlement article and they stated it was correct to use the city name without the comma followed by the state name. Maybe that's why no one has updated the examples in the settlement template article. (I LOL when something is funny. I laughed when you stated that 'adding "City of ___" to "official name" is redundant.' Why would that be redundant. Wouldn't a reader want to know that the city has a different official name, when that's the case?  (When people see things differently I think that's worth an LOL.) Re: the use of official name versus name, I understand the template says to include the "official name" only if it's different than the city name, as in the Detroit example. I believe the template is very clear.  Re: 'By the way, it says at the top of the Chicago example "NOTE: This differs from the actual Chicago infobox in order to provide examples"- it could differ because an editor can change it (as you've been changing them to include the state name), but that doesn't mean it's correct. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 3) There are multiple reasons why state should be included. A) Wiki article name, of any type, typically is put at the top of the infobox.  B) There are thousands of tiny cities that almost everyone has never heard of, and their name by themselves is not enough of a clue to determine where they are located in USA.  C) Many city names are used in many states, which is why the state name is critical for these cities.  See examples: Lincoln, Jefferson, Marion.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 21:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The infobox has other parameters that indicate the state, or municipality, or governorate. It has subdivision parameters to hold the state's name. The infobox often has a map that includes the name of the state.   All I'm trying to say is I think it would be beautiful if the name of the city stood out in the article about that city ...
 * And of course there are thousands of cities with the same name, even within a state, or governorate there may be places with the same name, but isn't that information found in the article title, in the article's lead and in other infobox parameters? Have a nice day. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The state name is to disambiguate, so is only needed for the article title, not the infobox header. It's no different than leaving out a parenthetical word or phrase from the infobox header. I remember having a small discussion about this years ago for US townships, which follow the "township, county, state" format as some editors would keep that full "township, county, state" format in the infobox, which made for an unusually wide, and completely unnecessary, header. State names are critical for the article titles, but not for the infobox header since it's already below the title and has other, very clear, mentions of the given state for disambiguation. As for official name, I have never had an issue with using "The city of..." in that role; basically, whatever appears on a given settlement's seal or official website. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * It makes sense to me. It makes perfect sense. What's that saying? "If it's not broken, don't fix it". The infobox settlement template is not broken so... Thank you.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute at Skowhegan, Maine
The input of editors regarding a content dispute at Skowhegan, Maine would be appreciated. Please see Talk:Skowhegan, Maine. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

PROPOSED TEMPLATE FOR POPULATION (COUNTY) BY RACE FOR WIKIPEDIA
Requesting any suggestions/comments for proposed "population by race" template to add to U.S. places. The following is an example for Autauga County, Alabama. I thought putting each census on such a chart with a line-by-line racial breakdown would be more helpful (or easier to follow/use) than the simple population total we have at present (historic population template), and written-out paragraphs of racial and/or other demographics. I'm not 100% satisfied with it, wondering if there should be a percentages table on it (i.e. % growth or decline per race). Thank you in advance for your comments and suggestions.DJ Jones74 (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * huh? this is the USCITY guideline. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 18:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This template would also be used for towns/cities. This example above is just for a county.DJ Jones74 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I strenuously object to the use of colors here to depict race, especially with the colors matching racial epithets towards these races. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree this table is a rather bad idea, especially the racialized color scheme. Anything vaguely like this shoulsd have consensus first.--Pharos (talk) 04:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree this table is a bad idea too for similar reasons. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 00:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


 * A table of races and ethnicities with any sort of color coding like this is extremely racially insensitive and ignorant of anything beyond outmoded stereotypes. Any instances of this urgently need to be reverted. ɱ  (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems this user has went ahead and added this to multiple articles, and I since reverted them as there seem to be consenus here to not add this to any article.  Please look here for why people think this is not a good idea and please refrain from adding it to live articles until you have proper consensus to do so.  CodeLyoko  talk  05:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Be careful looking in the contributions page, there's still more not reverted yet. Will double check tomorrow, need to sleep. Thanks for your help so far. ɱ  (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm the one responsible for this chart. I ran it by two other editors who registered no objections. One asked me to place it on this page to seek consensus, which I did last month. No one offered any objections within a reasonable period of time and I went ahead and began placing it on the pages. In order to create such a color-coded chart that makes any remote sense to what it is covering, I utilized the color scheme. I explicitly specified that no offense was intended in their usage. This took considerable time, effort and research on my part to assemble the information, years in fact, so this is extremely disappointing to see this work removed with extreme prejudice, and I cannot strenuously protest enough for that reasoning.DJ Jones74 (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus is built upon the feedback of a large number of users, and the more users to comment, the better the consensus is. Reaching out to two editors is insufficient, especially if they are new, infrequent editors, or are Alabamans like you seem to be based on edit history. Regardless of intent, this table uses racial stereotypes, ignorant of the realities of these diverse racial groups and ethnicities. It requires urgent removal, as Wikipedia cannot perpetuate such insensitive color groupings. If you would like to add these tables back without the color coding, you may do so, the text is still in the article history, though it needs reliable sourcing from Census data or otherwise. ɱ  (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree, I don't mind the chart at all, it give great data! Its just the color coding that us not good as stated above. To be a bit blunt, if you have to put a note stating the chart is not racist on every chart, then its probably not okay to have said colors. CodeLyoko  talk  16:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I concur with Ɱ and CodeLyoko. It's not the data that's the problem (so long as it is reliably sourced), it's the colors that are the problem. DJ Jones74, sometimes things work like this. It's the nature of the collaborative working environment here. There are things here that I disagree with, but consensus has agreed are acceptable. Therefore, it's acceptable. We have to work within consensus. It's the only way that all the editors on Wikipedia could ever work forward towards something. Even then consensus creates plenty of controversy. But, without it, we make no progress at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The two editors were neither new nor infrequent. One I had butted heads with on a frequent basis and didn't hesitate to remove my work. For that reason, I considered the individual to clearly not be biased in my direction. The second individual pointed out parts of the chart that needed to be corrected or referenced, which I did. The first editor explicitly instructed me to post to this very page to gain consensus. Other than for one individual who thought I had posted this on the wrong page, I received no other feedback (other than for a correction from another editor, which I discussed with them) until I opened up Wikipedia this morning. I took that to mean there was no objection to the chart and proceeded to place the work that has taken years to accumulate, carefully and methodically on each appropriate page.

For the record, I am not an Alabaman. I've done research on census materials for all 50 states and territories. Because Alabama is 1st in alphabetical order of the states, I began with it. I've also done extensive research and work for Alaska on WP and also American Samoa and began work on Arizona. I returned to work on Alabama again because of dissatisfaction with some of what I had worked on some years back previously and wished to add more (including work on precincts and census divisions -- the latter of which I was shocked to see removed in the mass of deletions since yesterday, of which I had yet to add any color charts with). For me to have to go back and restore those edits is an enormous chore, and one I should not have to perform especially with those being the so-called "non-controversial" portions. Also deleted were my attempts to add photo galleries as well, so this was an editing massacre in my opinion.

As for the color chart itself, I see no point to even do it at all if the key reason for doing it is removed. The sections are supposed to stand out to the reader. I worked very hard in developing it, and it was especially difficult as I'm not an expert on HTML or charts in particular. I tried using other color palettes for the racial groupings, I settled on three for the latter columns (other=grey/2+ races=green/Pac. Islander=orange), but the other 5 (white/black/asian/hispanic/native am) had historic color designations and anything else wouldn't seemingly "fit" or make sense. The sole reason I added a disclaimer to it was on the suggestion of another individual to make it clear there was no malice involved in its usage and that these were the historic racial color usages attributed to each group. People have a habit of complaining about anything and deeming it something or other offensive to them for any particular reason. Even stating facts is "offensive."

At this point, I no longer know what to do here. As I said above, my precinct/census division data was removed and/or edited, virtually everything done in the past month. I cannot walk on eggshells for doing nothing more than trying to improve these entries with both photos and census data expecting someone to dive bomb and delete it after spending an enormous chunk of my time having added it (and not having been paid so much as one red cent for it). I've been here almost 13 years and it's like I joined yesterday having all this work being treated as trolling or nuisance editing.DJ Jones74 (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I see no good reason to categorize humans by race and the more we do it, the more we inflame irrational tribalistic instincts and perpetuate the associated societal issues. That said, I know we are supposed to reflect the real world and the real world still sadly pays attention to this stuff, but let's tone it down, at least. Do we really need to even address "racial makeup" in US places at all? --В²C ☎ 18:01, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * DJ Jones74, I understand your upset. Truly, I do. I no sense should anything I say be interpreted as trivializing your frustration. This is a collaborative work environment. Unless someone is willing to have their work twisted, refactored, partially or even fully deleted, they shouldn't contribute here. It's the nature of the beast. ALL of us can edit most of this project. What you think is fantastic work can, a week later, be completely transformed by someone else. Even though you wrote in the first place, they get as much right to edit it as you and can dramatically change it and even delete it as was done here. You shouldn't be upset at this, though I know you are (and I've felt the same way before too). Honestly, it's this very process that keeps this project alive. To the table; the colors are a serious problem, as these colors have been used to cast extremely insulting epithets towards these groups. If removing the colors means the table is useless, so be it. I don't see it that way. The colors in a table such as this one aren't associated with racial epithets. These are and should not be used, per WP:PLA. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a bigger issue is accessibility with the colors. There's Manual of Style on layout tables and colors. – The Grid  ( talk )  18:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how one feels about it, the racial/ethnic breakdown tells the story of a place beyond simple numbers. When I was a child, I enjoyed studying simple populations, but other than for telling whether a place was big or small, it didn't tell you the real story until you got into the actual numbers of who lived/lives there.DJ Jones74 (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I tend to deal mostly with numbers, stuff that's not going to be removed because it's part of a grouping of population information. I've had to author some historical or contemporary information on places that did not have entries in order to have them accompany said population stats. If someone comes along and can edit that section of an entry in a better way, either expand upon it or make it more concise, I'm not going to be upset over that. I've seen it happen to my work, and with few exceptions, it's usually nicely polished up. I'm talking about where the work that is entirely relevant to the article is deleted, period, and frequently without justification. As I said above, I not only just had the chart removed, but the other work as well that was extensively researched on my part. To have to go back to restore countless such edits that were done because an editor took the easy way out of just rolling back everything I edited regardless is really beyond the pale. These are two different things where WP is concerned. As to the racial chart vs. temperature chart, those colors are also "historical" as blue is deemed the "cool end" of the spectrum vs. red as the "warm end." I guarantee you will find someone to find fault and offense with that color scheme. Ditto for the colors used for American political parties post-2000. Same goes with the WP:PLA section. People can and will take offense at the presentation of facts however you do it, hard or soft. I guarantee if I continued on with the racial demo chart minus any color, someone will complain and attempt to remove it. I would just like to have back all the time I wasted trying to improve countless articles here only to have it all be for nothing.DJ Jones74 (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, competence is required. The amount of time you have been here has no bearing on being able to understand the policies set forward. If you don't know, you can always ask and it's ok to be wrong. Don't take it personal. – The Grid  ( talk )  19:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Having had this much time wasted on attempting to improve countless articles all for nothing is personal to me. Very much so.DJ Jones74 (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Once you hit the 'publish changes' button, you have to let go. Don't take it personal. It isn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems like a lot of work for very little reward to the reader. If a community has had racial shifts over the years, as, for example, Inglewood, California, they should be examined within the text, with sources to indicate their importance, if any. Of course, perhaps this chart might be valuable as well, but tone it down. We don't need any colors, it seems to me.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct. We don't need any colors, and dramatic changes in racial makeup can and should be mentioned in prose. And I'm not sure why you keep complaining about your hard work deleted forever. I merely removed the race tables, being careful to remove nothing more. Perhaps my colleagues removed more? Regardless, look at the article history. It's all right there, an easy copy-and-paste back to where it was-feel free to restore anything besides the racial makeup tables, which still require further discussion and consensus here. ɱ (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute at Minneapolis
The input of editors regarding a content dispute at Talk:Minneapolis would be appreciated. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * An editor has started three RfC's at Talk:Minneapolis regarding image relevance. The input of others editors is welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Reliability of U.S. Board on Geographic Names
This AfD calls into question the reliability of the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (GNIS), a branch of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Your input would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Essay or guideline?
Can I please get clarification as to whether this is an essay or guideline? The writing style appears to favor the latter, but the last time someone asked this question, nobody responded. Thanks for clarifying. DonIago (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I would consider it a guideline; it is a formal, useful structure for US cities articles that is followed pretty well by all quality US city articles. The 'essay on style' note was likely added later just to clarify that this is a style guide; all other instances around the page refer to it as a guideline, one clarifying it's based on WikiProject Cities consensus. I feel comfortable removing that essay tag given this. ɱ  (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's an essay. I disagree with how the infobox shows City name, State name and that is not the way the template settlement infobox displays. I prefer to follow the template settlement that only shows City name in the infobox. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * That's ONLY because large cities were chosen for examples in template settlment.


 * The ONLY reason the "Template:Infobox settlement" examples don't show the state is because the cities that were chosen as examples happen to be some of the largest cities in USA, thus the state was excluded because of the "AP Stylebook", per WP:USPLACE. The Associated Press Stylebook lists 30 U.S. cities that do not need to be followed by the name of a state, thus the two examples (Chicago & Detroit) in the "Template:Infobox settlement" just happen to be part of the 30 cities.  This is the ONLY reason why the state was excluded.  See 1, 2, 3.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 11:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I disagree with adding , State name because the article name already shows the state name. The parameter in the infobox settlment is name (not name, state name) ... So I think this essay's interpretation is incorrect. Again the article name has the name of the state. The name of my city where I live is the name not the name, state. By adding the , State the infobox is implying that that is the official name of the place, which it is not. The name is just "Chicago" or "Peabody" . The article name is already doing the disambiguation. So I disagree with this 100%. Adding the state is unnecessary for the infobox. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well great, you can feel that way, because this is a guideline, not a policy. Same with recommendations on an infobox description page, it's not a policy. One minor thing you don't like does not invalidate the broad consensus of many people over a long time. ɱ  (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

...I appear to have opened a can of worms, though perhaps one that needed to be opened. I don't have much of a stake in the matter currently under dispute, but I'm happy to keep tabs on this and weigh in if I feel I have something useful to offer. Full disclosure: I asked the question due to a content dispute elsewhere, and this appeared to be the most relevant guideline/essay...but I obviously didn't want to call this something it wasn't. I hope an agreement on its status can be reached soon! DonIago (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The parameter in the infobox is |official_name =   So the parameter in the infobox settlement is asking for the place 'official name' which is not the official name followed by a comma and followed by the state name. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh?

Infobox settlement name                   = official_name          = ...


 * There are separate parameters for both, but this is really irrelevant to this discussion. ɱ  (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by Huh? There are several fields re: the name. official_name and name. But regardless of the field you use, the point is should we display the settlement name followed by a comma and followed by the state name at the very top of the infobox?  I argue we should not display it like that. We should follow the infobox settlement template page..  Just because someone put this essay together and went through updating all the infoboxes the way they wanted doesn't make it right.  Who are /were all the editors involved in this  "broad consensus of many people over a long time"?- Because I remember discussing this very issue with someone at length and he seemed to be the only one arguing for displaying a "name" then a comma followed by the state name? The article name already deals with the disambiguation. Adding the comma and state name adds all this extra stuff that is not needed at the top of the infobox. IMHO, 1) it looks sloppy aside from the fact that 2) the name of the place or the official name is not "name, state" 3) the article name is already useful in disambiguating. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For example Opa-locka, Florida - other fields within the infobox list the state. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well you're rude. If someone doesn't agree with you, that's a tangent?  It's an essay.  And the reason I disagree with the essay is because it goes against what the template for infobox settlement states. That's a tangent?   The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that you disagree with one one-hundredth of a guideline does not make it less of one. ɱ  (talk) 04:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * re: what you wrote: "The 'essay on style' note was likely added later just to clarify that this is a style guide;"  was added by Moxy and I tend to trust their judgement so I wouldn't go removing the "This is an essay" notice. Thank you. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * See discussions here on the archive for this very page on your question about clarifying whether this is an essay. It's been asked before and an editor suggested renaming this page. It should not be called a Guideline.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * when you added the WikiProject style advice template to this guideline, it read This page contains advice about style. As such it contains the recommendations and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to present articles within their area of interest. It did not use the word "essay", a term that is currently not associated with a consensus. As such, users like have claimed this long-established guideline is not one, also based on its lack of clarity on how to name articles vs. how the naming advice is at infobox settlement.  ɱ  (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: this is not even a discussion to be had any further. It has been a guideline for 13 years, used for innumerous FA and GA city articles, which match this style virtually completely. The template at the top, WikiProject style advice, did not even use the word "essay" when it was added; it was added simply to state this is a style guide vs. other forms of guidelines. If people want to seriously deliberate that enough arguments within the guideline are incorrect enough to demote this to an essay, a proper discussion should happen in a new section. This discussion was simply about the confusing notices at the top of the guideline, making its status appear unclear. ɱ  (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to lean toward boldy removing the essay template and leaving it with any editor who feels it shouldn't be considered a guideline to start an RfC on the subject, as it's starting to seem doubtful that the matter will be resolved here. I'm open to other ideas that wouldn't involve an RfC. Ultimately this particular whatever-this-is has little bearing on the areas I tend to edit, but I don't like seeing such blatant ambiguity. DonIago (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Notable people and privacy
I would like to restore Warren Hern to Boulder, Colorado but am being told that I need to establish, through sourcing, that Hern lives in Boulder. We already have ample sourcing connecting him to the community. His address of residence is confidential and should remain so for his personal protection. Can an exception be made here? ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The Notable People section of this Guideline states "Provide information, preferably in prose form, of any famous or notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city." You're claiming that he's 'connected' to the community. If he lives in Boulder and is notable, I'm not sure why it would be a challenge to establish that he lives in the city. There's no requirement that a source cite an actual address. It seems to me that something like "Hern has lived in Boulder for the last ten years." would satisfy the guideline. Can you please clarify why it's difficult to provide a source that even establishes the city in which he lives? DonIago (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * An address isn't necessary. You need something that says he lives or resides there. Works there or owns a business there isn't good enough. For an example of the former, we don't categorize a city's sports athletes as being from the city just because they play for a team from that city....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of the ongoing threat of assassination, I don't think Hern wants anyone to know which city he lives in. There is plenty of coverage of him but place of residence, general or specific, seems to be systematically omitted, I presume out of concern for his safety. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As said, then Hern's prominence in the community can be mentioned in its history and/or health sections. Unless Warren Hern can be verified as a resident of Boulder, he should not be listed as a notable resident. The 'notable people' sections too often have spillover of people slightly associated with a place. ɱ  (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * And indeed, if it's the case that he and his supporters don't want his city listed, then it would be fine, supporting that privacy desire, leaving him out of being listed as a Boulder resident. ɱ  (talk) 15:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Ɱ's suggestion is a good one....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A previous discussion is at Talk:Boulder, Colorado. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Should Notable people sections be renamed Notable residents to align with this policy? ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. The consensus, after a discussion here, is that Notable People is the heading for these sections....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:USCITY. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 05:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Was there any consensus on flag icons in city infoboxes?
Was there any consensus on flag icons in city infoboxes? Is there any census to add flags to every USA community article, now? or remove them all, now?

1) Sometimes issues are discussed in specific USA city articles instead of here. If you know of any prior flag discussions, please post link(s) here.

2) See 2015 post in this talk section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline/Archive_3#flagicons_in_infobox

3) See WP:INFOBOXFLAG.

• Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 14:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Please comment!

It doesn't seem we're gonna receive a reply anytime soon. TheGameJerker (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Well is this a comment?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I vote no personal preference one way or the other. I'm a cartophile and know people who REALLY like flags. Often, in topics of geography and cartography, the flag people break off into their own discussions. So, maybe we include links to relevant flags, but not the actual flags. Just a thought. -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 02:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorting for bulleted lists of notable people
The section included in the El Cerrito, California, article has something I've never encountered before: a bulleted list of the city's notable people sorted alphabetically by first name. Surely this is frowned upon for such sections?


 * I assume the thing to do would be to write something on the city's talk page, and if no objection is received after a certain amount of time, re-sort the list by last name. Right? 1980fast (talk) 05:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Sort it by last name, then if anyone complains discuss in talk page. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 06:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! 1980fast (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

notable people eligibility
There is a discussion in progress at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities about eligibility criteria for people to be inserted into city pages. Please join Graywalls (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Photo collages
From what I can find, there does not appear to be any direct guidelines on the usage of photo collages in the infoboxes; however the standard practice seems to be to only include collages for large cities that anchor large metropolitan or urban areas. That being said, I'm not sure that photo collages are appropriate for articles about relatively small or mid-sized cities. Does anyone know more about this? Bneu2013 (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this has only occurred because the most highly-active Wikipedians tend to live in cities, they would have higher pops to support more editors, and they are simply more notable. So I think it's just based on edit trends. Small or mid-size cities can have a wide diversity of neighborhoods, landmarks, and icons worth featuring in a collage, but it takes effort and perhaps sometimes long-term residence to really know what the most notable landmarks a small city is known for. ɱ  (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is my conclusion based on editing and writing articles on municipalities from 5k to 1 million people, and more often than not, I've ended up including image collages to better represent a place than a single image ever could. ɱ  (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * This is silly, of course a photo montage can be appropriate for smaller cities too! Small places are probably just less likely to have several major landmarks that should be featured in the infobox and wouldn't already have a clear place to fit everything in the article as a whole. Reywas92Talk 16:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with ɱ and Reywas92. It think it depends more on the state and development of the article over the given city's population. As ɱ said, a single image often doesn't represent a place well and the collage option allows for a reasonable amount of photos to be placed there and updated as needed without having to make a separate collage image file. About the only guidance the issue needs is making sure editors don't go overboard with it since it can overwhelm an infobox, but a small amount can give a much better visual "summary" of a city, even a smaller city, than a single image. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Morristown, Tennessee (pop. 29,137) where like almost all small-town collages, there is a photo of the downtown in the infobox, and an almost exact same photo of the downtown in the article. The collage at Morristown (and thousands like it) is like a travel brochure intended to catch readers with glitzy pictures on the front page, and then add duplicates of all the infobox pictures throughout the article, making the infobox so long it pokes into the next county.  My fav is when someone's vacation pictures become the new collage.  Does anyone even look at collages?  I think some consensus about collages would be beneficial. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, eight images is more than necessary here! And the size is defined to be 310px, which makes it fairly large so this should be trimmed. That's a poor editorial choice to duplicate the downtown scene, and even poorer to include a boring shopping mall. Some of these can obviously be moved (e.g. the latter to Retail section (though still boring), the airport to Airport section) but this need not be an indictment of collages in general, though they do make less sense for small places. Reywas92Talk 20:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Measuring distance in US city articles
There is a discussion at Talk:Deora, Colorado about which measure of distance to use in US city articles. Please see Talk:Deora, Colorado and Talk:Deora, Colorado. The input of others is welcome. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Presidential election results table
I removed the table of historic presidential election results at Covington, Virginia (pop. 5,961). These tables have been popping up on articles over the past year, and seem out-of-scope and unnecessary. There is no mention here at the US Cities guideline to include historic presidential election results, so I have started a discussion at Talk:Covington, Virginia. Your input is welcome so a consensus about inclusion of these large tables can be reached. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Transportation and Health care (but nothing else) included in infrastructure?
Can someone explain the rationale here? I don't understand it at all. If the point is to include "soft infrastructure", that's all well and good, but Wikipedia's own article on this topic includes financial system, the education system, the system of government, law enforcement, and emergency services under "soft infrastructure". If they all should be included there, then that's all well and good, but just including healthcare there makes no sense to me. Famartin (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

New population graph
I have concerns about a self-created population graph an editor has added to hundreds of US articles. Your input at Talk:Fairbank, Iowa would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Infrastructure
Infrastructure is listed as a bullet point of Geography section but is also called out as its own main section. Can someone please elaborate to differentiate or revise? I hate duplication and structural ambiguity. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You also had a concern about the infrastructure section. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Notable people sections of towns/cities all across the US
Hi everyone!

So I would have started the conversation here, as I have been trying to streamline and improve the "Notable people" list sections across the encyclopedia that are commonly listed in most cities in towns in the USA (as well as across the globe), I first posted about this project at Wikipedia talk:Typo Team, because I didn't know about this wonderful project "WikiProject Cities" I'll need to join up here right after this!

Here is what I am trying to accomplish.

"Notable people" lists are really interesting to me, and are a fun "deep dive" across the encyclopedia to learn about the history of people that are "Notable" (for good or bad reasons, no matter!) across various areas. I first wanted to establish consensus (even on this "small" addition) to the all "Notable people" sections, and I suspect that it will be received warmly since what I am suggesting is entirely neutral and is already in SOME "Notable people" sections", but not all. It is the CONSISTENCY across them all that I am trying to help with mostly! Some sections have a brief birth and death year such as (b. 1900) or (1900–1999), but many other "Notable people" sections have nothing. I'd volunteer up my time to help correct for this discrepancy and add something to them all, pulling from the primary wiki-articles of course, so it should at least be verifiable based on the original page.

I'd also like to establish a "template" that we suggest (not require) is used across all "Notable people" sections for all towns/cities/etc. in the USA. Maybe even the world! But that might be another wikiproject. {smiley}

To kick start this (and please don't take this as me not wanting to seek consensus first, its just that I am still fairly new and didn't know where to go, which is why I went to the Typo Team as my best thought—see above—first!), I have completed ALL of the Notable people lists for some states that are low in population such as New Hampshire and Wyoming as well as ALL of them for Philadelphia, Orlando, Key West, St. Petersburg, and Dagestan (not in the USA, I know). I tend to start by pulling a list of all of the "Municipalities in XYZ state" such as here for NH, or here for WY, then just working top down until complete.

The template I suggest is simple (and here are some examples for what I have suggested, and been using, any feedback at this juncture is much appreciated. The simple thing that I am really ADDING to ALL is the birth and death year, which I am simply pulling from the person's wikiarticle itself, though one user has suggested that this in itself is not reliable enough. That may well be true, but when doing hundreds of these, and just for the sake of the LIST on each town/city of "Notable people", I feel that it is fairly reliable 99% of the time, and a good place to start and show people at a GLANCE what ages are for each person in the respective "Notable people" list):

So now for my templates... (Also, I ALWAYS use an "N" – dash in between the birth and death date, as I believe that is already established in MOS on birthdate "Abbreviations like b. and d. can be used, if needed, when space is limited (e.g., in a table) and when used repetitively (e.g., in a list of people)."

Standard template if all information is available on a person from birth to death, career details etc. Jane Doe (1900–1999), doctor, lawyer, dentist

No period at the end, because these are lists that are open and not complete sentences. Also, I use active wikilinks for the FIRST iteration of each career detail, but not the subsequent ones (i.e. another doctor or lawyer later on in the same list for the same town or city would not be made to be a wikilink).

If the person is still alive, but the rest is known: Jane Doe (b. 1900), doctor, lawyer, dentist

If there is unknown information about the birth or death date, this is the one I prefer to use a tag for, but I am open to another format if that is instead preferred, just let me know what it is!!

Jane Doe (–1999), doctor, lawyer, dentist or Jane Doe (1900–), doctor, lawyer, dentist

I use the tag because it calls some attention to it, and I HAVE noticed in several instances where some other editor will come back later and then insert it the known/found/verified birth or death year information, but I will gladly replace this with something else in its stead if consensus is reached on what to replace it with (for either an unknown birth or death year, or both!).

If the birth year OR the death year are rough, or approximate, or several years could be possible, I use the earliest/oldest year verifiably available and then insert a "c." for circa such as the following examples:

If both birth and death year are approximate: Jane Doe (c. 1900–c. 1999), doctor, lawyer, dentist

If just the birth year is approximate: Jane Doe (c. 1900–1999), doctor, lawyer, dentist

If just the death year is approximate: Jane Doe (1900–c. 1999), doctor, lawyer, dentist

If there is NO wikiarticle for someone, I generally remove them.

If the listing is NOT an individual, but rather a BAND or GROUP, then I remove them on the basis that individuals are to be listed as "Notable people", because only individuals are a constant (don't change) and may all be verified as both notable and FROM a particular city or town.

Lastly, there are some unique cases, such as when someone was listed as "disappeared", which I ran into once. That is a case where we KNOW WHEN they disappeared, but NOT WHEN exactly they may have died, and I felt that was worth including in the line so I wrote something like the following:

Jane Doe (1900–disappeared c. 1974), doctor, lawyer, dentist

I have been doing hundreds of these a day, and have amassed over 5,000+ edits thus far in this pursuit. It is not easy work, it is redundant, boring, but exactly the sort of outlet that my OCD needs! Given enough time, I could have the entire country done, maybe, though I would MORE than appreciate help on this! As I might die before I accomplish that goal. {smiley}

I have already had the joy of encountering some supportive comments from some editors that tend to focus on one particular state or another, such as from New Hampshire. Ken also pointed out that AFTER the parentheses of the close of the birth and death year, I should add a COMMA (which I was previously removing)! Thank you very much Ken Gallager for that early supportive comment and for helping me to improve my grammar as I proceed with this fairly monumental, and tedious, task. {smiley|tongue}

Another editor raised a question and wanted to make sure that I got consensus before proceeding, which is always a fair thing to ask I feel. (. Magnolia677 in particular asked on my talk page about the fact that I am adding birth/death years taken from the primary article, but then suggested that this may not always be sourced or verified ON the article itself.

Given that I am doing hundreds of these per day, it would greatly impede my progress to ensure each and every one was fully cited and sourced, and so I ask that we please go with whatever is on the article itself. We can always edit/change the birth/death year again if better/newer information comes later! I do indeed often revisit and continue to "work" the lists that I have already completed (part of the reason that I really like the tags).

Happy to hear everyone's comments, and I plan to dive back into this project full steam tomorrow! I'll hopefully hear from some of you today then, or soon! Much appreciated! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 19:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections to my plan, I plan to continue working on completing these "Notable people" standardizations and the addition of the birth year/ death years, in the following states soon: Alaska, Delaware, Vermont, Maine, Rhode Island, and then onward down the list (beginning with lowest populations to higher etc. Thanks everyone for reading and for helping to build this wonderful encyclopedia together! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 02:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop adding unsourced dates to articles. Also, please stop adding "" to names in notable people sections that do not have birth and death dates listed; there is no requirement that birth and death dates be added. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think overall that it's a great idea to have the birth and death years in the Notable People sections. It provides an important context for readers who are quickly looking at the list. I will echo Magnolia677's comments on the "When" tag - it doesn't really help the reader to see those comments, and an editor coming through later can easily check the notable person's article to see if dates have been added. Instead, you could perhaps add a short phrase to the person's description giving the general time period of activity. I had not considered Magnolia677's concerns about lack of sourcing, but it is a good point. I know it might slow down your project somewhat, but I agree that you should be sure you're not propagating errors. --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the feedback, so it seems there is a bit of a divide though, and I am torn as to what to do (as I am still not sure of how consensus is built exactly, it has always seemed somewhat ambiguous to me). Thus far we have one side saying not to proceed essentially at all, that adding birth/death years is wholly unnecessary. Another side saying that it is very helpful, but that I should take care to consider sourcing and stop using the tag. I am open to suggestions here, and would love to hear what I should put in its stead (the  tag). I have no problem with doing something else, but would prefer that the community give me some input as to what to do there.  As for the decision for proceeding at ALL or not... how do we determine that? I've already completed several entire states New Hampshire and Wyoming, in addition to numerous entire cities, and personally, I see it as a value add, but I can understand the concern around sourcing and I can try and factor that before I add the birth/death year dates on "Notable people". One follow up question though. IF the birth and/or death year is NOT seen to have a source, should I simply NOT carry that over to the "Notable people" list at ALL? Or maybe DO, but use a  tag? That would certainly make it much easier on my end when doing hundreds of these at a time. Also, if that is not acceptable either, no worries, but please just offer up a suggested alternative. Last question, IF the birth/death year is not cited on the primary article for a "Notable person", should I REMOVE it from the article as well? Or add a "citation needed" tag to it there? Thanks everyone! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 16:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I ask also because whatever the "verdict" of the community, I will need to go back and clean up any of the tags that I have already put out there in the wild etc. And I want to make sure I have an agreed upon "template" before proceeding so that I can possibly "recruit" others to help with this task and we do not encounter resistance as we complete state after state to this standardization. Thanks again! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 16:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There should be citations that the person was from that city, but it's excessive and not relevant to the topic at hand to have citiations merely for their lifespan. I would expect that to be cited in the biographical article. I think it's less relevant to include that than what the person is known for though. Reywas92Talk 16:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. I didn't make my position clear, which is that the source article should have the dates cited. --Ken Gallager (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the bio should have the dates sourced. In some instances, this editor was copying unsourced dates. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Baseball player and pro golfer articles generally don't have a reference as a IC for the person's birthdate. These person's birthdates can be found at baseballreference.com, a reliable source, or the golfer's tour page....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi all! I guess the next easiest way to proceed or not would be to get buy in on my format as I have done this already on thousands of entries. Including the entire city of Philadelphia "Notable people" list, the cities of Orlando, every single town and city in the state of New Hampshire, every single town and city in the state of Wyoming, and several other places that I can mention here as requested. I think it seems there is some consensus from the above that it is a worthwhile pursuit to continue adding these birth and death dates, and that the citation/source SHOULD be on the main article. I tend to pull directly from the lead, so that is good enough for me, and is good enough I would argue for the "at a glance" benefit that comes from adding this detail the right of each persons name on each "Notable people" list. I would love some help with this, but I'd be happy to blanket the entire country if no one else wishes to step up, that said, I would love to just make sure that no longer are these being reverted due to some citation issue if there is a lacking component on the main article. If there needs to be a citation or source added for the main article, then I agree that should be added, but that to me is a separate project. Lastly, I think I will try and add some blurb about adding the "birth year" and "death year" as I have been and in the format that I have been at this section (WikiProject Cities/US Guideline) if all approve (or majority approve)? Something simple just saying something to the effect of adding it in this basic format (1900–1999), (b. 1900), (c. 1900), etc. and calling out all of the specifics as to when to do one or the other format (knowns and unknowns etc). Do we "vote" on this next? How is consensus ultimately attained? I'm still somewhat new to that part... Thanks all for your feedback! Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 04:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hearing no further concerns, I will adapt the policy of NOT using the tag immediately as suggested by numerous users, and I will get back to otherwise continuing to add the birth/death year information as normal to all persons I come across in USA towns and cities across the country (beginning by low population and working to higher population states) in the "Notable people" sections. I will also continue with the standardization formatting as I have, and will edit the WikiProject Cities/US Guideline section as mentioned previously to reflect this. Lastly, for citations and sourcing, that will need to be left to the primary article, and I will of course NEVER insert anything that is NOT on the primary article on the "Notable people" list, but I will otherwise leave that unsourced ON the "Notable people" list (the lifespan part) as that was deemed "excessive previously by another editor too. Thanks everyone for the feedback, and please feel free to reach out to me on my talk page then if anyone would like to do an "edit-a-thon" with me one one state or another and we can divvy it up together.  Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 20:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, I DID mean to ask... what DO we want to put INSTEAD of the tag when we DO NOT KNOW the birth or death year of a person? What is normally put in this format? Say when it is a birth year of 1900 but no known death year, or a death year of 1999, but no known birth year? When it is a CIRCA, I of course know what to do, but what about a COMPLETE UNKNOWN? (capitalizations for emphasis only, not "screaming").  Th78blue (They/Them/Theirs • talk) 20:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I cannot stress eoiugh how extremely obnoxious I find the attempt to plaster this "template" all over articles about places in Alaska:

 NOTICE * * * NOTICE * * * NOTICE * * * * * * * * * * * *NOTICE * * * NOTICE * * * NOTICE• Only people who already have a Wikipedia article may appear here. This establishes notability. • A Wikipedia article must exist for anyone to be included in this list, this clearly establishes verifiable notability. • The Wikipedia article itself should mention the person's association with Chefornak, Alaska. • Alphabetical by last name please, within the appropriate category. • Add birth year and death year in the: (b. 1990), (1900–1999), (c. 1950), format when available. Just after the name, and just before career details. • All others will be deleted without further explanation. END OF NOTICE * * * * * * * * * * * * END OF NOTICE * * * * * * * * * * * *END OF NOTICE

I do not think there is broad community support for just robotically adding this and dynamic list to every single article on a named place. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Those templates are seen in most notable people sections for communities in Maine, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Illinois at least. What's obnoxious about it? Very curious behavior from an administrator and you didn't even bother to sign this either....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I missed signing a post. It happens sometimes and is an extremely petty thing to carp about, as if it was on purpose. You've also twice now brought up that I am and admin. I don't see what bearing that has on an editorial conversation. I'm also an oversighter, checkuser, and arbitrator, but none of that matters, we're talking about this robotic addition of a set of "rules" to a large group of articles, many of which had no issues anyway. It isn't helpful to clutter up the page with a giant hidden comment aimed at solving a problem that doesn't exist. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You're an administrator who rules on the behavior of others at ANI and elsewhere and you violated WP:ESDONTS. Obnoxious isn't neutral....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever, we can continue this scintillating discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This goes against the guidance at WP:CSC: ". Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future. Red-linked entries should be accompanied by citations sufficient to show that the entry is sufficiently notable for an article to be written on it" in fact the whole notice could be replaced by a link to WP:CSC referencing the 'notability' criteria.  If an editor still adds someone with neither a redlink nor a wikilink, we should make a good faith search to see if they are notable, rather than 'deleting them from the list without further notice'  JeffUK (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Well that escalated quickly . I have some aspergers, so I do do a lot of edits all at once, but no harm done, happy to undo any harm I did. Thanks all! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 19:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Need consensus from all please (about Birth/Death date year adds for "Notable people" lists)
Hi all,

I am trying to be as civil and polite about this as possible. Though it is insanely stressful to have hours of quality hard work undone by day after day, and U.S. State after U.S. State that I work for 6+ hours in a row sometimes. I do not mean to "call out" this user, or in any way to be rude, but I received this warning on my talk page just now, after having been regularly reverted for work that I consider to be valid, it is getting to be exhausting:

"Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Newark, Delaware, you may be blocked from editing. At Newark, Delaware, you made a number of edits to add birth/death dates to people listed in the notable people section. With many of the names listed--M. A. Muqtedar Khan, Bilal Nichols, Tubby Raymond, Madinah Wilson-Anton, Chad Kuhl--you simply copied the unsourced birthdates from the target article, and pasted the unsourced dates into the Newark, Delaware article. You have been cautioned already about using Wikipedia as a source, and also about adding unsourced content. Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)"

So I am asking the community. I am TRYING to establish consensus on adding the birth and death years FROM PRIMARY ARTICLES to JUST the "Notable people" lists across all towns and states in the USA. It is astonishing to me that this is somehow controversial at ALL. This is not political, this is simply adding to the value of the encyclopedia. As I believe some users such as and  (among others) have acknowledged. Citing and sourced material is important, but that should be on the primary article I believe we established. Also, IF IT IS NOT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GET CONSENSUS ON WHAT SHOULD BE DONE AS I WORK THESE LISTS PLEASE.

A. If it is ruled that the birth dates and death dates on primary articles are not good enough to be pulled over just to these "Notable people" lists, should I DELETE the birth and/or death year date that is on the primary ARTICLE itself that I am pulling these dates from over to the BRIEF "at-a-glance" "Notable people" list?

B. Leave the "Notable people" list the same, no change there (ignoring that the date is present on the primary article? No reference to it at all?)

C. Copy the date over from the primary article as I have been doing (where it is in fact cited 90% of the time anyway on the primary article?), and continue as I have already done for the entire states of: New Hampshire, Alaska, Wyoming, and many other cities such as Philadelphia etc.? With much "thanks" and approval by the local communities involved?

Your comments and feedback are essential as it relates to whether or not I can continue with this MASSIVE project. I have thus far been impeded by no other editor except, but that does not mean that this users concerns are not valid, and I do not want to construe my STRESS to be read that way. I just wanted clarity on this from the BEGINNING, and have thus far, not been (apparently?! Its hard to tell!) gain enough "consensus" to appease this user.

Much thanks, and with great respect for the encyclopedia and for for pushing me to be my best. In the end... I know this will all be worth while, and we will have that long sought after "consensus", either in my favor, or not, but consensus nonetheless. Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 02:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * You seem to be asking: is there an exception that allows an editor to add uncited and/or unverified information to an article if either the article is a list of people, or the edit is being made to a list of people in a larger article. I think that's a pretty clear "no". If you're going to add a name, or going to add birth and death dates, do so only with a reference that you have confirmed supports the information you are adding. TJRC (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but what I am really asking is to form consensus around A, B, C, or an alternative not yet proposed! Also, I have asked above and I will ask again, what should we then do about the birth and death dates that is in the articles that I was pulling from (if in fact they are truly unsourced as Magnolia677 claims, which has proven to only be the case SOME of the time). Thanks! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 02:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you're doing, but I think it's going to be hard to establish a consensus on an overall approach. Here's my suggestion: (1) Don't remove birth and death dates from articles you find where they're not attributed. That is mission creep for your project. (2) Add birth and death dates if they're sourced in the subject's article. Otherwise, leave out the dates and don't add a tag asking for them. (3) Take your time and feel good about where you've made progress. Best wishes, --Ken Gallager (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks, that makes sense. I was also curious if anyone would help me to find where there might be sources located in different parts of a persons article page? If it is not directly cited inline after the birth/death dates, it can be hard to find, and I am trying to ask if anyone might know how to make that easier, so that I can continue with Delaware as planned. I have currently put this project on hold so that I do not get blocked for seemingly "disruptive" edits according to some editors... Thanks again Ken for at least trying to help me! Thats all I'm asking for, but it seems to be a bit much for some! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 17:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

For city articles, I feel that we should simplify the way we do things in the "notable people" section as much as possible. In a way, this section should be treated "kind of" like a special "see also" section. By no means am I claiming my view is the correct way, instead it's more of a practical personal view since many people in notable sections aren't significant to the history of the city. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 12:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Years and description should be copied or summarized from each persons article. If information is in a persons article, then it's fine to copy it to city article. If information is missing from the persons article, such as born/death year(s), then we should first improve that persons article, along with adding reference(s) to prove it.
 * Don't flood the "notable people" section with references to validate details copied from each persons article, because many of these people had little or no historical impact on the city!! Everyone need to remember is the notable people section is part of a CITY ARTICLE, thus we shouldn't flood the city article with "reference junk" that isn't significant to the history of the city.
 * If a person was already stated in another part of the same city article, such as the history section, then it's fine to add the same reference for that same person in the "notable people" section. These are the people that really are significant to the city article, and the ones that should matter the most in the "notable people" section.
 * Having read all of the above, I agree with and  as long as the birth and/or death year are on the article of the person it's being pulled from then I see no problem with this. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Birth/Death date (Notable people lists part. 2)
That last section had gotten really long and I don't think anyone has seen my latest questions and I do not want to get accused of plowing ahead without seeking consensus any more (I am trying to attain consensus!!). So we seem to be good on the format now in most cases, but can someone please suggest what I should put for a birth or death date when it is entirely UNKNOWN? So if BOTH are unknown, that is easy. I will just leave it blank on that persons line, but what if ONE details is known (whether exact or approximate is not the question, but only a TOTALLY unknown date for HALF of a person's biographical detail, either birth, or death).

So for example, please see this person: Nell Scott from Seldovia, Alaska's "Notable people" list. I currently have gone with the following, of just leaving it BLANK in the absence of any other better suggestion. I previously would have inserted a tag, but that was enthusiastically shot down (and fairly so).

Notable people

 * Nell Scott (c. 1901– ), the first woman elected to Alaska's territorial legislature

Thank you all for your time. I am spending a great deal of time on these, and plan to not stop until I have blanketed America (and the world!), so I'd love consensus and complete buy in FIRST, but in the absence of that... I have no choice but to be bold (but of course not reckless)! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 22:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Just leave it as is, no tag needed. There is a guideline somewhere about not cluttering up articles with too many editing tags like "citation needed". I can find it if need be. We want articles to be accessible to causal readers and not clustered with editing tags. It's clear with these dates that there is information missing, to both the reader and fellow editors. No need to point this out with a tag. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 23:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Seeking additional feedback for templated example of form for "Notable people" contributions (see below and please comment)
Eight days ago I edited/added the following to this segment based on all of the discussions had here in this talk page, but reverted my edit just now and suggested I seek further consensus around adding this to the "Notable people" segment of WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Your feedback below would be much appreciated : ————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Provide information, preferably in prose form, of any famous or notable individuals that were born, or lived for a significant amount of time, in the city. A bulleted list noting the connection the person has with the city as indicated in Manual of Style/Embedded lists may be used if appropriate. Simple lists of names add little of value and may be subject to abuse. More developed articles, especially those which have gone through WP:GA and WP:FA, tend to have this section written out as prose. The talkpage may be used in the early stages of an article's development to simply list people who are connected with a city. If the section grows then it may be split out per WP:Summary style into a stand alone article or list (such as List of people from City, State) which can be linked to via the main template placed at the top of the section. However, it is common for a link to just be placed in the 'see also' section.

A basic "Notable people" list format that can be used might look like the following:


 * Joe Schmoe (1900–1999), doctor, lawyer, dentist; lived entire life in Metroplex (example of standard birth and death year listed, career details, and note on attachment to example city "Metroplex")
 * Jane Doe (b. 1985), doctor, pianist, dentist; lived in Metroplex while performing piano recitals, later moved to Moscow, Russia
 * Sally Wong (c. 1779–1825), wife of George Washington, Pulitzer Prize-winning poet (notice the "c." for "circa", indicating the approximate year known for either birth or death date, also not every listing will have a comment on the notable person's connection the city or town, but when possible this should be included, and some mention of the town/city must be included in the primary article)
 * Alex Simpson (1950–c. 2017), kidnapped in his youth, Alex's body later washed ashore near Metroplex

Wikilinks need not be used again after the first appearance of a unique wikilink in a "Notable people" list. See dentist for Joe Schmoe above and dentist again not in brackets in the Jane Doe bulleted object.

To be included in a list of notable people, individuals must still meet the notability requirements per WP:PEOPLE. A fast and easy way to establish this is if they already have an article written about them on Wikipedia, since it would have never been approved, or would have been deleted, if they did not meet notability requirements. This is not the sole rationale for inclusion, since some people who might meet notability standards may not have an article, but it is a quick reference. If challenged, additions without their own article should be removed and discussed on the talk page of the city, until a consensus is reached.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— I hope you all find the above to be an acceptable addition to the WikiProject Cities/US Guideline section. I would appreciate all of your feedback so that we can put this to bed at last, one way or the other. Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 13:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not sure that birth and death dates are relevant to the article, if the reader is that interested they can click on the link. Dates relevant to the article would be "Smith, John a rubber band collector lived in Footown from 1945 to 1977." MilborneOne (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughts . I have volunteered to complete the addition of this very small detail though to the "Notable people" lists of every state in the United States. I have thus far completed Alaska, Wyoming, New Hampshire, many random cities, and half of Delaware (before Magnolia677 asked that I stop and seek consensus before continuing....). I am not asking that anyone else help with this project IF no one wants to, I am simply asking as to whether or not I can please finish Delaware and then continue with the rest of the country with adding these dates. I think the addition is tiny, but helpful. If a student is doing a project for example, and looking for people of a particular time period or another, this helps with that "at a glance" style of information add. Also, if someone really wants to, they can just click the person like you suggested and get MORE information, but I unless you see something damaging or distracting from my adding of this information, would you see any problem with supporting my ask to please at least finish the USA? I can do a state per week or so (thus far, but it may take me longer when I get to states like NY or TX with their much larger populations etc.). That said, I am determined to finish this project, if only I am allowed to! Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) 17:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think adding the birth and death year to the lists is informative content. Additionally, I don't think it's really all that obtuse to add the full dates, but I understand not every editor agrees. Perhaps the years is a nice compromise as that is the most informative part of the date. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 10:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Notable people (b. or born) request for comment
Since this is relevant to some of the discussions we have engaged in here on this page, I just wanted to share another RfC that is ongoing at this page here, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography. Thank you all in advance, as I invite you to come and let us hear your preference. Either, Born/Option A or B./Option B. ♥ Th78blue (They/Them/Their • talk) ♥ 06:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of rankings
Lots of companies have figured out that rankings of places can be a great way to get some press coverage in the most clickbait-y way possible. Best Place to Live With Three Vowels in the Name! Lowest Crime Cities With 37,000 to 42,000 Residents! Best Place to Raise a Family of Seven! There are some rankings of Best Places to Live from Money magazine, where the source has some measure of reliability, but many of these rankings are from no-name websites looking to get some clicks and attention.

Should these rankings be included? Are none appropriate? Is there some benchmark that we can use under which some rankings are OK and others aren't? Alansohn (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see Talk:Chanhassen, Minnesota. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah there's so many asterisks on these they have little value. Chanhassen, MN gets a big headline from Money, "This Is the Best* Place to Live in the U.S. Right Now" *Excludes places >500,000 people *Excludes places <25,000 people *Excludes expensive places, which are often expensive because they're great places to live! *Exludes the fourth best place in each state, regardless of national ranking *Excludes last year's winners. Agree with commenters there they should be broadly removed, or at least changed to something simple like "recognized by Money for its quality of life" without arbitrary rankings. Reywas92Talk 16:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if it's mentioned, a footnote should provide the specifics of the criteria for the ranking. I think the same discussion has been said for university ranking as well. – The Grid  ( talk )  21:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style
Your input at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is welcomed, as it specifically involves US city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Should we keep these sections?
Hello all,

Not a formal RfC or anything, but I would like to see what you all think about something in particular. I am a regular editor on US Cities, and I come across often these little sections labeled, "Surrounding cities" or "Nearby cities" etc. That then have a whole bunch of arrows strewn together indicating the general directional point of each surrounding town of a town or city. I have found these sections in state after state, but I think that they may have been inserted in a older era of the encyclopedia, and that the current infobox is more than sufficient. In my eyes, they are somewhat messy looking, and no longer helpful given the absolutely awesome and beautiful appearance of the infobox instead. I'd love feedback from all of you as it relates to the removal of these from articles. I'd be more than happy to volunteer to remove these from all articles if there was consensus regarding such removal. If instead it is deemed that they should stay, well, then so be it. They stay! Thanks for reading my comment. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 17:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also figured I should offer some explicit examples so that people know exactly what I am referring to. Here are two from different states that I came across: Example1, Example 2... there are many more, but these are generally what they look like from what I can tell. Thanks! ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 17:34, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've never seen the format used in your first example before and I don't really like that, definitely messy. But example 2 is pretty common and I think it's fine, no need to remove in bulk. Reywas92Talk 18:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I am not crazy about these sections either....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both of your comments. For, do you think a standard formatting (versus removal) would make more sense? I spend a LOT of time on US cities articles, and could probably finish most of the country in less than one year to one standard. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 17:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks also to you for your hard work, but, no, you should not spend your time repairing the hard work of other people who are just as invested in this encyclopedia as you are. I hope you understand that other folks have different ideas as to what is good and what is bad. Personally, I find these directional boxes really INTERESTING to look at, and I would be offended if anybody tried to monkey with those I've added to several "neighborhood" articles. Also, we always have to consider that VERY FEW editors hang out in this Wikiproject, so whatever "decision" is reached here would actually be done without the knowledge or consent of thousands of editors. Anyway, best wishes, and thanks for bringing this idea up before you simply made the changes on your own. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I always like to ask before acting. Especially on something like this. If the section in question is in fact valued as you say, then so be it. I am happy to leave it around. I just know that this particular section seems somewhat rare, and it wouldn't be overly bothersome for me to clear it out as I go through articles fixing other typographical errors etc. By the way, I looked at your page and was amazed to see that you are very close to being 90 years old. That is amazing! And still editing the encyclopedia! Wow! Thank YOU! ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 02:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * These directional boxes are often placed at the bottom of the article in collapsed form, so they are not intrusive. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, I can actually say, that at least in my experience the "directional boxes" are most often placed or found in the "Geography" sections of towns and cities. Here is just one example: Haslet, Texas. Thank you. ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 18:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a logical place, and one which I prefer. Nevertheless, there has been a coterie of editors who concentrate on neighborhoods of Los Angeles, California, where a decision has been reached to place these helpful geographic charts at the bottom of each neighborhood article (often hidden until the readers clicks to open it). I think this is wrong, but I have gone along with it because my experience has been that one particular editor would simply remove the geographic box completely without notice. I've had to reinsert several such deletions at the bottom of the page once I found out about it. I wouldn't mind developing a Wiki-wide policy approving of the use of such references such as the one you cite in Haslet, Texas, placed in the Geography section. What do you think? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

New, but related question
So forget that last question, it seems that these are at least popular-ish and will remain. What about standardizing them though to one format? See my two original examples above for examples of the different styles. Again, I'd happily volunteer to help in this matter. Thanks! ♥ Th78blue (talk) ♥ 19:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you can safely change the rather odd configuration at Bay_Harbor_Islands,_Florida, explaining in the Edit summary that the configuration is unusual for Wikipedia, but I'll bet you won't find many others like it anywhere in our encyclopedia. I would not delete it entirely; I find it quite useful in envisioning the geography of that particular part of the world and, as I mentioned before, somebody went to the trouble of creating it. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ely, Minnesota
The Empire State building is a little over a mile outside Hoboken, New Jersey's boundaries. Can I add that iconic building to Hoboken's "tourism" section? At Ely, Minnesota, an editor has been puffing up the tourism section by adding tourist sites located outside the city boundaries. I'd like to get a consensus about this, because it happens all the time, and being "close" is unencyclopedic and typically discouraged on Wikipedia. The input of others at Talk:Ely, Minnesota would be appreciated. Thank you! Magnolia677 (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I treat rural communities differently than metro areas were there is a jig saw of numerous cities smashed upgainst each other. Generally in rural areas, most people in those areas consider anything reasonably close to a community to be part of it, even if it's not inside the legal border of that community.  Whether it is right or wrong, I usually give some leeway for rural communities to simplify things.  Some editors could abuse what is considered "reasonably close", which might need to argued on a case by case basis in those situations.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 22:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Presidential election results
There is a discussion at Talk:Carlsbad, California regarding the addition of presidential election results to city articles. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe hide it in one of those "click to expand" show things, such as used at Kansas Coliseum •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 19:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Vinton, Iowa
There is a content dispute at Talk:Vinton, Iowa regarding a lengthy edit to the history section. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Flags on sister cities sections
See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/Archive_13.

Should metro area population be included in all articles or only for cities with their own eponymous metro area?
As in this edit, articles have been updated to add wording that "Pohatcong Township is part of the Lehigh Valley metropolitan area, which has a population of 861,899 and is the 68th most populated metropolitan area in the U.S. as of the 2020 census." The editor referred to WP:USCITY, which says "a couple of items should be included in the lead section for city articles, including:... Metro population..." Does this mean that ALL articles should list metro areas and their population, or does this only refer to cities (such as New York City) that have an eponymous metro area? Either way, should the wording of WP:USCITY be updated to clarify the guideline? Alansohn (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that only refers to the main city/cities. Details of the wider metro area like that aren't really relevant to individual municipalities the way one would use that to compare the cores. Reywas92Talk 14:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Alansohn for letting me know he initiated this discussion. He and I were wrestling with this question as it related to several pages on small New Jersey towns and communities that fall within a fairly large metropolitan region to which those towns have only more recently been assigned. My own view is that mention of the name of the metropolitan region to which a city or town belongs is essential on a city/town/community page (I believe he agrees on that) and should even be part of the recommended template (as I believe it is). Beyond the name of the metropolitan region to which a city, town, or community belongs, other details about the metropolitan region, I think, depend on whether those details are of consequence to understanding the basics about that respective city or town. In no case should the associated metro region details be exhaustive. But some metro facts can prove essential to understanding the city, town, or community. The most obvious example, which is sometimes valuable and even essential and other times unnecessary, is mention of the metro area's population. A small town in an equally small metropolitan area creates one understanding of that town. A small town within possibly a sizable metropolitan region creates a very different and important understanding, especially for readers who have limited or maybe zero understanding of these towns. A town with, say, 1,000 residents, in a metropolitan region that is also small, is vastly different than a small town with 1,000 residents that is located within a metropolitan region that is actually large and may even rank as a larger population center within its state and/or the nation. In such cases, mentioning the population size of the larger metropolitan region and sometimes its ranking in the state or nation is important to understanding the city, town, or community, especially if a reader knows little or nothing about it. I'm sure these details are not restricted to population, either. If there are really notable aspects to the metropolitan region to which a town belongs and which are impactful to that town, including them with the metro area's name seems at least valuable and sometimes essential, or not at all valuable if they are not impactful. My two cents. Keystone18 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Partially concur with Reywas92 - having been visiting the locality articles Keystone18 has been editing, I find the inclusion of the metro area information BEFORE the locality information to be a detriment to the article. IF he was willing to add the information later on, perhaps the geography section where it has more relevance, then I'd be OK with that. But, including it in the lead, ahead of details about the locality itself, is detrimental. Famartin (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Rankings not included
Chanhassen, Minnesota isn't the place editors tend to look for instruction. I would like to formalize the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chanhassen,_Minnesota#Request_for_Comment_-_Should_the_'Best_Place_to_Live_in_the_U.S.'_rankings_be_included? RFC concluded there] into a sentence at the bottom of WP:USCITIES under Additional tips for authors. I'll be back if this isn't done soon. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC) I wonder, is this RfC at odds with MOS:PEACOCK? There, the example of good text is -SusanLesch (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ❌ -SusanLesch (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, needs work. I believe we need to draw a line to stop drive-by blanket editing, done without sensitivity. Some care is needed, if we're removing rankings, to preserve the sense of things that were cited because they are exceptional. I don't think it's Wikipedia's intention to flatten its prose to reflect only the most boring. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have been trying to remove the truckload of puffery, promos, and cherry-picked racial narratives at Minneapolis for over a year, and a glance at that article's talk page shows this been a Herculean task. I know you are proud of Minneapolis--and you have much to be proud of--but the article needs a clean up (and it is not owned by you). Magnolia677 (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe we could stay on topic. Does the RfC at Chanhassen need further scrutiny before it becomes a US:CITIES guideline? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The consensus at this RfC was overwhelming, and directly related to US city articles. The RfC outcome was then summarized and added to this guideline, where it was further edited by User:Ɱ.  I also support it's inclusion. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. Except you left out a few things. First, I came here for the purpose of posting a guideline. For some reason you didn't ever do that. I copied Jonuniq's closing statement from the RfC. Ɱ improved it. After reading about Mr. Dylan in MOS:PEACOCK, I retracted the new guideline for discussion. In the RfC, the Argument was: As you can see in the above section, @Magnolia677 is disputing the notability and reliability of the 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' lists published by Money (magazine) (and all other lists of this nature across Wikipedia).


 * Was the argument clearly focused and universally applicable? Or was it too broad to implement? August 26, 2022, the day you decided to resurrect this RfC from 2021, in one big edit, you applied it to Minneapolis. You included the Brookings Institution, a think tank not a magazine. And one art critic who used the word "best." But not one music critic who used the phrase "greatest orchestra in the world." So if you, the person who introduced me to this RfC, can't quite get it right, then a guideline is doomed. What I believed at the time to be prematurely posted, I withdrew for discussion. You reverted me.


 * This discussion has devolved into yet another Magnolia677 case of "I know it when I see it." -SusanLesch (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Minneapolis content disputes
There are a number of content disputes at Minneapolis. The input of others would be appreciated at:
 * Talk:Minneapolis
 * Talk:Minneapolis
 * Talk:Minneapolis

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record. As far as I know, these discussions have been resolved peaceably. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute about non-English addition
There is a content dispute at Talk:Minneapolis, where an editor added a translation of Saint Anthony Falls--a local waterfall--into Dakota, to enhance an edit about a local restaurant. The input of others would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Minneapolis Police and Government
Hello. I wonder if people here have opinions on how Minneapolis can be improved. Talk thread is here. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, never mind. I removed the Police section. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Crime in the Demographics Section?
Why is crime included in the demographics section? As far as I can tell, criminology is not a part of demography. The reasoning given is also strange: "To add balance to articles that can seem overly positive, a discussion of crime and homelessness can be added here."

So the guidelines are to talk about the population of the city, then talk about the crime, in case we were left with a positive impression of the demographics of the city? It looks to have been added to the guidelines in 2007 without much discussion. It's not universally applied to city pages, but it's still affecting pages. Detroit's crime section was moved to demographics in 2021 without any discussion, citing the guide here.

IMO if a city page needs discussion of crime, it should go in a section of its own. Or maybe the Government section can include a section about policing, which can include relevant crime statistics. Or, it can be like the NYC page currently has it, under the public safety subsection of the human resources section. There probably isn't a one size fits all solution for where to put information about crime, but it definitely doesn't make sense in the demographics section. AlleyRegent69 (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The thing is this is a guideline, not policy. You can easily object to the move to demographics because it does match with the flow of the article. – The Grid  ( talk )  02:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the guide should be different, and specifically exclude crime statistics from the Demographics section. As far as I can tell, the guide is based on a misunderstanding from 2007 about what "demographics" means. But it's so common I think the majority of US cities' pages with crime stats would need to be changed.
 * Or am I wrong? Are crime statistics within the realm of demography? I want to make sure I'm not missing something before trying to change the guide.AlleyRegent69 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't really seen crime mentioned in demographics, it's usually for information that comes from the census on the population. I don't know if anything can be made notable about crime because anyone can tweak words around and use the known density to their advantage. For instance, stats that state something like "Chicago has the most crime per square mile" (I don't know if that's true, the important part is the example) but that does not take into effect the population density or what "crime" means is this instance. I remember something like Tampa had the most strip clubs per square mile but that's using the size of the city limits to an advantage because it could still be less strip clubs than other cities. The context is more important than the stats. – The Grid  ( talk )  20:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Some cities where crime is under demographics: Detroit, Oakland, Providence, Portland, Dallas, and many smaller cities. Maybe it's not a majority, but it's siginificant. Also worth noting that WP:CCSG puts crime discussion under the government/police section. AlleyRegent69 (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

And here's some more evidence that Crime stats don't belong in the Demographics section: look at Global cities. Most of the cities mentioned there have good articles, and only one of them has crime discussed in the demographics (Los Angeles). All the other global cities have crime discussed elsewhere, if at all (including NYC and Chicago). AlleyRegent69 (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Improve our guidelines
Can these guidelines please be discussed and adopted by the participants of this WikiProject? The last six or so edits to WP:USCITIES have had no back and forth discussion on Talk (for reference, Magnolia677, Magnolia677, AlleyRegent69, AlleyRegent69, SusanLesch, SusanLesch, SusanLesch). I made the mistake of being bold per WP:BOLD, then reversed course but discussion went nowhere. These guidelines affect hundreds if not thousands of articles. They deserve discussion among many parties. I submit this comment because nobody should believe these guidelines anymore if they become a free for all. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please list specific concerns you have. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely. (Just my 2 cents, police belong in government. So do crime statistics probably.) The diffs linked above had the following edit summaries. They read like personal opinion and edit warring more than guidelines reached by consensus.
 * "This was the result of an RFC"
 * "'Police' should be added to infrastructure, along with other emergency services; please discuss"
 * "Adding police for a possible subsection in the Government section"
 * "Crime stats aren't demographics"
 * "revert to before mention of rankings (db-author). dispute moved to WP:DRN"
 * "Removed 'Not ready for prime time'; restored content. Please seek a consensus to remove this."
 * "Rankings withdrawn for discussion"
 * I seek the opinion of other participants in this WikiProject. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm trying to bring attention to the fact that the guidelines here were suggesting to place a discussion about crime in the demographics section. This was first added to the guidelines in 2007 without any discussion. I think it was based on the misunderstanding that "demographics" just means "miscellaneous statistics". or am I mistaken? Are the Canadian guidelines mistaken?
 * I don't see why we should be chained to this edit from 2007 that provides no reasoning for placing crime stats in the Demographics section. Where's the controversy here? AlleyRegent69 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if no procedure is in place to change US CITIES guidelines, then maybe I just need to edit them as I did before per WP:BURO. But edit warring might ensue.
 * 1. The results of this magazine rankings RfC should be in the UC CITIES guidelines. But careful. This RfC did not mean to discount years of work for example by McKinsey, Poynter, Pew Research, or the Brookings Institution. Magazine rankings are one thing, but the products of professional research are another. Who will correct this? I propose to add this sentence:
 * Rankings such as the 'Best Place to Live in the U.S.' should not be included in city articles, as decided in a 2021 RfC. Newspaper, magazine, and website rankings have no authority and no encyclopedic value. Surveys (such as those done by McKinsey, Pew Research or the Brookings Institution) may be included when they meet higher professional standards.
 * 2. In Minneapolis until recently, police were the mayor's dominion by law, so I wrote them into the Government section along with the city's budget. They fit perfectly. There is potentially endless disagreement here per "should be added to infrastructure, along with other emergency services."
 * Infrastructure refers to physical structures. The United States Senate Republican Policy Committee says: While there is no set definition of infrastructure, federal investment has traditionally been concentrated on the systems supporting transportation and water resources. In recent years, the term has expanded somewhat to cover things like broadband and water utilities. Now Democrats are trying to redefine infrastructure once again, to include climate initiatives, schools, and hospitals... (No sign of personnel.)
 * 3. WP:CCSG solved this neatly. I concur with User:AlleyRegent69 that demographics aren't the place for crime, but I caution him/her not to compare city articles across Wikipedia. Very few have featured or good status. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This might be splitting hairs or already implied, but maybe it should be said the rankings need to be notable as well. Something like "...when they meet statistical best practices and are notable." Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How's that look now? Thank you for the suggestion. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not quite what I meant with the notability. i just meant the survey itself needs to be somehow notable – discussed in the media, or directly relevant to some part of the article. eg If Pew publishes a survey that shows Philadelphia has the third highest approval rating for the secretary of state, that doesn't necessarily belong in the Philadelphia article. I think it's implied, though. A better word describing the institutions is "reputable" instead of notable. I'll make that change, since it seems uncontroversial.
 * I do question including AEI in that list, when Pew, McKinsey and even Brookings can all be described as center-right. Yes, my bias is showing a little here, but even the Brookings Institution article mentions how they're sometimes described as right wing. IMO the list should stay focused on organizations that stick more closely to public opinion polling (McKinsey, Pew, Rasmussen, Quinipeac, university polisci departments, etc.). The more policy-based think tanks (Brookings, AEI) should be excluded.
 * That's not to say Brookings/AEI should be blacklisted, I just don't think the guide should encourage them in this context. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Maybe you can correct my list. Thank you again. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope this version meets with your approval. Or that you'll fix it if not. Thank you for your help. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The guideline now says that surveys can be included if they meet "statistical best practices". What does this mean?  Is there some criteria? Magnolia677 (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Criteria can be found in Google search. My opinion is that you'd have grounds to remove a survey if you could show it didn't meet best practices. The point of the addition is that some work in this genre is worthwhile. Maybe someone else has a better answer. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines are cluttered enough already without adding something editors need to Google to find out what it means. Why are we mentioning surveys anyway? Have "worst practice" surveys been cluttering up US city articles to such an extent that we need to write something in the guideline? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you look at Google? "Statistical best practices" are plentiful and obvious. We can adopt criteria if you wish, but maybe you consider that to be clutter. We're mentioning surveys because some of them are good, and they need protection from overzealous application of the 2021 RfC. (There you removed the NAACP who cited the Brookings Institution.) I have nothing more to add here, thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

So you want to change a guideline because of one edit by one editor? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, that's what brought me here as well. the guide was cited as a reason to revert an edit without discussion, as though there was a strong consensus, or as though this was an manual of style entry..
 * it's not the manual of style, but it does make better articles if there's a little more consistency. what's wrong with making improvements to the guide? A Brookings institution study on racial equity is different from a GQ article on the top ten cities for bachelors. Now the guide is a little more reflective of that. Sativa Inflorescence (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I generally support the proposal of saying something about what rankings are best to add, but, as a statistician myself, I don't even know what you mean by "Statistical best practices". GQ could run a perfect Chi-Square test on the categorical difference between genders and their preferred restaurants for first dates and I wouldn't think that ranking should be included in any Notable restaurant's Wikipedia article. No matter how rigorous the math.
 * Why don't we just stick with advising editors to follow core Wikipedia MOS principles and say rankings should only be included if they are being discussed by WP:Reliable, third-party sources? Specifically, third-party sources. So, not just the source of the rankings, despite the source's own reliability. D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 00:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Minneapolis has an RFC
Minneapolis 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) 15:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)