Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Urban studies and planning/Archive 1

Environmental design & Sustainable urban planning categories
I've merged Category:Sustainable urban planning (which had about 4 articles) into Category:Environmental design. A lot of the articles already in the Environmental design category were related or marginally related planning, anyway. --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 17:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories need attention
There are 260 articles in Category:Urban studies and planning. Many of these should be moved to subcategories.

Is there a better way of organising the categories?

E.g.: create a subcategory, Category:Philosophies of urban studies and planning or Category:Concepts in urban studies and planning - this would conveniently group articles such as Arcology, Carfree Cities, Ecocities, Ecovillage, Livable Streets, New Urbanism and Transit-oriented development, and categories such as Category:New Urbanism. What do you think? --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Categorization ain't easy! Please take a look at WikiProject Categories and see what that WikiProject has to say. You can always find help on categories. I'm no expert myself, but I know a few from working on WikiProject Community. Please note that the two projects overlap in many ways. The categories show this well. Note also that I have included Category:Urban studies and planning as a subcategory of Category:Community. CQ 02:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... well done. Community is a vague term though, and the category (Category:Community) reflects that - so that's another challenge to think about. I also added it to Category:Human habitats.


 * I'll check out those WikiProjects when I get a chance... --Singkong2005 talk 11:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is surely not easy, but one first thing to look at is separating examples. There are already categories for specific issues in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom.  It seems like there should be some kind of category for specific examples possibly split up by geography.  My particular interest is in traffic calming with numerous important examples being in Holland, Sweeden, Norway, and California which would burden the category list if I started adding pages in a similar manner.  Not exactly sure how this would work, but it does seem clear that listing all geographic areas and subareas in the category list is almost certain to prove cumbersome. -- M0llusk 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some kind of "urban planning by location" category" sounds like a good idea... so the structure would look something like this:
 * Category:Urban studies and planning
 * Category:Urban planning by location (or a more suitable name...?)
 * Category:Town and country planning in the United Kingdom
 * Category:Urban planning in Hong Kong
 * Category:Urban planning in Singapore
 * Category:Urban planning in Sweden... and so on.
 * Sound okay? --Singkong2005 talk 11:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I added zoning as a 1st layer subcategory because it encompasses rural, suburban, and urban planning and because it has a signficant amount of law invovled.EECavazos 21:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

New members
I have listed the WikiProject on the Community Portal's bulletin board. --Aude ( talk contribs ) 19:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal
I suggest we wait on creating a portal, until we have a few articles listed as good and/or Featured articles. I have seen too many portals get created, only to be poorly maintained (though Portal:Architecture is quite good) that I'm apprehensive about creating new portals. Having a critical mass of articles will make maintaining a portal much easier. At minimum, the "selected article" should be rotated once a month; ideally, content rotates weekly. --Aude ( talk contribs ) 19:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably wise. But there's nothing to stop us starting a draft portal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planning/Portal:Urban Studies and Planning if we want to make a start. I'd find it interesting, and it might at least be a useful tool for us to use in laying out the relationship between articles, & categories. --06:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with a having a draft page here. You might event take a look at WikiProject Kentucky/Portal. I think that's a good template for identifying content.  We can go from there. --Aude ( talk contribs ) 13:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planning/Portal:Urban Studies and Planning to a more standard title &mdash; WikiProject Urban studies and planning/Portal and provided a link to it on the project page. Portal talk can be opened for discussing what to include and other ideas relating to a future Portal. &bull; CQ 15:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Years in architecture
The timeline of architecture aims to include information on urban studies and planning, but this information is currently underrepresented there. Please feel free to help, by adding any signficant dates to the year in architecture articles. Warofdreams talk 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Community
The Community article is being restructured, refactored, sliced, diced, sanitized, deoderized and galvanized. Any help would be greatly appreciated. See Talk:Community for more info. CQ 02:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * News flash! The Community article is now listed as a Good article! CQ 14:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Address planning
Mention address (house number) planning somewhere. --User:Jidanni 2006-10-21

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Barbilltucker has the Urban studies and planning wikiproject categorised under Politics and Government in the History and society section. I've suggested that it might be better to keep the project close to Architecture for now, in Culture. There's arguments for both locations, but keeping the relatively new planning wikiproject closer to the more established architecture wikiproject seems to confer some advantages:- we're more likely to get architects and planners writing and joining rather than lawyers and those interested in politics (also welcome of course, but the field is more than the law and politics). Does anyone have any other ideas? --Mcginnly | Natter 11:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer review request - Gun violence in the United States
Lately, I have been working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. My interests in criminology tie together to my interests in urban studies/planning and geography, with how places impact crime and vice versa. So, that's the reason for me posting here. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (mainly peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this topic, and am staying out of the Gun politics in the United States article. With the gun violence article, I have stayed with presenting the current state of research on this topic. I think is close to featured status, though some "gun rights" folks have already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Any suggestions on making in more NPOV. In reality, I feel that the article deals fairly with both POVs, citing strategies advocated by gun-control folks as ineffective, while citing some strategies advocated by the Bush administration as effective. Do you have any suggestions on improving the article? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be greatly appreciated. I have filed a formal peer request here, though feel free to leave comments on the article talk page if you prefer. Thanks. --Aude (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afriad) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 15:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Category & Project title
Is "urban studies and planning" the term used in all (english-speaking) countries?
 * Alternates:
 * Urban planning and design
 * Urban studies and planning
 * Urban planning + Urban planner
 * Urban design
 * Urban studies => List of urban studies topics (NA)

Well it's called Town and country planning in the United Kingdom --Mcginnly | Natter 02:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The title of proposed Portal:Planning is just right to include all the specialized areas of planning. I think "studies" is not appropriate, because there's no articles, at present, with this word in the title. Planning appears to be organized in the following hierarchy: —Dogears 02:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Planning
 * Land use planning
 * Regional planning & spatial planning
 * Urban planning - see:  Garden city movement, New urbanism and Smart growth
 * City planning => Urban planning
 * Town planning => Urban planning
 * Planned neighbourhood => Neighborhood planning

Need for urban maps, as well as maps of urban development
There is a need on Wikipedia and Wikimedia for maps of Urban Development and the historical expansion (and transformation) of cities. Just as national boundaries evolve and wars are fought, and battles listed on maps and the relations of national economies tallied up, so do cities and their development on the terrain of this earth evolve, and the cities blossom and grow, and their demographics shift, and the occasional riot erupt and controvery occur, and those trends, as well as the development of infrastructure, also need to be communicated via maps. How else would one find a neighborhood, or the old Jewish districts of New York, or even the site of a vanished land dispute that led to two cities growing side-by-side instead of one? It would be nice to have a sense of how the Bronx was develop'd, or the vast terrains of Brooklyn and the rest o' Long Island. &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 14:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Beautifully put Sir, welcome. --Mcginnly | Natter 17:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea but I'm not sure where exactly to start. Perhaps we should come up with a list of cities we would want these growth maps for. --Helm.ers 14:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment
I've created an assessment department at WikiProject Urban studies and planning/Assessment and a bot request has been made to tag all articles in Category:Urban studies and planning and all sub cats with the planning tag. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Bots
Rather than bug the people at WP:BOTREQ every time we want the planning tag adding to a category, It's been suggested I apply for my own bot approval which I've done. It will just add the tags to urban studies and planning categories. Does anyone have any objections? --Mcginnly | Natter 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've created a filtered list of categories for addition of planning tags here. Can onyone envision any problems with adding the tag to these articles for assessment purposes? --Mcginnly | Natter 00:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where do I begin?
Hey, I'm a new user just signed in and I feel interested in the topic there. Could somebody suggest some simple tasks for me to choose? I'm a social sciences scholar with fluent non-native English. I've looked through the list of projects and picked this one out of three or four that correspond with my interests. Not sure if this message is placed right. Best wishes,Futurano 12:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You might like to help with the newly established assessment department here - WP:USPA - I've recently added tags to all the articles in the root category Category:Urban studies and planning and they need grading - once that's done well have articles in categories graded in terms of importance and quality so its easier to focus our efforts for improvement. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going there. Thanks. May I place further questions and help requests here? --Futurano 14:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC) And I guess I may now sign-in officially at the project page. --Futurano 14:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Baroque / Grand Manner
I may be missing something... it is 0300 here after all... but me thinks we need a section covering Baroque planning (ala Washington D.C. L'Enfant style). It's a rather important part of Western urban development and theory. Anyone got good grasp of such? August B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eetstomoch (talk • contribs) 09:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Conservation articles
I've been tagging a few articles relating to conservation designations and organisations, both town and country, with. However, I note that WikiProject Protected areas also exists, under whose remit such designations would also fall. However, I see no conflict here, especially as that project appears to be somewhat US-biased, whereas the UK bias of this project would be advantageous in improving articles such as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Scheduled Ancient Monument, Listed building etc. DWaterson 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Land Use and Sprawl
Hello, I am planning on helping out with a number of articles on land use. I welcome any feedback on my edits and please let me know if anyone is interested in collaborating on articles with me.

18:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Midwestmax

Project page structure
IMHO, sections 12 WikiProject Urban studies and planning and 16.2.1 WikiProject Urban studies and planning both belong to section 11 WikiProject Urban studies and planning as subsections.

BTW, could anyone suggest an article for me to adopt? I prefer some urban studies (not land use) topics. Thanks. --Futurano 07:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

FA and GA articles within the project
There's uncomplete list of good and featured articles on the project page. I decided to update it, but became unsure about relevance. That's why I started my suggestions listing here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Futurano (talk • contribs) 09:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Good Articles:
 * Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
 * East End of London
 * Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
 * Washington Park (Chicago park)
 * San Francisco International Airport
 * Bay Area Rapid Transit
 * Berlin Stadtbahn
 * Transportation in New York City

Not sure whether to include GA articles on large important cities like London or Berlin. --Futurano 10:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

A1 road (London)
I've just created an experimental new format for UK A-road articles at A1 road (London), with individual sections on each stretch of road, instead of either a single generic article about the entire road, or multiple free-standing stubs about each section. I'd be grateful if anyone with an interest would take a look and offer suggestions as to what they think of this as an article format and whether they think it would be useful for other similar roads that change their character repeatedly along their length —  irides cent   (talk to me!)  20:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal
I recently started The Sustainable development Portal and offered it up for portal peer review to help make it a feature portal down the road. Please feel free to to help improve the portal and/or offer your input at the portal peer review. Thanks. RichardF 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sustainable development Portal now is a Featured portal candidate. Please feel free to leave comments. RichardF 02:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Milton Keynes
History of Milton Keynes, which has been tagged by your project as within it's scope, was recently given Good Article status. We are keen to try to progress the article to FA status by the end of the year. In the GA review, the reviewer mentioned that the article could do with a thorough copyedit. It was greatly help us, and your project, if anyone could read through the article and make changes in this respect or leave notes on the talk page. Hopefully we can make this article to FA (which would be the first FA covered by your project) by the end of the year. Any help really appreciated. Regards, SeveroTC 13:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

List of conservation areas in the United Kingdom
I'm a bit concerned about this article, which was started several months ago by a user who got as far as Bristol in the alphabet. The problem is that scope of such an article is huge - there are over 8000 conservation areas in the UK and it would take weeks to list them all. Does anyone think this article has a future? DWaterson 16:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion: The British Compromise Model

 * --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Road Pricing
The article Road pricing is tagged as of interest for this wikiproject, so I thought you guys might be interested to participate in a proposal I made to have a separate article on urban roads congestion pricing, which among others benefits, allows to improve urban quality and to preserve areas with historical or cultural value. If interested, please go to the Talk page of that article. Mariordo (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sustainable city
Could project members take a look at this article, and the four other articles it is proposed to merge into it? Frankly, Wikipedia's organisation of articles relating to sustainable cities/eco-towns/ecopolises/blah blah whatevers is a complete shambles and needs thoroughly reorganising. The use of different terms in different countries seems to have resulted in a proliferation of articles about similar but subtly different localisations of the concept. Cheers, DWaterson (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to make some updates to the impact fees page and was wondering if anybody has any ideas or suggections for me. Also, if there is anything that people want more information on or they may want to see, please let me know. For now I am thinking about writing about different types of impact fees and give examples. I am also working to go more in depth into the description of what it is including how cities use them.

Impact Fees
I want to make some updates to the impact fees page and was wondering if anybody has any ideas or suggections for me. Also, if there is anything that people want more information on or they may want to see, please let me know. For now I am thinking about writing about different types of impact fees and give examples. I am also working to go more in depth into the description of what it is including how cities use them. (Aem0301 (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Impact fees Page
I have taken the time and updated the impact fee article's history and definition. I still want to add more information, but I would like to know what others would like to see. I am thinking about adding more information about court cases and how they have dealt with impact fees over time. Plus, I am thinking about discussing the development of linkage and mitigation fees along with how impact fees haave helped them develop over time. Does that sound like information that is necessary and should be included? And what else should be included? (Aem0301 (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

Comprehensive Planning
I have recently been working on updating a stub I found a few weeks ago about comprehensive planning. I am atill working on it and adding some sections, but I thought I would let people know that that the artcle is out there. I noticed on the project page that an article about the comprehensive plan needed someone to add stuff to it. Maybe the article I found and have been working on could be combined with that one eventually? If anyone wants to check out my page and offer some tips that would be great. (Str0426 (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Comp plan/ general plan
I noticed a need for an article about the Comprehensive plan in this Wikiproject. I have been working on an article (Comprehensive Planning) that used to be a stub about the planning process that I think may be able to cover both the process and the actual plan. I think these two articles could be combined. It would be a good addition to the project, especially if anyone wants to help me with it. Str0426 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Impact fees
I have added a lot of information onto to the impact fee article. I want to add more and was wondering if anyone had suggestions or if there was information that anyone would really like to see in the article. (Aem0301 (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Request: fairness in deleting links in planning-related articles
Hi. This is Dan from Cyburbia (I'll delete the link, since it seems like Wikipedians don't like the site for some reason). I'd like to know why links to Cyburbia in several relevant planning-related articles have been considered "spam". There are many links to a commercial planning-related Web site, Planetizen, all over Wikipedia, and those removing spam have often left links to that site intact while deleting links to Cyburbia - a non-commercial site. I've encountered articles where a link to Cyburbia is removed, while the link to Planetizen -- a few originally placed by the person that owns the site -- remains.

Why are links to Cyburbia being deleted, while those to Planetizen are kept? I would just like to request that there is fairness and equity when it comes to dealing with link removal. I believe this request is not "canvassing", and follows Wikipedia Dispute Resolution guidelines (see Ask about the subject) Thanks.

Elmwood (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First, The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a link exists in an article doesn't prove that cyburbia.org should also exist. It doesn't matter--being noncommercial (etc.) doesn't confer a license to spam even when it's true. Links to commercial (sales) sites can often be appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your own site site are not. →(Adsense pub-4980130723156683)


 * External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you are the owner of cyburbia.org. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote cyburbia.org. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Elmwood and IP's 76.241.146.126 and 64.109.193.2 consist entirely of adding external links to cyburbia.org and is considered  WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be cyburbia.org related only. Please do not create articles or continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for adding external links.  Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising". Please see the welcome page and WP:CANVASS. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote cyburbia.org right?  --Hu12 (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I posted several edits to various articles about Buffalo, New York, and am starting a series of articles about vernacular architecture in the area; see Northtowns Neo-Mediterranean for the first; telescoping house, two-flat and semi-bungalow are in the works. Many of those edits are from other IPs; sometimes I'm logged in, sometimes I'm not. None of those edits, or the new article, mention the site. Contrary to what you say, I'm not just here to promote the site; your statement "consist entirely of adding external links to (my site; I don't want to name it again, lest I be accused of promoting it and being a spammer) can't be more wrong, and I would appreciate a retraction.

Your answer sounds like the: "We're talking about you, not me!" men often hear in arguments with their girlfriends. Why can someone else add links to their site from planning-related articles, but not me? Why aren't those links being deleted as well?  If a link is relevant and on-topic, and NOT spammy, what's wrong with it? Elmwood (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Its your site, therefore neutral and independent Wikipedia editors get to decide whether to add it, Not you. Adding your own link is promotion and is an incompatibility between the aims of Wikipedia and you, the webmaster/owner, because your not neutral . Adding your own site is "promotion" and a conflict of interest. Links to sites added by a webmaster/owner for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote that Adsense site  →(Adsense pub-4980130723156683), is WP:SPAM. It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote cyburbia.org.--Hu12 (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Again.

1) Again, you're wrong.  Look at my article and edit history.  If there is not a retraction of your statement "I'm here only t promote the site", I'll ask that this issue be taken to arbitration.

2) Again, I'm going to ask why can someone else add links to their site from planning-related articles, but not me?   Why are MY links being deleted, but not THEIRS?  Are you a friend of theirs? Elmwood (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. Guidelines such as External links policy, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and conflict of interest are considered a standard that users should follow. Those othersprobably need to go, too. The fact that we haven't gotten around to it, yet, does not mean that we have some obligation to have your site. Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not always about commercial sites. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your site are not. Hope that helps clears up the policy issues. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.--Hu12 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

City status in the United Kingdom FAR
City status in the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.--Peter Andersen (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Eyesore
The matter of the Eyesore page was recently raised on the Humanities Reference Desk. Although I missed the RfD discussion, I do support keeping the page for its relevance, though obviously could do with some development. Do you feel it merits tagging for your Urban planning WikiProject? Not being a proj member, I hesitated to add the template to the talk page, but would like to see it get some appropriate attention. -- Thanks, Deborahjay (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 864 articles are assigned to this project, of which 290, or 33.6%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with Severn Barrage
Is anyone able to take a look at the Severn Barrage article. It covers an important and topical issue, but the article is stuffed full of cleanup tags. Attention from those with engineering, environmental, economic or other relevant interests, or those who can give editing help to bring it within the Manual of Style, would be great.&mdash; Rod talk 12:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

FPC Keizersgracht in Amsterdam
The image KeizersgrachtReguliersgrachtAmsterdam.jpg is a featured picture candidate. You can support/oppose the candidate on Featured picture candidates/Keizersgracht in Amsterdam. Thank you. – Ilse@ 20:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Urban studies and planning
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FPC Red-light district in Amsterdam
The image RedLightDistrictAmsterdamTheNetherlands.jpg is a featured picture candidate. You can support/oppose the candidate on Featured picture candidates/Red-light District. Thank you. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NRHP historic district articles
Over at the U.S. National Register of Historic Places project, we have created many articles about historic districts listed on the Register, and have many more yet to create. Since quite a few of those districts are located in urban and suburban commercial and residential areas (there are a number that are officially named the "Downtown X" or "Central X" Historic District), and they often involve planning/zoning issues that I have tried to incorporate into articles where I could find out about them (see Downtown Cohoes Historic District, recently on DYK, and New Bedford Historic District and Newport Historic District (Rhode Island), both further designated National Historic Landmarks, for three examples I've been involved in that I'm particularly satisfied with; also Sycamore Historic District, for another editor's exemplary work), I was wondering if editors on this project had any objection to adding those articles to this project.

If there are none, I would add myself as an editor and encourage other NRHP editors to do the same if they work on a lot of urban/suburban HDs. Daniel Case (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I will go ahead with this. Daniel Case (talk) 06:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Scope in regards to Houston
Hi! Houston is a southern U.S. city with many low-density developments and no zoning. Does the project's scope include neighborhoods or low rise cities? Are there requirements in terms of density? WhisperToMe (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Downtown merge
There seems to be simultaneous discussions going on at Talk:Downtown and Talk:Central Activities District on whether or not to merge the two. Seems pretty poorly argued and very poorly organised. Would anyone like to help out? --Aepoutre (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested moves that may interest project members
A number of articles some of which are tagged as being within the remit of this project have been nominated for a name change which involves changing the capitalization scheme used. They are:
 * Special Protection Area,
 * Area of Conservation,
 * Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty,
 * Site of Special Scientific Interest, and
 * Special Area of Conservation

(the links point to the discussion of the requested moves.) Members may wish to comment on the requests both for and against the proposed moves. I'm not sure where else notices could be posted to get as wide a discussion as possible, both for and against the requests), and so would appreciate people identifying appropriate projects and posting similar messages there.  DDStretch    (talk)  09:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nominated Gulfton, Houston for featured article status
I nominated Gulfton, Houston for featured article status - I want to see if I can make a Houston neighborhood make FA. If anyone is interested, please help it make FA :) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)