Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Cities/US Guideline and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 6 months

RfC at Talk:Minneapolis#RFC on first section of Minneapolis

Your input is welcome at Talk:Minneapolis#RFC on first section of Minneapolis. --Magnolia677 (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do infoboxes for US cities need pushpin maps for North America? For Earth?!?!

Huge numbers of articles for places in the United States use pushpin maps in the settlement infobox, but there seems to be little standardization and / or consensus as to which maps to include. Even the guidelines are inconsistent. WP:USCITY shows a model infobox for New York City with maps for New York state, the United States and North America, while the actual article for New York City includes maps for all three, plus Earth. Meanwhile, Template:Infobox settlement shows model infoboxes for Chicago and Detroit that only include a single pushpin map for the United States, while the article for Chicago itself includes both Illinois and United States and the one for Detroit shows pushpin maps for Wayne County, Michigan and United States.

To me, county, state and United States make sense to provide multiple levels of context. But given that the United States is a rather large and rather well-known country, is it ever necessary to include pushpin maps for North America? Is there anyone reading English Wikipedia articles from outside the country (or from another planet) who would need to have the location of a city in the United States shown on the planet Earth in order to gain sufficient context? Should there be a US City standard or should this be settled by consensus for each city? Alansohn (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would not expect anything larger than the country level for any country, though region could be appropriate for small/less-recognizable country outlines. Earth is too low resolution to be helpful. Reywas92^Talk 14:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92, agreed, but I'm restricting this question to places in the United States for exactly that reason of global recognizability. Alansohn (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, SVG maps were created for incorporated community articles in most states, thus is why I removed pushpin maps from those articles, also to shorten the infobox in those articles. Pushpin maps are more useful for unincorporated communities and ghost towns, because SVG maps weren't created for most of them. Someone added interactive maps for larger cities. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think smaller U.S. places that have more recognizability outside the US should be able to be marked on continental or even Earth pushpin maps for ease of instant accessibility of relative geographical context by non-US readers who are familiar with specific smaller US places without needing to take an extra step deeper to dig. In other words, I would advocate judging smaller municipalities on a case-by-case basis rather than having one size fits all. Castncoot (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if I remember correctly, it was actually I who started adding the interactive maps feature to the articles of the more prominent cities quite a few years ago, starting with NYC itself. Then that caught on with the speed of light, and a new functionality was born. Best, Castncoot (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butler, Pennsylvania

There is a lively discussion at Talk:Butler, Pennsylvania#Remove Trump Shooting?? which may benefit from editors familiar with US city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official names

We are in need of a ruling on the official names of US cities. Can we please make an addition to our guidelines? We have a recurring discussion at Minneapolis that the article should begin only with its common name and should not begin with its official name which is "City of Minneapolis".

As background, WP:COMMONNAME gives no example for US cities, and WP:USPLACE and WP:OFFICIALNAMES don't cover this question. One editor has removed "City of" from "hundreds" of US cities. Another wants it removed "because Wikipedia is not a LEGAL document". Neither one had the time to post here, but I think both are participants in this WikiProject.

I am not attached to this construct, and I put it in Minneapolis after referring to the few other US cities with standalone names that are featured articles. That is, Boston, Washington, D.C., and Cleveland. From the top of Featured articles: "Featured articles are considered to be some of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles." Minneapolis is in the middle of a FAR, and when it's done, it will probably be an example for many other FAs.

I find the construct to be useful, and so does the Library of Congress and the EPA—I guess the government in general. For example, I've used it in about thirty references.

Sbmeirow — Magnolia677 — Adflatuss: courtesy pings. -SusanLesch (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems really unnecessary to include this "official name" in the first sentence. It's pretty universal for a formal form to merely be "City of" or "Town of", and it doesn't actually inform the reader of anything at all to put it in bold unless it's not the obvious (like in D.C.'s case). Just say "X is a city" or "X is the largest city" or whatever and that's sufficient. Saying "City of" can add specification that it's referring to the government entity – the EPA link is an example, indicating that the municipal government is receiving the grant, not residents or businesses in the city generally. The Library of Congress says that because the caption at the bottom of the 1879 image says so, not a modern editorial decision. So it's fair to include "City of" in the citations because it was published by the government entity, but since our article is about the geographic place as a whole, it doesn't add anything to put that in the lead. I'd remove it from the Boston and Cleveland articles. Reywas92^Talk 14:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree since the The first sentence is precious as an introduction to the article. Except for Washington D.C., the reader gets no new information about the city except how to specify it in a citation or in a contract (city, town). Even good articles can be improved as they are examples and not every aspect is a perfect model. Use the first few sentences to introduce what makes that community unique and not an unnecessary, technical detail. Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 16:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary to add official name to first sentence. Also, Template:Infobox settlement suggests removing it from infobox unless necessary. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I make this change to the guidelines? Under §Suggested sections: add

* Name of city and location in state. (The official name, e.g. "City of" or "Town of", should not appear in the lead, first sentence, or infobox unless necessary.; it may have other uses such as inside references.)

I'll ping the other editors affected, at Boston and Cleveland. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Where does "Template:Infobox settlement suggests removing it from infobox unless necessary"? They say avoid it in case of redundancy. They also say do use it in cases like Washington, D.C. " if the official name is unusual or cannot be simply deduced". (Maybe your "necessary" includes all this, I don't know.) Are you OK with this proposed change? -SusanLesch (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words...unless necessary. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sbmeirow — Magnolia677 — Adflatuss — Reywas92: We're done here unless somebody wants a change. Guideline is installed. Minneapolis, Boston, and Cleveland all conform. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy during the past few days, thus didn't have enough free time to comment until now. My opinion hasn't changed since my comments and edits of the Minneapolis article, and basically aligns with the opinions of Magnolia677 / Adflatuss / Reywas92 above. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I took care of it. You're welcome. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles community

There is a discussion at Talk:West Adams, Los Angeles#District or Neighborhood? which may benefit from editors familiar with community distinctions in large cities. Thanks, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 16:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drone photos

Is there a consensus of opinion about the excessive use of drone photos of cities? My concern is with Winona, Minnesota. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Drone photos. --Magnolia677 (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including locations outside the city

I seek your assistance with an issue I see frequently on city article, and that is the inclusion of "interesting places" (amusement parks, museums, historic sites) that are located close to, but not within a city's boundaries.

At Talk:Wheaton, Illinois#Addition of locations located outside Wheaton, I am disputing two golf courses located in a neighboring county that borders the city.

This is not a travel guide. If an interesting site is located outside a city, it should be added to the correct article. Thank you for your input. --Magnolia677 (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already discussed this at Talk:Ely, Minnesota#Ely Wolf Center. A city's article need not be limited to its exact borders and should cover what is generally understood to be connected to the city. In this case although the golf courses are in unincorporated areas in Milton Township, Illinois, they are adjacent to the city of Wheaton and generally understood as connected to it. People aren't reading both the township or county articles in addition to the city one to learn about these relevant places – city articles should typically provide coverage of places like this. The Arrowhead Golf Club is owned and operated by the Wheaton park district. It's clearly relevant to the city so would be ridiculous to removed just because it's outside the incorporated borders! It's also incongruous to delete mention of the Chicago Golf Club from the Wheaton article when its article says in the first sentence, infobox, history section, and a category that it's in Wheaton. Should we be more precise, sure, but removing this altogether isn't actually helpful. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general I don't feel that community borders are always where we should draw the "line" for what is included in a community article. For rural communities that are not close to other communities, some leeway should be given for nearby places that are generally associated with the community, especially for places that have the community name within the place name, such as an imaginary Springfield Golf Course / Springfield Park / Springfield Airport near an imaginary city of Springfield. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For communities that are near each other, and/or have unincorporated areas near them, it is more complicated, because more than one community may claim association with the place. Probably the easiest way to handle these situations is to allow these places to be included in more than one article, but make it obvious and clarify the place is not within the city limits, such as "XYZ Golf Club (located 2 miles east of Springfield). • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a place is located within the border of a next door community, it may be ok to include some places in the next door community article too. For example, imagine a large golf course that is located in imaginary city of Roseville, but one side of the golf course shares a border with the next door imaginary city of Hilldale. In the situation it should be fine to list the same golf course in both community articles, but the Hilldale article should clarify or make it obvious that the golf course isn't located within their city, instead it is "next door" or "nearby" or some other reasonable wording. On the other hand, this shouldn't be abused either, because everything in next door cities shouldn't be included either!! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that zip codes and street addresses should not be used as the primary evidence of how to tie places to communities. In USA subruban areas, zip codes and street address often cross over into nearby communities, because zip code borders were established before communities expanded across these borders. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the Wheaton article and removed the marketing/bragging fluff, especially since the golf course isn't located in Wheaton. I changed "**The Chicago Golf Club is a prestigious private golf club on the southside of Wheaton" to " to "The Chicago Golf Club is a nearby prestigious private golf club that is located south of Wheaton", because "on the southside" could be confused to mean it is within the southern park of Wheaton. If a place isn't inside a community, then clarify the description to ensure that it isn't implied to be within the community. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]