Talk:City

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the City article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

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

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 12 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

City was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 28, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Sarinah Jakarta Environment2020.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "city", what a "metropolitan area"?

I've started a discussion at Metropolitan area#What is a "city", what a "metropolitan area"?. Arminden (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

city concept

The article starts with a an assumption that is not universal. St David's and Wells in The UK are Cities but are not large settlements. In the UK being a city is based on central government granting the status. In France the concept does not exist. For example, in French Paris would be considered a "Grande Ville", literally "Large Town" since the concept of city does not exist as it does in the UK. That being said said the idea that is being explained is a concept, but it's not clear at all that the term "city" is necessarily the correct term. 91.84.189.190 (talk) 10:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The peculiar British rule is the odd one out. There is no worldwide rule, just local custom and practice.--𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the directions of the image collage in the beginning say 'Zizag From The Top' rather than 'left to right'

It is uhh more 'sophisticated' I guess.. Sertyt (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oceania representation i.e. Sydney

Title Sertyt (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Montage

From the top, left to right: Skyline of Manhattan; painting of Boulevard Montmartre in Paris by Camille Pissarro; Shibuya Crossing in Tokyo; The Nile River in Cairo; Hong Kong; shopping bazaar in Old Delhi; and the São Paulo Metro;

Would anybody like to see anything added or modified to this montage? Clearly nobody likes the version that preceded this one. Castncoot (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Castncoot (and @JMF, @Sertyt from the article's recent history): Have there been a large number of complaints about the previous version? You state that it's clear that nobody likes the current one. I see no opinions on this page to back that up.

I'm not a fan of these picture-postcard montages. They usually consist of random shots of the same sort of thing at meaningless resolutions. MOS:IMAGES states that images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative, and they should look like what they are meant to illustrate. So I do not like any of your suggestion.

Rather than use the illustration as an advert for various nationalist views (my city is better than yours), it should illustrate cities' defining characteristics from the article's lead: high-density "housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, production of goods, and communication". If we can find pictures for each of those from random and less-well known cities around the world, then I'd be happy. The caption should match by naming the characteristics; it needn't (or even shouldn't) name the individual cities (which can be ascertained, if needed, from the pictures' full-size versions). Bazza (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. This charade goes round and round, see also Talk:City/Archive 1#Lead image for previous discussion. Your idea of captioning the montage by which aspect it illustrates (rather than where it is) is an excellent one and just might reduce the willy-waving competitions. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely then. No image necessary. It will be anyone's WP:BRD to place a picture. Castncoot (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just go back to the original. Castncoot (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Brexit London and its ferris wheel could be a poster-sized image for another article such as ferris wheel; but for City?? Castncoot (talk) 03:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Africa doesn't have representative cities? Brazil needs two? And the pictures of Rio, Manhattan, and Delhi are so squeezed that they're nebulous to the eyes; seemingly at the expensive of London's huge ferris wheel. Castncoot (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Choices for lead image

Discussion re-opened for wider input

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to include the graph as the lead image. This has already been implemented, and the consensus seems pretty clear in favour. Everyone is, for the moment, happy. 🎄Cremastra 🎄 (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What would people like to see as the lead image? Castncoot (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A.

From the top, left to right: Skyline of Manhattan; painting of Boulevard Montmartre in Paris by Camille Pissarro; Shibuya Crossing in Tokyo; The Nile River in Cairo; Hong Kong; shopping bazaar in Old Delhi; and the São Paulo Metro;

B.

Zigzag from the top: Westminster Palace in London; Shibuya Crossing in Tokyo; painting of Boulevard Montmartre in Paris by Camille Pissarro; the Rocinha favela in Rio de Janeiro; 6th Avenue in Manhattan; spice market in Old Delhi; Hong Kong; and the São Paulo Metro

C. An original:

D. Something more conceptual, like this:

E. No lead image.

Choice

Choice A. This image is inclusive of most continents, and most importantly, leaves room for growth and modification. The images are clear and the resolution is good, which is also very important. Unfortunately, choice B doesn't have a single redeeming feature: choice B excludes Africa, contains two pictures of Brazil (unnecessary), contains an obscenely large picture of a ferris wheel, thereby reducing pictures of Rio de Janeiro, Manhattan, and Delhi to eye-squinting peculiarities, and very significantly, has a layout which really doesn't leave room for sensible growth or modification. Castncoot (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That being said that my first choice would be Choice A for the multiple reasons stated above, I also wouldn't mind Choice E. None. Castncoot (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ba slight winner but either is fine.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 09:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of those choices. See my comment above from the previous discussion, which you seem to have ignored. Bazza (talk) 10:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None. None of the proposals meet the principle of MOS:IMAGES, which in summary says that images in articles are to illustrate the points made in the text, not to decorate the page. All of your proposals are essentially decorative, failing to illustrate high-density "housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, production of goods, and communication" (as Bazza 7 puts it concisely). Of the options offered, D is the least worst. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't just have a gallery where any one can put pictures of cities and have the option D? Sertyt (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Guys answer I dont want this to be in a youtube video! Sertyt (talk) 13:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bazza (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about this (or any other pic in here)

Night-time view of city lights in the Middle East

This pic is a bit abstract but I think it illustrates cities' high density nature perfectly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CactiStaccingCrane: It illustrates perfectly what the eastern Mediterranean looks like from a very high altitude at night, but fulfils none of the requirements of MOS:IMAGE to illustrate some properties of a city as described in the lead of this article: high-density "housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, production of goods, and communication. Here's some for transportation; I've no doubt other editors could find better examples for all the categories.

Bazza (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a hoot but, for Pete's sake it needs to have an actual photo of a city in it somewhere, having no photos whatsoever is completely absurd. jp×g 🗯️ 02:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Such as this one? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC2 for Lead Montage

How about this image to work off of, to grow and evolve from? Would people accept this as a starting point?

Tall building in the center of New Brunswick, New Jersey

From the top, left to right: mixed-use tower in New Brunswick, New Jersey; Pedestrian bridge in Trondheim, Norway; Busy railroad station in Osaka, Japan; Shopping bazaar in Chennai, India

Castncoot (talk) 06:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to chanes@Castncoot Sertyt (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of None of the proposals meet the principle of MOS:IMAGES, which in summary says that images in articles are to illustrate the points made in the text, not to decorate the page. All of your proposals are essentially decorative, failing to illustrate high-density "housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, production of goods, and communication" (as Bazza 7 puts it concisely) did you not understand? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My goal was to indeed demonstrate utilitarian properties with this latest proposal, not to be decorative. If I've failed even with this attempt, then this may be a signal that we indeed need to go with no lead image at all. Castncoot (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was along the lines of showing the qualities described without specifying location (since that only invites people to replace it with their home city). I recognise your good faith but, even ignoring the location naming, I struggled to see how the images you selected met the criteria. For example, if I wanted to illustrate intensive pedestrian traffic, the Shibuya Crossing is most famous example: your quiet pedestrian bridge does not hit the spot.

I don't know that this is resolvable? Maybe "no image" is going to be the only solution... --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF, the whole effort I was trying to implement was to use images from lesser-known secondary or tertiary cities, where a large proportion of the globe's population now lives, and specifically as Bazza 7 pointed out above which would portray the utilitarian nature of cities more representative of mundane reality than the most famous landmarks of the most famous cities. Norwegians do live in Trondheim, you know.. not just in Oslo or Bergen. This montage is a work in progress, subject to modification and improvement and perhaps even growth. But if it's irreconcilable, then I have absolutely no problem with having no lead section image. Castncoot (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do have an idea

@Castncoot .....That being of a statistic image. Like an UN image saying that 54% of world population living in cities and it will go 68% or so in the future. Sertyt (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. Castncoot (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea as well, just like in human history. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too: it is clear, useful, and doesn't encourage the perennial "my city is even prettier" edit wars. I reverted CactiStaccingCrane's idea (to use File:Number of people living in urban and rural areas, World (OWID).svg) only for procedural reasons. Half a day is a bit early to declare a consensus but hopefully... --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the image added by @CactiStaccingCrane and I think its alright. What do you guys think? Sertyt (talk) 04:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok for now. I may, over the coming months, look for illustrations which meet the criteria above and could be used to reinstate a montage. I'll alert contributors to this discussion if and when I have done that. Bazza (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate here to say that I don't like the idea of a montage at all? I'm sure they are proposed by people with much younger and better eyes than mine, and with bigger screens than mine. And I'll bet they never look at their montages on phone screens. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, Do we agree? @JMF

@CactiStaccingCrane@Bazza 7@HiLo48 Do we reach a Consensus Sertyt (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Bazza (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Sertyt (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the picture which was originally added by @CactiStaccingCrane. If anyone has a better picture than this one, please discuss with other editors before replacing it. Sertyt (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a continuation of the RfC, and should therefore be a subsection of the one that introduced the RfC. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC2 montage with four images incorporated examples of the different aspects to a "city" as defined by the page; the images are clear and high quality; and because there are only four, the images take up less real estate on the page. I disagree with 𝕁𝕄𝔽 that the montage is merely decorative. I argue that the montage enhances the page. Option A is also acceptable. No image is unacceptable. Penguino35 (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let me repeat: if they fail to illustrate high-density "housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, production of goods, and communication" (as Bazza 7 puts it concisely), then they are decorative rather than illustrative. What has changed since the last time it was said?

And what stops one or more of the pics being replaced by an arbitrary editor with a prettier one of their own home city? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above - MOS:LEADIMAGE: a lead image should be a representative image ... to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. I think the lead image should depict the topic, not the parts of the topic (housing, transport, sanitation, etc.), and not the parts of the article. The lead image of car shows a car, not an engine, wheels, exhaust, etc. Human shows typical humans, not the aspects of humans. The lead image of city should be a picture of a city that shows the whole city--an aerial view, because of the size of a city--not a montage showing the parts of a city.
I'm ambivalent about whether it should be 1 lead image or a montage (of cities, not of parts of cities). I'm not sure that multiple images of cities really adds much beyond one image, though. I prefer the single image of car to the montage of town, for example, and fish is a good example of a bad montage, for comparison.
As for what stops an arbitrary editor from replacing the lead image, that's what some editors said about the lead images of Man and Woman, but the answer is consensus: have an RFC, pick a lead image, and--like at Man and Woman--once it has consensus, it'll stay stable for years (and it's ok if consensus changes).
If I absolutely had to pick from one of the options, it would be A (I agree with Castncoot's reasoning above as to why A is better than B), but that's a distant second choice to just having an image (or montage) of an aerial shot of a city; that's what will "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". Levivich (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We got to these RFCs precisely because of arbitrary and unilateral changes to the collage and refusal to accept the previous consensus. Your principle is very noble but in this case it is "more honoured in the breach than in the observance". It has proved impossible to defend the consensus unless there are enough editors committed to doing so.

Almost every editor knows what a city looks like; the current image, a graph showing the rise of urban living far more effectively confirms to visitors that they have arrived at a useful article about cities in concept. I suggest it meets the test of MOS:LEADIMAGE far better pictures of skyscrapers or indeed of sewage running down the street. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

Just wanted to drop a note here. I found out about the lead image RfC as it was mentioned in the montage RfC. Personally, I strongly prefer an image of an actual city over a graph or montage or painting or satellite photo. Would have liked to vote in the RfC. I noticed the RfC was opened on Dec 18 and closed 10 days later... over Christmas and New Year holidays. I hope the discussion is revisited at a time when it's not the holidays, and the discussion is advertised elsewhere, etc. I just think the wrong decision was made here with the graph. Levivich (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested that the closer reopen the RfC on their talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Levivich, as I've written elsewhere any image showing one or more cities would be better than the current situation. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich, @Espresso Addict: Which image(s) are you proposing will satisfy MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE? The current graphical image (which I agree is less than ideal) is there because the previous montage was unsatisfactory. Several editors agreed in the discussion above that whatever image or montage is used should illustrate one or more of the attributes of a city as described in the article's lead: that is, high-density "housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, production of goods, and communication". Bazza (talk) 09:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A standard sea-of-skyscrapers type shot or an aerial would seem to illustrate high-density land use? I'd prefer one of the megacities outside the US if there's a good image available, perhaps Tokyo, which has the benefit of being currently the largest. My OH suggests a montage as no one image can be representative. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, sea of sky scrapers, like this. A non-US city would be fine. This is what a city looks like. Levivich (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead image should be something like these, either alone, or montages with cropped 2x2 squares or 3x3 squares:

Tokyo
Delhi
Shanghai
Sao Paulo
Mexico City
Cairo
Bangladesh
Istanbul
NYC

Levivich (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Popping in, prefer (aerial) Tokyo, as the current largest city, it has some rationale being the current (undisputed?) largest, compared to using any other because of personal opinions on "looks" or "representation". If it is hard to proportionally represent multiple cities' characteristics, simpler to cut it to just the most-populous one, or indeed not have one. No image or montage can likely represent all the characteristics stated (plus many cities hide such infrastructure), with the article saying "generally", while also balancing the ideal of equal representation of continents while not being too overwhelming with images. The main definition of a city stated in this article is its size, with all national definitions likely agreeing that the largest settlements are cities, therefore everyone would agree Tokyo is a city, whereas St Davids or Vatican City, not so much.

Best keep it simple, have the most-populous city, or no image of one at all. Also noticed the lack of Europe or Oceania from above. Dank Jae 17:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with several other editors that the primary emphasis should be population density. A single image would be better than an array of city "parts". In the past, not every city possessed the other attributes (housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, production of goods, and communication) mentioned in the lead. Ancient Rome (first city with one million inhabitants) can complement modern Tokyo. CurryCity (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your mention of Ancient Rome led to this (pictured). I know it's a model, but it demonstrates several aspects of what being called a "city": communication, water supply, land use, dense building. I think it's less likely to be usurped by the "my city is better than yours" group. The image can be cropped, and there may better versions. Bazza (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic about city

About society and environment 103.215.211.193 (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"市" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 市 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 13 § 市 until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 08:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]