Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Quebec City - One of Canada's treasures - Not a GA

Hi everyone, I'm trying to get the Quebec City article to GA status. It's a tall order and I could use all the help I can get. Please stop by and lend a hand, this city is one of Canada's jewels.Alan.ca (talk)

Kolkata

I have nominated Kolkata for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.)

Population Density Question

I have been editing several cities in Iowa lately and I have a question about population density. The definition of population density on the population density wikipedia page and in the source that it references is "Population density is population divided by total land area". Also I looked back at the old Rambot edits and population density on those edits was being calculated by dividing population just by the total amount of land, not land and water combined. So this is how I have been calculating population density for my edits, but I've noticed that the auto function that can be used in the infobox to calculate population density uses total area rather than just land. So which method of calculation should I be using?Jamo2008 (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has responded yet I'll provide an example so it's easier to see what I'm talking about. I'll use Le Claire, Iowa as my example. If you look at it's code you'll find

|population_density_sq_mi = auto 

Now when you look to see what values it calculates for the population density you will see that it comes up with 770/sq mi (300/km2). If you take the population of Le Claire and divide it by the total amount of land, which from my understanding is the definition of population density, you'd get 3765 / 4.67 sq mi = 806.21/sq mi, but this isn't the value that is being displayed. Now if we instead use the total amount of area, water plus land, you'd get 3765 / 4.87 sq mi = 773.10/sq mi. As you can see the auto thing is using total area instead of just land and from the definition of population density as I read it this is incorrect. That is why I'm asking for some input here as to weather I'm misinterpreting how population density should be calculated or weather the auto thing is just flat out wrong and I should be replacing it with actual numbers when ever I find it.Jamo2008 (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

See Population_density#Other_methods_of_measurement. Apparently you are right. I would think that people living in an area with a lot of lakes would seems "less crowded." My idea does not seem supported by that link, however. Student7 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Berlin peer review

I recently put in a peer review for Berlin. I would like to see Berlin get up to featured article status. Peer reviews would be appreciate. Kingjeff (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

International relations, sister cities and twin towns - use of flag icons

Recently John has started removing flag icons from lists of twin towns in articles on cities in France. My own feeling is that with bare lists, often quite long, flag icons are helpful to the reader. The use of flags is something which happens in real life in this particular context. At least to the sighted it makes countries involved in these international goodwill relations easily recognizable.

On wikipedia there is no uniformity in the way twinning is described in articles: sometimes it can be a bare list; sometimes a few sentences; and sometimes twinning is not mentioned at all in the article, even where it occurs. That is the case with San Francisco (the only use of "twin" in that article is for Twin Peaks). Many large cities in the USA, however, including Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia, all use flag icons in the lists. John has not yet removed flag icons from those articles, but has tentatively started separate discussion on Talk:Chicago and Talk:Los Angeles to remove the flag icons.

In discussing the applicability of WP:MOSICON, several editors have pointed out that WP:WORDPRECEDENT covers bare lists of this type. List format in many cases has historically been the preferred method of presenting twinning arrangements. The list articles giving all known twinning for cities in vatious countries are all accompanied by flag icons (see Category:Lists of twin towns and sister cities).

Other users have suggested that the discussions on flag icons should take place here, as the issues are no different between say Nashville, Tennessee and Leipzig. At present I am somewhat puzzled why there should be any difference between cities in France and cities in the United States. Any guidance about the use of flag icons for lists of twinning arrangements would therefore be welcome. Most editors, including me, do not consider this a burning issue, so this latest set of edits by John is slightly surprising. Mathsci (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)Note— For editors, outside Europe in many places these are called Sister Cities. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a parallel discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities/US_Guideline#Flags_on_sister_cities_sections. Perhaps we can agree on a single venue? I will soon leave a note at that discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Note I have moved the discussion from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline to here. My belief that the flags should not be included stands. Thanks, epicAdam^(talk) 22:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been pointed out to me that the use of flag ions on Sister cities sections likely falls foul of WP:ICONDECORATION. I certainly don't think that these flags really add anything; on the contrary they seem both to over-emphasise the sections (which seem to be fairly inconsequential to their subjects) and to overemphasise the nationality of the "twinned" communities contrary to the spirit of WP:MOSICON. There is also the problem of what to do (if we were to keep them for some reason) with cases like the UK; should we talk about

Glasgow or

Glasgow? All in all I think the flags are a net detriment and out of step with the more sparing way the project uses flags nowadays. I don't think there ever was a consensus to use them in this way; they have just crept in as people have added them. Could we remove them from this guideline? --John (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I think they should be removed from this guideline both because it's unnecessary and runs contrary to WP:ICONDECORATION. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 20:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that they conflict with WP:ICONDECORATION, as they do serve a purpose in aiding and identifying the correct nations associated with the cities in question. I don't think it looks tacky at all in an article, and I think the subtle icons are an asset to the visual identification by the reader. So I would recommend keeping them. WTF? (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A user can simply click on the city or country's name if they are somehow confused as to the name. Chances are if the user isn't familiar with the country by name, then they likely aren't familiar with the flag - especially not at the size they are presented. -epicAdam^(talk) 22:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think the use of flags is to the detriment of the project. I think they make bare lists more readable. I think John seems to have got a bee in his bonnet about this. The ambiguity of the Scottish flag or Union Jack is a problem, more minor than the Troubles, but related to conflicting views on devolution in the United Kingdom. That is a side issue: one solution has been to use both flags. Many editors have pointed out that the correct policy is WP:WORDPRECEDENT. John has unilaterally removed flag icons from several articles on cities in France. He has started discussions on Talk:Chicago and Talk:Los Angeles, but has not removed the icons from any lists there yet. Thanks for moving this discussion here, so that the USA is now discussed along with the rest of the world. Mathsci (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Note—There was a lengthy discussion of this in 2010 here:Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons)/Archive_8#Town-twinning_and_flags. I can see no definite conclusion that was reached there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Note— It appears there is a project guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#Sister cities. I don't think there has been a construction of general guidelines in the past, that has displaced that guideline. So, I can't think that current MOS would prohibit such flag use. Some new binding wording would be needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there can't be existing consensus that this use violates the MOS for the reason you state. It's worth remembering, though, that the MOS is a guideline and already isn't binding on anyone, ICONDECORATION or not, so we're probably not looking for binding wording here either, even if there's consensus to adjust any sections of the MOS.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Note—I left a neutral notification of the existence of this discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons#flag_icons_in_sister.2Ftwinned_cities.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment I agree with John above, that flagicons in sister/twin cities sections are problematic, as undue weight is given to the section by excessive visual decoration and undue weight is given to nationality, when the illustrated topic is in fact a link primarily between two local communities, and for the same reason it is also potentially misleading. If the aim is indeed to help identify geographic location, than a map with dots (example1, example2) is far more precise and informative. --ELEKHH^T 00:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment I commented about the flag question on talk:Chicago, but now I see the main discussion is happening here. I agree with the general view above that it's better for the lists to not include flags. Would it be all right to start removing them from some of these articles? Zeromus1 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that that would be extremely premature. This conversation is only getting started.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Keep flags—As has been noted, it's not logically possible that the use of the flags violates any policy or guideline. WP:ICONDECORATION only discusses purely decorative icons. Thus it cannot be plausibly invoked as a reason to eliminate the flags unless supplemented with an argument that the use here is purely decorative. That section of the MOS says explicitly that Icons should serve a purpose other than solely decoration and gives as an example of this that icons may add additional information to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. It seems to me that given that so many WikiProjects include these flags, the members of those projects agree that they're appropriate in this sense. I certainly do. More importantly, WP:WORDPRECEDENT tells us that In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. I believe that that's the case here. Cities which have sister cities certainly think that the nationality of the cities are relevant. Further, I think it's worth noting that WP:INFOBOXFLAG, which is part of a policy that's broadly disapproving of flags in infoboxes in general, still recognizes that the use of flags, even in infoboxes, is appropriate for representing geographical entities: Human geographic articles - for example settlements and administrative subdivisions - may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes. A fortiori, if they're acceptable in infoboxes to represent geographical locations, they're acceptable not in infoboxes for the same purpose and therefore the use of flag icons to represent sister cities can't violate either the spirit or the letter of the MOS. Finally, I think that given the exceedingly widespread use of flag icons in sister city lists it would be very contentious to come to any kind of conclusion without broad-based community input over a long period of time.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"nationality of the cities", that's exactly the kind of misleading effect I was talking about. Cities do not have nationality. Inhabitants of a city might have many different nationalities and cultural backgrounds. Cities can be cosmopolitan. And in a broader historical perspective, cities might fall within the jurisdiction of different powers, think of Hong Kong or Kiev for example. Also I find WP:ICONDECORATION is relevant here. Whenever the name of the country is listed after the city, the flagicon is purely decorative. --ELEKHH^T 22:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Actually cities do have nationalities. A more reliable source than WP defines the word thus:3a. National origin or identity. Doesn't say a thing about it applying only to human beings. The attestations in the OED there include references to the nationalities of chairs, foods, and ships, which, like cities, may contain people of many nationalities on them: The ship..was of French nationality. If your argument is going to be that only things which can properly be said to have a nationality should get flag icons then cities and a lot of other things should have them.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I wasn't going to say any of that. As far 3a. National origin or identity goes, cities mostly have pre nation-state origins, and distinct identities, often symbolised by their own flag. --ELEKHH^T 23:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No reason to change prior consensus use Longtime usage and guideline have approved the use across articles for these lists. To me it is a style question (although that does not mean it's merely decoration). The flags are logically related to the words in the list and consensus has been amenable to their use. They do promote uniform article appearance (one way or the other). The "undue" arguments are simply unpersuasive in these often long articles. Would I personally be devastated, if they were style outlawed? No, but I would prefer not to see a wholesale "new style" debate across multiple projects and articles, and I would prefer some uniformity (at least in nation projects where such has been promoted). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No reason to change prior consensus. The appearance of flags is completely in line with the spirit of international cooperation behind twinning and partnership arrangements. The idea that it harms wikipedia in any way at all is just plain silly. Please could John stop wasting other editors' time? Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks. --ELEKHH^T 22:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what personal attacks have taken place? I would suggest that you redact your comment, because you should not be addressing experienced editors in that way. Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk)

And as far as I can tell this started with John's edits to Birmingham on September 3 and then snowballed from there. Am I missing something? Mathsci (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant, "comment on content, not on the contributor", so perhaps "attack" was too harsh a word here. I think though if someone would write "Please could [Mathsci] stop wasting other editors' time?" you might feel rightly offended. I do not address editors in a preferential way, regardless of their experience. There is an obvious content dispute, multiple editors indicating a view that flagicons should not be included. I believe the best way not to waste time is to stay focussed on content. --ELEKHH^T 23:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

John's edits have been disruptive at Marseille and Aix-en-Provence, two articles that I watch. Here are his edits since September 3 when he started systematically deleting flag icons from articles on German cities and a few days later from French cities: sometimes he uses the word "deflag" in edit summaries to describe what he's doing.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] (After that there was also a repetitive semi-automated series of edits to BLPs where he wrote "deflag", linked to WP:MOSICON, in his edit summaries where there were no flags at all in the articles.) If John had not made those semi-automated edits to articles on German and French cities, your response here might have been reasonable, but not in these circumstances. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree, it would be disruptive to come along after years of use and unilaterally change multiple articles based on novel interpretation that such edits have suddenly become required by MOS "guideline." That's just not right. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I wasn't aware of that. Still I think we should separate those issues, and here focus on content. --ELEKHH^T 02:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that flags do illustrate that sister/twin city relations are about international relations, however that does not mean that it is the only way or the best way to represent that. Looking randomly to some references I see that cities often do not use flags to describe or illustrate such relations (Berlin, Boston, Toronto, Tokyo, New York), and sometimes when do use, that is without overemphasis, in a secondary page/link (LA, Madrid, Chicago). The way flagicons are used on Wikipedia, upfront and as the only graphic representation, as explained previously IMO gives undue weight to countries and is potentially misleading the reader. Also there are better alternatives to illustrate geographic location more precisely and avoid undue weight problems, by using simple maps, as the New York example. I could even imagine flags as acceptable if that can be done without undue weight~~, as perhaphs here.~~ --ELEKHH^T 02:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't think that the fact that your map there shows both national boundaries *and* flags gives undue weight to the concept of nationality? Are you using the phrase "undue weight" as some kind of wikipedian term of art, by the way, or in its ordinary meaning? What do you suppose the use of these flags might mislead the reader about? It seems to me that using maps which show national boundaries as lines might mislead the reader into thinking that nations-as-political-constructs are coterminal with nations-as-ethnically-and-or-culturally-semihomogeneous-groups-which-are-often-with-tragic-consequences-distributed-amongst-many-nations-as-political-constructs. What shall we do to solve that problem? I'm also confused by your comment about illustrating geographic location. If the sister city relationship is about international relations, what does geographical location have to do with it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe that example is not ok after all, if you can misinterpret it so badly. I would have though that indicating the city as a distinct entity would balance that but it seems I underestimated how insistently people see only what they are looking for. I am also confused by your last question: are you saying that geographic location is irrelevant in international relations? --ELEKHH^T 04:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not saying it's irrelevant to international relations in general. I'm just wondering why geographical location of cities is more relevant to sister city relationships than iconic representations of the political nations in which the cities are located if the sister city relationship is about international relations. How did you mean for your example to be interpreted that I missed?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Because the subject is the direct link between two cities (dots on the map) as opposed to two countries (two areas on the map). I already answered that question of what you missed above. I am also noting how easily you glossed over the references demonstrating how cities themselves illustrate sister city connections. --ELEKHH^T 04:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Got it. The city I live in illustrates them with flags and names on a signpost like the one in MASH downtown by city hall. I admit that the mayor's kind of a buffoon, but I don't think that it was his idea.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And what if a map showing national boundaries gets wikipedia banned in India?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

All right, bad example, so I withdraw that. I admit I was expecting a constructive attitude, but I will be more careful from now on. Thanks. --ELEKHH^T 04:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't feel that I'm being constructive. I'm actually trying to be. How would you use a map to illustrate the fact that El Paso and Juarez are sister cities but form a unified metropolis which extends across national boundaries? Wouldn't the flag icons that are currently used on those pages be far more clear than a map?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, not to me as I have no idea where El Paso and Juarez are located, so only by the country flag one could be in Alaska the other in southern Mexico. Only a map would reveal that relationship. --ELEKHH^T 04:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Look, I think your map is really nice, I really do. If anyone wanted to make maps like that and put them into city articles that they were editing and there was consensus at the article to do that, I think it'd be lovely. What bothers me here is the idea that the MOS implies any kind of preference not to have the flag icons representing sister cities. I don't think it expresses a preference either way. I'm just opposed to drive-by deflagging, and it seems to me that there's some effort here to seek a consensus for that. I would be just as opposed to editors seeking consensus for drive-by enflagging.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Query—Does anyone here still think that the MOS specifically prohibits the use of flagicons to represent sister cities as opposed to it just being a bad idea for some reason? If we can agree that the MOS does not prohibit it, we can probably end this conversation with a recommendation to those who want to dump the flags to go try to change the MOS. Thoughts?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Strangely construed query, as strictly speaking MOS is a guideline thus is not going to prohibit things, rather indicate what might be a good idea. But otherwise, obviously several editors -if you read- did express that removing icons is consistent with MOSICON. Relevant sections are "Icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction. Icons may be purely decorative in the technical sense that they convey no additional useful information and nothing happens when you click on them; but purely decorative icons should still have an encyclopedic purpose in providing layout cues outside of article prose. Consider using bullet points as an alternative layout marker. Avoid adding icons that provide neither additional information (what the icon looks like itself is not additional information unless the icon is the subject of the article) to the article subject nor navigational or layout cues that aid the reader. Icons should serve a purpose other than solely decoration." and "Icons can represent a specific entity and should not be repurposed to represent something else, [...]." --ELEKHH^T 03:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you construed my query strangely. I constructed it carefully. All kinds of things are consistent with the MOS, including the having of flags. What's the conversation here even about at this point?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's apparent from reading the above that there is no consensus to keep the flags. We don't need to "prohibit" flags; indeed a MoS can never prohibit anything, just make recommendations. It might be nice to hear from one of the minority pro-flaggers what they think the flags are for; unless I have missed it, we haven't really seen that so far. This reinforces my impression that the flags are being used for decoration, something which definitely flies in the face of MoS guidance on the subject. My impression as an experienced Wikipedian is that a change to MoS would be required to keep flags on sister city sections, and I think the discussion above does not show any reason to do that. --John (talk) 08:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot see any consensus here. The flags are not decorative but a means of conveying the countries involved in an immediate way. I am not sure that using rhetoric like "flies in the face of" is particularly helpful when discussing something which is such a minor issue. If people want to use flags fine; if they don't that's also fine. On the other hand if they forget to mention international relations in the article, for example the article on San Francisco, that's not so good. The absence of any information at all is obviously not a positive point for the encyclopedia. A reliable source in the case of SF is easy enough to find[29] and I am sure most readers don't mind one way or the other if its added with flags or without flags. Mathsci (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am so glad we agree at last. There has never been any consensus to add decorative icons, ICONDECORATION describes this project-wide consensus, and this discussion confirms it. There is perhaps a separate discussion to be had about whether there is a pressing encyclopedic need to mention twin towns and the like on every single settlement article; my own view is that these links are fairly contrived, often not referenced to third-party sources, and are very often not even worth mentioning. Thank you for pointing out the San Francisco example. Finally, in the cases where we decide these entries are worth keeping, I think it would be much better to write them out in prose rather than as a bulleted list. --John (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This probably can only be done on a case-by-case basis. When the list is long, bulleted form is often more appropriate (readability). That is really up to the people editing the article. I edited Penrith, Cumbria to include twinning details in 2008.[30] No flags: just a simple sentence and reference. Mathsci (talk) 10:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

John: You've misconstrued several thing above. The Flags obviously denote the nations where cities have international agreements. Multiple users above have described this use. Longtime usage in articles means there has been consensus. There is not a pro-flag minority. The quarrel you have with noting these international agreements across all city articles (as somehow unimportant) is, at the least, debatable and also unsupported by several project guidelines. Finally, the primary purpose of the guidelines is to promote uniformity of coverage, of organization, and of appearance -- the flags support this. If a city values a half dozen -- or dozens -- of international agreements, a list is a good way to denote them, after a prose introduction. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Alan: What's "good" about it? What, in your opinion, do the flags add? --John (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Easy cue for a list of relevant and pertinent subject matter (especially when used across similar articles by a project). If someone is learning about international relationship information with respect to Chicago or Los Angeles or Tunis, it's easy to see, the why's and wherefores and in many articles the whens. As important, to me, we should respect the dedicated work of the Editor's who went before, they did not do all that work out of thoughtlessness. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

So you like it because it makes the list easy to see? Do you see how many of us have concerns that this same high visibility may produce overemphasis? --John (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Easy to see the relevance (the whys and wherefores) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can you explain what you mean by that? Doesn't "wherefore" just mean "why" anyway? --John (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Relevance to the topic matter. As for the 'concern,' I have said elsewhere, I don't understand it. I have looked at many of these article over the years and probably because many of them are long, it's never appeared so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

And what is the special relevance to the subject matter? Why are the countries with settlements twinned with the subject city so much more relevant than, say, the Weather section or the Transport section, which don't have loads of little coloured icons on them but rely on mere words? --John (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Who said "special"? And I don't know of anyone proposing any icons for weather or transport. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If they did, would you support them? Or is it just flags you like? --John (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Would I support what proposal, exactly? What are their reasons? What are the state of policies, guidelines and the articles? Are there inexplicable emotions driving it? What are the consequences for stability and collaboration? These are some of the questions I would have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

At Talk:San_Francisco#Sister_Cities it's explained that those editors decided to spin off the sister cities into a separate article, which is here:Sister_cities_of_San_Francisco,_California#San_Francisco. It uses flags. There's no consensus to have flags, there's no consensus not to have flags. Thus it seems to me to be a bad idea to remove flags while claiming that it's bringing an article into line with the MOS. It would be an equally bad idea to add flags while claiming that it's bringing an article into line with the MOS. The best idea, it seems to me, is to acknowledge that the MOS doesn't have anything to tell us about the use of flags in this case and then just discuss it on a per article basis. If anything seems clear from this discussion, it is that there is no consensus that the MOS says anything one way or the other about the use of flags to represent sister cities.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

True for the general MOS, but not quite true for certain Project guidelines mentioned above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that information. I found that California list when I searched for the information on SF. Might it not be an idea to add it as a "see also" or a link in the article? The sourcing for that list doesn't seem to be very different from the sourcing that's normally used for European cities. Mathsci (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco is a featured article. I personally would be loathe to mess with it myself, but anyone should try if they have the nerve!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine by me :) Mathsci (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Be nice to rm them from sister/twin cities. Seems useful for battles, wars, etc. But more cosmetic embellishment of a trivial relationships that represents twin/sister cities. Student7 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Flag icons are great for a grade school look - not an encyclopedia. That said there is also a problem with fair use of many many flag images. As not all flags a fair use. Example Flag of Ottawa is public domain - but thye Flag of Edmonton is copyrighted - thus we then have pages with an Ottawa flag but no Edmonton flag for the same listing.Moxy (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Local government sources for sister city arrangements

Sister cities, twin towns and other international relations are all set up by local government authorities. The main sources for those arrangements are to be found on the official websites of those local authorities. That is true almost everywhere and certainly is true in France and the UK. It is hard to know where else to look for accurate and up-to-date information (for example Glasgow's twinning arrangement with Marseille started in 2006, from what I remember, so is unlikely to be reported in printed literature).

John has now challenged using official local government websites for sourcing information on these international relations. He has suggested that local government sources are primary and improper for sourcing information on twinning in the particular cases of Marseille and Aix-en-Provence. He has written that the twinning information should probably be removed from the articles unless alternative sourcing can be found.

Local government and government authorities are completely reliable for information of that kind, which is straightforward. My understanding is that similar types of sources are used for almost all articles on cities all over the world. There is no reason why local government information should be inaccurate on what are anodyne facts relayed to the general public for their information. Am I missing something here? Mathsci (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is appropriately self-sourceable information. If third party sources are desirable, one can use sister-cities.org, and some city articles do. I see no reason that this should be necessary, though.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find accurate information for France on that site. The sourcing in the article Philadelphia is unsurprisngly a city authority.[31] Mathsci (talk) 14:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Government sources are RS for government related information, including international relationships. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no reason not to use government sources in these cases. I would also point out the Sister Cities International often has incorrect and outdated information. -epicAdam^(talk) 16:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Is an "anodyne fact" sourcable only to primary sources always germane to a Wikipedia article on a settlement? In many settlement articles they amount to 10 or 15% of the article. Is this due weight? If I wanted to add extensive details on, say, the type of lamp-posts or street bollards, sourcable only to a local government source, so that it took up a high proportion of the article (hey, maybe I could tabulate them or put them in a special type of bulleted list!), would the project support this? If not, why are sister cities so different? --John (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

That's actually not a bad idea. I think I will write something about this for Los Angeles. Lamp-posts are a deeply embedded part of the culture of the city there. See e.g. Urban Light.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Way cool. Nice article. Do you notice though how it is sourced to the LA Times? If we had an article like that only sourced to the municipal authority or the organisation promoting the show, and no other sources could ever be found for it I think I would take it to AfD, and I think it would be deleted. Agree? --John (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should try it with List of sister cities in California as a test case, then. Just because sister cities are often sourced to first party sources doesn't mean that they can only be sourceable to them.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean people adding them are too lazy to search out proper sources? That's an interesting theory! Is there any evidence for it? --John (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Twinning arrangements for Glasgow uses as source the website of Glasgow City Council. That doesn't seem to be laziness but just common sense. Local government information so local government sources. The same is true for Edinburgh, which is sourced to the City of Edinburgh Council. Local government information so local government sources. It makes sense. John is himself involved in WikiProject Scotland, so presumably has some familiarity with structures in Scotland, possibly even at first hand. Perhaps he could illustrate to editors what he means by proper sources in the case of Glasgow and Edinburgh. Then, by producing valid and superior alternative sources, other editors might have some vague idea of what he's talking about. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no personal interest in improving these references. My position would be that anything for which no proper third-party sources can be found by their proponents within a reasonable timescale should simply be removed. If they are not important enough to attract coverage in the real world, they are not important enough for Wikipedia to cover. Talking of vague ideas, how's your AN/I case going? --John (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It was suggested that I bring this matter to another place for discussion and that is exactly what's happened here. Everybody has so far said that your claims about local government sources are without any merit. Given that, I am surprised that you are persisting. At this point, to avoid the impression of bias, it would be helpful if you could make some kind of statement about the sourcing for twinning in Glasgow and Edinburgh, which is almost identical to the twinning data used for almost every city over the globe. Please listen to what experienced editors are saying here at this wikiproject. They are well informed and their comments cannot be dismissed. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I can partially answer the question to John myself. On 25 August 2011, John edited several articles on cities in Scotland removing flag icons. These included Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dumfries, Dundee, Inverness, Stirling and Perth. The edit summary for Glasgow read, "cleaned up disgusting flagcruff". [32] [33][34][35][36] [37][38][39][40] [41][42] He has made similar deflagging edits to articles on cities in England in March 2012. This list is only a sample but contains most major cities.[43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] He also deflagged articles on cities in Wales and Ireland: this is just a sample.[63][64][65][66] Mathsci (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

!! — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at some of those edits (i.e. Glasgow) I must say that I understand the distaste of the editor, and would argue that the removal of the kindergarten-styled table was an improvement. Perhaps an edit summary such as "cleaned up opulent flagcruff, giving visually disproportionate emphasis to particular topic" would have been better. --ELEKHH^T 01:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Flagcruft disgusts me. What does this have to do with sourcing though? You seem confused, Mathsci. Did you mean to put this in the section above? --John (talk) 05:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not confused, but I am surprised that you did not admit that you had made these mass edits, almost semi-automated, on the bulk of British city articles; in particular the two articles I was asking you about.

As far as sources go, this is what Dennis Brown wrote at WP:ANI.[67] "I will say this, city twinning should not require secondary sources if only primary exist, so thinking that twinning info should be removed is a complete misunderstanding of WP:RS and WP:V. Primary sources are fine as it isn't contentious or likely to be fudged." That is unambiguous: your interpretation in this particular case shows "a complete misunderstanding of WP:RS and WP:V". Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Given the emotional response, it seems we now have identified the motivation for the disruptive editing, and misconstrued policies and guidelines, suggesting fundamental problems for collaboration. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci, I respect Dennis's opinion but I disagree with it on this occasion. Alanscottwwalker, the consensus of the AN/I that followed Mathsci's attempt to run to mummy was that my edits were not in any way disruptive but that this was a good-faith content dispute. Did you somehow misread that? I see both of you trying (again in Mathsci's case) to distract with ad hominem arguments; does this show a lack of confidence in your actual arguments on the case in point? To remind you, the question we are waiting for an answer on was (and I am bolding it purely to aid comprehension) "Should sister cities and twin towns be exempt from Wikipedia's normal requirements for valid third party sources? If so, why should this be the case?" I look forward to reading your answers; I will not respond further to red herrings about my conduct which as far as I am concerned has been proper. --John (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about your emotional response here, which together with you other edits and unsupported constructions make for problematic participation. This is not an ad hominem, as it is not a comment on any issue but on your conduct. On the substantive matter, that has already been addressed by multiple editors, so this suggests a competence problem may also be an issue, in addition to bias. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

John seems to be have become a bit too emotionally involved with the issue (or rather non-issue) of flag icons. He has a strong personal POV that all twinning flag icons should be removed as disgusting cruft. John's threats to blank the twinning sections in Marseille and Aix-en-Provence continue even after he has been given sensible advice from administrators like Dennis Brown (see above). If he has become too involved with these minor issues, might this not be the right time for him to take a break from this kind of stuff? Mathsci (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

John, why are you quoting from the No original research policy? Do you feel there is some measure of OR in adding verifiable sister city/twin town information? Is a municipal website listing of official twins open to some sort of misinterpretation or misrepresentation due to its status as a primary source? You are chasing the wrong argument here, perhaps you want to focus on WP:UNDUE instead. The topic of sister cities in general has been deemed notable for city articles, are you saying that a sister city relationship that some newspaper mentioned can be included, but all the other ones from the city's own website list can't be? That strains at reasonability, doesn't it? Franamax (talk) 22:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

If sister/twinning is "official" (may be with twinning), it would seem that an official cite can be made. US has such an informal relation with "sister" cities that the only source is the city itself, but I suppose media can be quoted. They are only "media collectors" for this purpose though. It's not like they've checked it out! :( Student7 (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC notice

There is a Request for comment about the need/redundancy of Largest cities/city population templates. This is an open invitation for participating in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/City population templates. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) ^{(New thread?)} 10:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

"Current issues" as a section?

Bangkok has a "Current issues" section which discusses traffic, pollution, crime, etc. It isn't really well-written, but I was wondering whether or not the info in this section should be moved to other relevant sections, since I don't see it done this way in any other city articles. There doesn't seem to be a good section in which to put crime though. (I don't think it fits well under demographics as has been suggested.) --Paul_012 (talk) 16:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Beverly Hills, California

This notice is to inform interested parties of a current discussion at Talk: Beverly Hills, California on renaming that article to "Beverly Hills". Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Idea: Cities portal?

Would anyone like to start a portal on cities? The Arabic Wikipedia has ar:بوابة:مدن. Why not make Portal:Cities? WhisperToMe (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment request for Buford, Georgia article

I've put some work into the Buford, Georgia article and I wanted to see if someone could assess it for B-class and explain what I'd need to do to get it there (and hopefully eventually GA status). I've never done a B-class assessment before and I think an uninvolved editor would be better suited than I would. - Sudo Ghost 04:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Mergers

I ask editors to participate in discussions on merger of Al-Kabri -> Kabri (Galilee) and on merger of al-Bassa -> Betzet (Galilee). The Al-Kabri and al-Bassa place names are essentially Arabic pronunciations for existing Kabri and Betzet (Hebrew/Canaanite pronunciations), and belong to still existent localities, with none or negligible changes in location. Currently, the Al-Kabri and al-Bassa articles claim to describe only the Palestinian Arab localities (Mandatory period), even though the villages still exist today within Israel and existed prior to the establishment of Mandatory Palestine (Ottoman and Mamluk periods and earlier). I hence proposed that those articles be merged into Kabri and Betzet accordingly. This merger is in accordance with similar cases of Amka, Ashdod and Caesarea, though in one case the merger was not agreed upon (case of Alma, Palestine and Alma, Israel).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)