Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Settlements: Article structure

Geography / History ordering

(Moved this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Geography / History ordering -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

(Now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 14#Geography / History ordering. Nurg (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Etymology

On January 11, 2016‎, the Etymology section was moved from 1st subsection to 5th (after Demographics) with the reason "Convention is that History sections come first in Wikipedia articles". How can this be "convention" when this section has already been 1st for 5 years? It may be convention for other article structures, but by sheer virtue that it was 1st for 5 years makes it the convention for cities and settlements article structure. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't handle the "convention" argument very well. Remember, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. We strive to make the encyclopedia better, not simply follow what an editor has labeled "convention." BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. But we do have standards/guidelines to make the encyclopedia consistent. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Government

@P199: The government is an important section and it should be at least below Economy if not above, but not very low at 10th position below sports.--Vin09 (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. On looking at settlement articles, the trend in general (there are exceptions) is that articles on cities in America have governance quite low, while articles on cities and towns in the UK have governance very high, often second or third. Articles on cities and towns in the rest of the world vary, but rarely do they have governance as low as America, and even American cities will sometimes be higher than shown here. As this was intended to be a general guide for cities outside America and the UK, amalgamating best or common practise, the idea is to follow the general trend, so please do move it higher. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Then I would suggest after economy section. IMO I would deem demographics and economy more important. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The intention here is to gather best practise and best advice so editors looking for guidance on how to structure an article will be following general consensus, in particular what is already occurring. We need to be aware of imposing our personal preferences, so should be looking closely at what is already occurring. If, however, thee is a feeling that current practise or advice is inappropriate or unhelpful, then a discussion involving relevant WikiProjects would be a good idea. I have indicated that placement of the section varies, which is does, so editors are aware that there is no fixed location, but if folks feel that it might be time to have one city guideline for all cities, so there is less variation, and placement of sections is more standardised, then I would welcome that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, section order is totally based on perceived importance, and perception is totally personal. So "best practice" and "general consensus" are merely the result of personal preferences imposed by editors before us. Therefore, in order to move "Government" section up, it needs a discussion as you say. And that is what I intended to start by suggesting "Government" after "Economy" section. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 04:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"So "best practice" and "general consensus" are merely the result of personal preferences imposed by editors before us." Yes, that's it. That's the consensus model on which we work. If something is done, and nobody objects, indeed, everyone follows, that is consensus by editing. It is the main consensus route followed on Wikipedia. The other consensus route is the one we are now considering, which is to challenge the established existing consensus. In order that decisions which change established consensus are not later dismissed as purely "local consensus" it is important to involve as many people as possible, or at least to make people aware that a change is being considered. See Wikipedia:Consensus. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry SilkTork, but your changes to Etymology and Governance are contrary to your own statements above. No new consensus was reached and there is no "best practice". Back to the main point, I agree that Government was likely too low, and agree that it should be moved up. Looking at the various geography/city MOS's, government is placed in various locations. The best compromise might be to follow the Indian MOS, which places it between Demographics and Economy. In any case, as long as it is just the 2 of us discussing this, it can still be dismissed as purely "local consensus". -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear on why you feel the amendments I am making to this essay are against consensus when I am the originator and main contributor to it. If I move a section up or down, the only challenge I am usually making is to myself, unless someone else had previously moved it. My intention on creating this was to look at best practise and develop the essay accordingly. I admit I haven't paid much attention to it over the years, and tend to be reminded its here only when someone edits it. At which point I assess what they have done. If on looking into the edit it appears that it moves the essay away from best practise rather than toward it, then I will step in. I think the essay needs a lot of work; however, that work should not follow the idiosyncrasies of individual editors, but should look for what the community is doing. If we have individual editors coming in and moving stuff around based not on what is happening on Wikipedia, but on their own personal idea of what is important then we'll have an unstable and unhelpful guide. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you started this essay, but it no longer is "your own", since several WikiProjects refer to it. Furthermore, you developed this about 5 years ago, with very little edits in the meantime. Clearly it is already stable, so you can't move sections arbitrarily around anymore, including Government (as you say: it would be an unstable and unhelpful guide). Moreover, what I have trouble understanding is how you even determine "best practice". As I said, there is no such thing as "best practice" in editing subjective items.

And by claiming that "individual editors coming in and moving stuff around based not on what is happening on Wikipedia, but on their own personal idea of what is important", you should welcome the fact that I am resisting the changes to Etymology and Government... -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boosterism?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

– Moved to primary project talk page to give it more exposure. This issue is not really related to article structure. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To what extent are rankings acceptable in a city article? These days, every tom, dick, and harry promulgates rankings, so do the rankings have to meet some criteria to be considered noteworthy? Appreciate your thoughts. 32.218.47.21 (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good post. Any particular articles you have in mind? Obviously we would have to cite WP:Reliable sources. Would that answer your question? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This and this are what prompted my question. I know that rankings are included in college articles, but there are a standardized set of rankings that are considered acceptable. With cities, it seems that every magazine, blog, and special interest group has some sort of listicle/clickbait ranking of cities. What rankings of cities, if any, are considered reputable? I find nothing in the guidelines of WP:City structure or WP:USCITIES that addresses this. Approval of any ranking with a reliable source would seem to promote cherry-picking and boosterism. 32.218.47.21 (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept Inc., but maybe not the others, which may not fulfill the WP:Reliable source stricture. Some of them don't seem to have editorial oversight, being very closely linked with business or maybe advertising. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That answers the small question about this particular example. It still leaves a gap as to the larger question of what guidelines, principles, or standards are to be applied to city articles in general. 32.218.47.21 (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I consider most of those things cr*p, because you don't know if cities paid for advertising or some other monetary method to get their name on the list, also these lists are subjective and not easy to measure. If I see these things in intro section, then I move them to the History section, which is easier than arguing with someone about it. If someone comes along and delete this stuff, then I never complain about it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Etymology or toponymy or name

An issue has arisen at some Irish settlements with Wikimandia good faith changing the heading from Etymology to Toponymy at Dún Laoghaire on the basis of "correct term" and I was rightfully and in good faith challenged by Sarah777 when I changed "Name" to "Toponymy" at Edgeworthstown. This article says of the section name: "then it may be titled as Etymology (most common), Toponymy, or Name (least common)". On the basis both articles already were using a "suggested acceptable" section name I have reverted both ( [1] & [2] ), and am minded to argue if "Topomymy" is to take precedence that should be made clear at this article. There may be local preferences per "Irish English" variants etc. There has been limited prior discussion on my talk page but a centralised discussion here is appropriate. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clearly, Etymology is better and more widely understood, and Toponymy more correct - in Ireland or elsewhere. You pays your money.... Johnbod (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toponymy is the correct term and very easy to look up. Etymology is for words, not place names. These are not interchangeable. We would never use Toponymy for word names and we shouldn't use Etymology for place names. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and here to educate. If we have to dumb it down for people, then simply put Name as a subhead, but not Etymology. —Мандичка^YO 😜
I'd vote for Toponymy on grounds of accuracy and precision, but I don't think either Etymology or Name are wildly wrong, and I won't be inclined to change them if those are the terms that have been used. In the particular case of Irish names, if the name is a literal description that any Irish speaker would understand, so that all we're offering is an English translation, then that would definitely be a case of Toponymy but not Etymology. GrindtXX (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest agreeing on a single "correct" version (I think it's etymology) in cases where there is a section discussing the origin or meaning of the name. I don't think the fact that many Irish names are translations of Gaelic originals makes a special case. An agreed version would simplify editing and avoid a lot of pointless changing.

- my dictionary says:

Toponymy - the study of place names.

Etymology - the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning.

Name is just the the name - so in these articles etymology would be the origin of the name and the historical development of its meaning.

Based on the above, it seems etymology is the best description of the content in the section discussing the place-name in articles about places.

If there was general agreement I'd vote for this to be made the standard Section Heading in articles about places where there is a section discussing the name. Sarah777 (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In some articles there is no attempt to reveal the etymology of the word. For example: Bridgnorth, Shropshire is named after a bridge over the River Severn, which was built further north than an earlier bridge at Quatford.(The author puts that in the History section). Newcastle, you would think is simple with no etymology needed (The word new comes from the Middle English newe, from Old English nīwe, nēowe (“new”), from Proto-Germanic *niwjaz (“new, fresh”), from Proto-Indo-European *néwyos (“new”), from *néwos. The word castle is derived from the Latin word castellum, which is a diminutive of the word castrum, meaning "fortified place". The Old English castel, Old French castel or chastel)- but in compound form the etymology of the second element is often given!

A more telling example may be Stockport where the Toponym section says:

Stockport was recorded as "Stokeport" in 1170.[1][2] The currently accepted etymology is Old English port, a market place, with stoc, a hamlet (but more accurately a minor settlement within an estate); hence, a market place at a hamlet.[1][2] Older derivations include stock, a stockaded place or castle, with port, a wood, hence a castle in a wood.[3] The castle probably refers to Stockport Castle, a 12th-century motte-and-bailey first mentioned in 1173.[4]

Other derivations are based on early variants such as Stopford and Stockford. There is evidence that a ford across the Mersey existed at the foot of Bridge Street Brow. Stopford retains a use in the adjectival form, Stopfordian, for Stockport-related items...''

Concluding. All are possible, but Toponymy is the umbrella term that should be used in a fully developed article- within it will be a paragraph describing the etymology of the elements. If the section only discusses the origins of the name and does not relate it to concrete geographical features or ownership, etymology is permissable. Name can be used as a holding term while the article is developed. Otherwise it can just lie within history. (Other opinions are available!- please join in )ClemRutter (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Sarah777's answer was really good and I think I am even more persuaded by {{U|ClemRutter}'s explanation who likely seems more of a specialist in these matters. I must admit I am a complete ignoramus in these matters .... I simply need to be able to reference Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Settlements as a pointer when issues arise on settlement article and steer towards the advice there when in double and when possible. I am somewhat minded that while many good readers may be totally bamboozled by the Toponymy word, and the etymology word also, I am equally sure most will be able to determine a workable gist of meaning by the associated prose content and will not be to upset about them. Whatever outcome is decided I'd like additional handling guidance is added to article ... and while I initiated this discussion I am not the one able to bring it to its conclusion and must hope someone else can. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If the section only discusses the origins of the name and does not relate it to concrete geographical features or ownership, etymology is permissable." In the case of the Irish "place" articles that is the case, I'd estimate, over 90% of the time - hence my leaning towards "etymology". But accept ClemRutter is looking at the broader picture - I'm happy with his conclusion as it would leave "etymology" the best option in those thousands of "start class" articles. Name could be replaced by etymology as the holding term. Sarah777 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demographic History

Hello all, just curious as to how far back the demographics of a place should go? My initial assumption was an article should only contain the most recent census but I've seen some articles that post previous decade's census. I also tried looking through the MoS and other resources but couldn't find an answer. Amscheip (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amscheip, in my mind anything that helps with the article. If you discuss the history of the place, there could be rationale to include over a century of these numbers as long as it is not too detailed and granular. I don't think there is a hard and vast rule as long as it is not a stats dump. CRwikiCA talk 18:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @CRwikiCA for your reply and it does sort of answer my question, but I think that's only because my initial question was too vague. To be more exact, I am wondering if entire data from the 2010 and 2000 censuses' are helpful in an article. Two examples I found were Green Bay, Wisconsin and Rutherford, New Jersey. The articles are already quite lengthy and include the last 3 censuses vs just the most current. I could see, for example, including the population of Green Bay at the start of industrialization vs after to provide historical context, but I am not sure if 10 and 20 year old census info is adding anything. I hope this adds more clarity to my question. Amscheip (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amscheip, it doesn't seem to hold much value in those articles as it is more of a data dump then anything. I think either removing or merging the sections would work well, there is also a lot of room to improve upon the prose too. CRwikiCA talk 23:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since your question could affect many articles that are set up the same way, you should pose it on the WikiProject USA talk page. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 23:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks again for all advice on the subject. Amscheip (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For long articles, keep the latest decade. For short town articles, keep everything until article grows to a longer length. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure?

I was working on the Dhaka article today and noticed that it didn't have a main heading on "infrastructure" but only one for "Transport". I see in the proposed structure of this project that it's recommended to have an infrastructure section which should contain: Transport, road network, utilities, health care, security/safety, amenities. So for Dhaka I have changed it now a bit because I had some info on water and sanitation which I wanted to add. A few other articles that I checked for comparison also had only Transport but not a section on Infrastructure. It surprised me that a few articles that I checked (e.g. Hamburg) said nothing about their water infrastructure and sewer systems. I am just wondering if this is a common situation and if others have discussed this before. EMsmile (talk) 18:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has (had?) tons of road/transport nerds. Way fewer sewer nerds. So this is not surprising. Granted, there is probably less to say about water infrastructure than road infrastructure, but still, I think edits changing these sections to "Infrastructure" and adding some info about non-road infrastructure (electrical? postal? telecom?) would be an improvement. Sdkb ^talk 18:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change?

I've just added a note on the recommended outline on the project page that information on the effects of climate change for that city could be added under the climate section. I hope there is no objection to that? Also, what are the experiences of others who might have added information on the effects of climate change to city articles so far? Pinging User:Sadads. EMsmile (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So long as reliable sources directly characterize changes in a settlement as resulting from climate change, that sounds fine to me. Sdkb ^talk 19:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb every city should have some scholarship on climate change (and other issues like air pollution), I think suggesting it in the structure is a good idea (at least a paragraph, if not a subsection). Sadads (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb @EMsmile I added a little bit more language in that section, to highlight things like flooding and other environmental issues like pollution, should be either combined in the geography section, or placed within sections related to the relevant focus of the sources. Sadads (talk) 11:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I wonder if there should be a separate "environment" section or if this is expected to fall within "geography". For the country articles there is often an "environment" section that is distinct from the "geography" section. EMsmile (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable people: Is 'born in' sufficient?

People tend to be born in maternity hospitals. Maternity hospitals (outside of major conurbations) tend to cover a wide hinterland. Thus anyone whose home area is vaguely near to a city will have that as their place of birth with no meaningful affinity to it. And within a conurbation, although the distances might not be great, the named area is very small.

Propose that merely born in, in the absence of proof of residence in the area, is not considered relevant for including people as notable people for that article. Kevin McE (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]