| This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Cities/US Guideline and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5Auto-archiving period: 180 days
 |
 | Cities Project‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
When do tornadoes become notable? I see tornadoes listed all the time in geography sections, "In 1924, the roof of Fred Jones' barn was ripped off by an EF2 tornado", and I've had many heated discussions about tornadoes. Is there some criteria, like EF4 or a body count number? I'm eyeing the Monroe, Louisiana#2020 tornado and it looks like a nothingburger. Thanks. Magnolia677 ( talk) 20:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Though the 2020 Monroe tornado didn't kill anyone, it did damage many buildings. /info/en/?search=2020_Easter_tornado_outbreak#Monroe,_Louisiana • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Tornadoes and other natural disasters (forest fires / floods / hurricanes) can a have a major impact on communities, and some of the worst can permanently change a community. Even if no one dies, a natural disaster can be one of the most important news events for the community over decades. As for tornadoes, they are extremely scary things at night, more scary than monster movies, even more so in the distant past before internet era / cellphone era / tv era, especially before weather radar. In the modern age, death count isn't enough to be a filter for major natural disaster events, because cellphones / weather radios / tv / radio has provided advanced notice to minimize deaths or prevent deaths from happening, especially during the day time when most people are awake, but night time is another matter. Just because no one dies, it doesn't mean a natural disaster should be removed, because there still could be significant destruction to a community. --- In general, for natural distasters, we should leave these events, even minors ones. My feeling is that small events should be short and in paragraph form as minor part of the history section and not have subsection above it. For major events, where significant damage occurs, even if no one dies, then may deserve a subsection for the event. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- 1955 Blackwell-Oklahoma Tornado - 20 died / 200 injured / hundreds of homes destroyed / hundreds of homes damaged
- 1955 Udall-Kansas Tornado (same storm as above) - 77 died / 270 injured / 192 buildings destroyed
- 1990 Hesston-Kansas Tornado - 1 died / 59 injured / 247 building destroyed / some houses completed blown away leaving nothing but foundation
- 1991 Andover-Kansas Tornado - 13 died / 300+ homes destroyed :: in 2022, another tornado hit Andover, but 0 died / 3 minor injuries, lived saved because modern media & cellphones warned everyone
- 2007 Greensburg-Kansas Tornado - 11 died / 95% of city destroyed
- 2011 Reading-Kansas Tornado - 1 died / 2 injured / 70 buildings destroyed
- •
Sbmeirow •
Talk • 23:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. What I sometimes see is the addition of a notable weather event to communities fairly untouched by its damage, but still officially in its path. I was just wondering if there was some threshold, but its probably just editor discretion.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 10:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- editor discretion, just like everything else in the history section. If a tornado damaged some trees but nothing else, then it isn't notable enough. If a tornado damaged a building outside of the city limits, then it likely isn't notable enough. If a tornado killed anyone, then probably should leave it, so not to be cold-hearted about it. If an article is short, then probably best to leave the tornado text, just to help provide some filler to the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. What I sometimes see is the addition of a notable weather event to communities fairly untouched by its damage, but still officially in its path. I was just wondering if there was some threshold, but its probably just editor discretion.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 10:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
User:TillmanJosh has redirected--without explanation--dozens and dozens of notable city articles over the past year. Some have been reverted, but many others remain as redirects. If other experienced US city editors could also have a look at some of these redirects it would be appreciated. -- Magnolia677 ( talk) 17:38, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps they could provide a better description of what they are doing in the edit summary -- but just looking at the first one I came across
Parfreyville, Wisconsin it looks like an almost entirely unreferenced stub. One is to The Romance of Wisconsin Place Names, which if it is like similar books I've seen for other states, it provides little more than a sentence or two about a place. And the other reference is to GNIS for the extremely problematic category of "populate place". It has been discussed many times previously that GNIS is not a reliable source for the category of "populate place" as that often included rail sidings, crossroads, defunct trading posts, etc. In general, I would support merging such permastubs into to corresponding next level of administrative entity. If at some point additional references are found, the stub can easily be re-split.
older ≠
wiser 19:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- I messaged this editor three years ago to inquire about their redirecting of articles, without response. User:Stewpot has also reverted some redirects. Some article may indeed be found to be not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but the wholesale redirecting of so many articles is not the way to accomplish a cleanup. Magnolia677 ( talk) 19:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- So are we supposed to let articles that have at most two-three sentences- some of which have been last edited 10+ years ago and have very little chance of being expanded upon in the near future- flood Wikipedia? My goal at the end of the day after noticing several deleted or otherwise existing articles that have nothing more than the location and a sentence or two of history be redirected into the town that the community was in. As
User:Bkonrad pointed out, the GNIS "populate place" source should not just be the only way an article can be made and sourced off of. Like they also mentioned, these can easily be reverted if additional resources (preferably more than just two sentences) are found. Almost all the articles that I merged and redirected were simply where the communities were, and were redirected into their respective towns with the same information. I will say that I could of made some explanations; however, I did put in an explanation as to why I renamed this
singular article and there is still only village of Cleveland in Wisconsin.
TillmanJosh (
talk) 01:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- @ TillmanJosh: Redirecting should only be used when it is likely not to be controversial, per WP:BLAR. Two editors have left multiple messages for you to stop doing this, which should indicate your redirects are controversial. Instead, at Advance, Wisconsin, you reverted two editors in order to redirect the article. It took me five minutes to locate a reliable source to support that Advance, Wisconsin, had a population of 50 in 2004. If you feel these stub articles should be removed, please conduct a thorough WP:BEFORE, and then nominate them for deletion. Magnolia677 ( talk) 11:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Should the infobox example on the guideline be updated to reflect the changes made in major cities' articles? The guideline uses New York City as an example, but the infobox in the New York City article has been updated. Xeror ( talk) 07:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
- In general, the infobox in
WIKIPEDIA:USCITY should be an example of the goals of this guideline, instead of reflecting a real article that change over time. Technically, the infobox in
WIKIPEDIA:USCITY doesn't have to reflect any real city, instead an imaginary city, such as Wikiville, Moosylvania, that fills in the most applicable fields with reasonable data is all that is needed. If a real city is chosen, New York City isn't the best choice, because it is a unicorn compared to ten's of thousands of community articles in USA, thus a more realistic smaller city would probably be a better choice. Though I made up Wikiville for an imaginary city name (but later I discovered "
Wikipedia:Wikiville"), and borrowed the silly
Moosylvania for an imaginary state name (from
The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show), we could use
Lists of fictional locations for naming ideas to borrow or tweak to create an imaginary city and imaginary state for this article. •
Sbmeirow •
Talk • 04:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think we even need to make up fictional place for the infobox. All we need are placeholders. For images, we can use icons from
SVG cityscapes icons. The only place that needs real data is maplink. My main focus is on the guideline reflecting how the articles of major U.S. cities, not only New York City, have the infobox presented.
Xeror (
talk) 14:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think we even need to make up fictional place for the infobox. All we need are placeholders. For images, we can use icons from
I believe the "Rankings" section of this guideline should be removed. The request for comment that this section cites posed a narrow question as to whether or not a specific list from Money magazine should be included on a specific city's page. IMO this does not support the blanket statement that the request for comment concluded that ALL lists of a similar type (subjective) do not belong on a city's Wikipedia page. Each publication and each survey uses varying standards, some of which are more subjective and some more objective and statistically-sound. 76.232.123.103 ( talk) 22:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- I restored the section, then rewrote it how I think long term editors meant it to be (I could be wrong). Though this
Chanhassen, Minnesota discussion in 2021 lead to the Ranking subsection being added to the "editor tips" section of this article, it is well known by long term editors that it was established practice farther back in time, even if it wasn't documented in this article. Unfortunately, many subtle practices aren't documented or fully documented in this article. •
Sbmeirow •
Talk • 08:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- I support the original version of this guideline, restored by
User:Sbmeirow. The RfC about
magazine rankings was overwhelmingly against them.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 12:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @ Sbmeirow, I reverted to the original version before my edit, using your logic that we should discuss before editing. Here are my thoughts:
- 1) To say that every single newspaper, magazine, and website ranking has no encyclopedic value is a statement that lacks a supporting source. It is therefore an opinion, and I believe it should be presented as such to avoid confusion.
- 2) I believe it is best to avoid making hyperbolic and unsubstantiated statements as the one above, which is why I edited the guideline to state that each such ranking should be evaluated on its own merits when being considered for inclusion in a US city article. It is illogical to assume that all rankings appearing in magazines, newspapers, or websites are of the same quality. As an example, many peer-reviewed statistical publications contain rankings, and are republished or reproduced in newspapers, magazines, and of course websites. Peer-reviewed journals have their own websites. If the current guideline stands as worded, editors will need to remove any ranking sourced from any website from all US city articles. This would include population rankings citing the US Census Bureau website, or any journal website.
- 3) As stated previously, the Chanhassen RfC was specifically focused on whether the specific ranking from Money magazine should be included in that specific city article. The RfC did not in any way conclude that all rankings from websites, magazines, or newspapers should not be included in all US city articles. As such, if we can not reach a consensus here, and if the practice is not well-documented as you allude to, we may need to solicit a new Request for Comment for the purpose of this guideline.
- 4) I believe that the prior points alone are enough to support my original edit. For the sake of discussion, we can consider another specific example, separate from the US Census Bureau website example noted above: The U.S. News & World Report Best High Schools Rankings. [1] The ranking methodology is developed in partnership with a nonprofit social science research firm, RTI International. [2] The analysis and subsequent rankings are editorially independent of U.S. News & World Report's business operations. All data used in the rankings comes directly from state education departments, the federal Department of Education, along with Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate exam data. These are clearly objective datapoints. A computed score based on objective, uniformly-gathered school performance data is indeed valuable and notable information to a reader and helps digest information more efficiently than scouring through the raw data itself. Amalgamations of information are indeed the very point of encyclopedia articles to begin with.
- 5) My point in the above example is not to argue for a blanket exemption for a particular source(s), but rather to demonstrate that there are indeed rankings that are of higher quality, and definite encyclopedic value, as compared to others. As such, I believe this guideline should be edited to simply warn against including those of low or no value, with examples given. In the end, whether or not a particular ranking should be included within a particular article will of course be up to consensus therein.
- Thanks for reading if you've made it here! Hoping to get some more input. 76.232.123.103 ( talk) 06:22, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- I support the original version of this guideline, restored by User:Sbmeirow. These ranking articles are pumped out every year because they are popular. Wikipedia does not include every fact and editors need this guidance since they are included in reputable publications. Of course, if one is actually useful in an article, it can be used. Filling space with "city Y ranked number one in some ranking" does not improve the articles though. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 16:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- I support the original version of this guideline, restored by
User:Sbmeirow. The RfC about
magazine rankings was overwhelmingly against them.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 12:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Your input is welcome at Talk:Minneapolis#RFC on first section of Minneapolis. -- Magnolia677 ( talk) 21:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)