Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities

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

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23: 2 months

Question related to fusions of Belgian municipalities

Hi all, on January 1 2025 several Belgian municipalities were 'fused' or merged. I however noticed that the articles created for these new fusion municipalities are commonly stubs and there was some variability in what happened to the pages of former municipalities. Some describe them as former municipalities only, others note a current sub-municipality status. Could anyone help me regarding the guidelines on how to best consistenly describe the former municipalities? Additionally, could someone inform me regarding what type of information would be desirable to put on the stub pages for the new municipalities, given that the former, sometimes quite extensive pages still exist. Kloowee (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the suggested format pages?

Where do I find the suggested article formats for U.S. cities and U.S counties.? — ERcheck (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia USCITY - • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:53, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Sbmeirow - Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Location of thing in article

Hi all--this editor claims that it is perfectly alright to include the location of a thing mentioned in an article--and to do it in that strange way, by introducing a note system. The editor claims, as far as I can tell, that Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Usage_guidelines states that every thing that has a location and is mentioned in an article can be given coordinates in the article. I disagree. I can't imagine what our articles would look like if that were the case and someone took it all the way. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I also Disagree with that editor. GeographicAccountant (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Drmies mis-states my objection to a deletion made to an article, originally with no explanation, and subsequently on the grounds it was "burdensome and excessive".

I previously advised that the guidelines do not suggest coordinates be included for every location. Instead my objection was to the unilateral and summary determination of "excessive", as that it completely disregarded the guidelines. Both independently and read together Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Usage guidelines and WP:USCITIES expressly state geolocations for points related to the topic may be (respectively) "appropriate" and "acceptable".

It appears that Drmies contends that geolocations must never be included in content, and for some reason the text of the guidelines, which include specific examples, otherwise provide insufficient guidance. Furthermore, previous unrelated discussions with editors who frequent this forum opined that including the information in the main content made the text too awkward to read, and that instead it could be included as a note, as per H:NOTES.

I would appreciate your revisiting this more accurately posed topic, and most importantly, always appreciate any guidance and specific alternatives. (please note, despite extensive research, there is insufficient sourcing to support a stand-alone article.) Kyle4344 (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"It appears that..." no. I've written hundreds of articles on locations and places and buildings, and included coordinates. The silliness here is that you are including coordinates for things mentioned in the article. I'm pinging a few experienced editors most recently active on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates: User:Joy, User:Deor, User:The Anome, User:Jonesey95. Perhaps they can address this relatively simple matter. Drmies (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. It underscores that your objection is to "including coordinates for things mentioned in the article."

To underscore my concern, the above cited guidelines, both independently and read together expressly allow that geolocations for other points related to the topic may be "appropriate" and "acceptable", and provide additional guidance by example. My objection was that you summarily and unilaterally deleted the content without reference to any authority that supports your deviation from the cited guidelines.

I appreciate your submission of this particular query to the appropriate forum, but point out that any change in philosophy will involve the more global obligation to revise the guidelines. Again, I must note that your reference to "silliness" and "relatively simple matter" in your response comes across as unnecessary and condescending. WP:CIV Kyle4344 (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of location coordinates for individual features being usefully embedded within articles are the various lists of listed buildings in the United Kingdom such as Grade I listed buildings in Buckinghamshire. — The Anome (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support Drmies. Those coordinates shouldn't be there. If the location is notable, it has its own article and coordinates are there. If it is not notable, it is pointless to have them there (even if in a note). FromCzech (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a legitimate use where the objects in an article may not be individually notable, but the subject of the article, which includes them all as a collection, is. For example, it would be interesting to have coordinate footnotes for the individual statues in the Dragon boundary mark article. — The Anome (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think coordinates like these are good to have in a list like Grade I listed buildings in Buckinghamshire, and Dragon boundary mark (or whatever the title of that article ends up being) should be turned into such a list. The coordinates themselves are I think all available here. I also intend to add all the applicable ones to the list of public art in the City of London one day. Statues of the Liberators is an example of a list to which I've recently added coordinates and {{Mapbox}}. Ham II (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What FromCzech said. If the place is notable, link to its article, where editors can find its location and other information. It is long-established that list articles can have coordinates in tables like the one that The Anome. But putting a geolocation for a non-notable place in article prose or in a note is usually excessive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insight. However, your response stops short of the bright line favored by User:Drmies and User:FromCzech. This circles back to the underlying question of what is "excessive".

Can you advise what, if any, issue you have with relying on the guidelines in WP:USCITIES as to what is acceptable (and by implications, what is excessive)? Kyle4344 (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Existence of Pridvorica (Kraljevo)

I've been adding population data to villages of Serbia as part of WP:URA and I can't find evidence that Pridvorica (Kraljevo) exists, but want to run it by people more familiar with reliable geography resources. I can find Serbian four villages called Pridvorica with corresponding articles in the 2011^[1] and 2022 census^[2], but none in Kraljevo. I think that the (dead) link at the bottom of this article links to the Pridvorica in Montenegro and the latitude/longitude listed go to Pridvorica (Čačak). These villages seem to have largely been created by copying/pasting from a template and I've notice transcription errors elsewhere. With that in mind, it seems highly possible that this article was created on accident but if anyone can point me towards any sources that verify the existence of this place I would be very grateful. Vegantics (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia: Comparative Overview of the Number of Population in 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2002 and 2011, Data by settlements" (PDF). Statistical Office of Republic Of Serbia, Belgrade. 2014. ISBN 978-86-6161-109-4. Retrieved 2014-06-27.
^ Старост и пол: подаци по насељима [Age and sex: Data by settlements] (PDF). Belgrade: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. 2023. ISBN 978-86-6161-230-5.

Vegantics (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Didsbury

Didsbury has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Fort Wayne, Indiana

Fort Wayne, Indiana has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive

Good article nominations \| June 2026 Backlog Drive
June 2026 Backlog Drive: Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process? On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles reviewed. Mentors are available, and new reviewers (<6 reviews) get bonus points! Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talk page.
You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "2011 Census of Population, Households and Dwellings in the Republic of Serbia: Comparative Overview of the Number of Population in 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981, 1991, 2002 and 2011, Data by settlements" (PDF). Statistical Office of Republic Of Serbia, Belgrade. 2014. ISBN 978-86-6161-109-4. Retrieved 2014-06-27.

[2] Старост и пол: подаци по насељима [Age and sex: Data by settlements] (PDF). Belgrade: Statistical Office of the Republic of Serbia. 2023. ISBN 978-86-6161-230-5.

[1]

[2]