![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Hi everyone! I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I'm a graduate broadcast journalism student at American University and am taking a class on Wikipedia. I've posted some pictures from my study abroad trip to Paris on Wikimedia Commons. Any feedback or advice for future posts is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3C80:244:28BE:AED0:62E1:224 ( talk) 04:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Question: For a major city (like the primary city in a metro area), should the city's major airport be listed in the infobox? Seattle, Los Angeles, and New York City do this, while Atlanta, London and Paris do not, and this is currently being discussed at Las Vegas. A second question is whether it matters if the city's major airport is not in city limits. Seattle's major airport is not, and New York City lists two major airports that are and one that is not, and you could make an argument for adding other area airports to LA. Ego White Tray ( talk) 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Ego White Tray ( talk) 02:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Seven days have past since the last opinion on the matter was made. I'm closing this discussion with the result of not including airports in infoboxes as that seems to be a clear consensus. Ample time was allowed for opposing parties to make their points. I have opted for formal closure since we have a lot of
edits to undo, and a formally written out consensus should help justify removal of content (link here in the edit summary). Feel free to
challenge the closure if you see fit. Thanks! —
MusikAnimal
talk
16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't overlook Special:Contributions/68.191.43.129. JohnInDC ( talk) 16:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I just discovered this discussion after seeing a link to it in one of MusikAnimal's edit summaries (good job providing that, thanks). The way that the blocked editor was adding the airport information was by adding the full names of the airports, followed by the airport codes. Lengthy airport names such as Novosibirsk Tolmachevo Airport, George Bush Intercontinental Airport and Ürümqi Diwopu International Airport are the norm, but if just the codes and link(s) were provided, for example as ( URC/ZWWW) the information could be conveyed succinctly. It's more or less on a par with the time zone, postal codes, telephone dialling prefixes and vehicle registration codes that are typically included in infoboxes for cities. As for airports outside the boundaries of a city, that is very common. If reliable sources refer to an airport as serving the city, that should be enough for us to associate it with the city. — rybec 00:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Neutral notification of ongoing discussion of where the boundaries of the East side of Los Angeles are taking place now for your editing pleasure at the above noted link! Bonne santé, mes citoyens!— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 02:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
A requested moves discussion has been started at Talk:Newport#Requested_move on a proposal to rename the article Newport to Newport, Wales.
This article falls within the scope of this project, so project members may wish to contribute to discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I recently joined the project, and on the guidelines pages, I had a brief discussion (with a single other editor - Dkriegls) regarding trying to conform all the top US cities (as per List of United States cities by population) to follow the guidelines as closely as possible.
As has been pointed out in other discussions on this talkpage, while there is no strict policy on the format, it is also a quality of Wikipedia that folks don't necessary read an article all the way through, but simply go to the section in a city article which they are interested in. Additionally, even though this project is unique in that it is user-regulated, if we are striving to make articles as encyclopedic as possible (as indicated by the ratings scale), shouldn't we also be attempting to make the project as a whole as encyclopedic as well?
All that being said, I'd like to have a discussion regarding the viability of standardizing the city guidelines, and then beginning a project of bringing them all into that standard format. To me, this would solve two issues: first, the upgrading of the entire project to more closely resemble the historical conformity of encyclopedias (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica); and second, it would aid people looking for a particular fact in an article, if the order was standardized. I've already gone through the first 26 cities on the list, and have gotten mostly positive feedback. In fact, only on two articles were any negative comments made, on Chicago, where my edits were reverted, but after explaining that they were per the guidelines, no further comments were made. Only on Washington DC was there an editor who simply does not like the guidelines, was there any significant negativity. Also, not sure if this is the right talkpage (should it be on the guidelines talkpage)? Onel5969 ( talk) 14:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
In quite many articles, there are prominent mentions that Lonely Planet or some other travel organization has named the city as the best for this of best for that some time in the past. Given that many travel organizations make several such lists (best city, best for nightlife, best for shopping etc) every year, and with new cities each year, I don't really see the relevance. Unless there's an official ranking of some sort, I would recommend removing all such mentions from city articles, or at least only keep the most recent (2013-2014). If Sarajevo was ranked best by Lonely Planet for something in 2006 or Thessaloniki best for something else in 2009, I'm not sure it's on any encyclopaedic value. This mentions are not proper rankings so saying the city is best is rather dubious. Particularly when there have been several rankings since in which the city is not mentioned. Jeppiz ( talk) 15:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 01:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC).
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Plymouth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Plymouth -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I am writing here to see what the consensus is, Ohconfucius ( talk · contribs) has been progressively removing twin town listings from city articles labeling it as cruft. he provides some explanation here but I don't think there is any community consensus for this removal. what do people think? LibStar ( talk) 03:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I have nominated Portal:New York City for Featured Portal status. Please engage in discussion at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:New York City. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Could we get some more eyes on this please? I have to leave the net for the weekend in a few minutes, and I do not really have the time to try to deal with the very over-eager new editor there. From the appearance of his talk page, this may well end up at AN/I. John from Idegon ( talk) 22:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Banská Bystrica was reviewed and listed in Jan 2008. It has been tagged with sourcing concerns since October 2012. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet several MoS criteria. The ten main contributors have been notified, though no work has been done. As there appears to be a fair amount of work needed, the article will be delisted in seven days unless someone objects. See Talk:Banská Bystrica/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Greenville, SC should be listed as Mid-Importance, instead of Low importance. Greenville's urban population is 400,492, and has a metro area of 850,965. The cities ranking below Greenville in those categories are all listed under mid-importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OurKing15 ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Anyone know what the difference is here? Planned city redirects to planned community, and the cities category includes some unincorporated communities (e.g. Celebration, Florida). -- NE2 00:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Carnoustie was reviewed and listed as a Good Article in Sept 2008. The article has been tagged with sourcing concerns since Dec 2009. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet GA criteria for the WP:Lead, the size and focus, the prose, and sourcing. The main contributor has been notified, though is not able to do any work at the moment. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, this WikiProject is now being informed as the article may be delisted. See Talk:Carnoustie/GA2 for more details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Per #Greenville SC to Mid-Importance, I would like to propose a reform to the WikiProject Cities priority scale. It places Canberra as more important than New York City, Tirana as more important than Las Vegas, Pretoria as more important than Sydney, so on and so forth. I think it's clear that population or political stance doesn't necessarily equate to the topic's value to the project as a whole. How about adopting a more general assessment criteria, like that outlined by the Version 1.0 editorial team? — MusikAnimal talk 17:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Askam and Ireleth was reviewed and listed in Sept 2007. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet GA criteria. Main contributors have been notified, and some work has been done, but progress is slow. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, this WikiProject is now being informed as editing assistance may be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Askam and Ireleth/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Basingstoke was reviewed and listed in Aug 2007. It has been tagged with sourcing concerns since June 2012. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet GA criteria. The main contributors have been notified, though are unavailable, so work has not been done. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, this WikiProject is being informed as editing assistance will be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Basingstoke/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Belfast was reviewed and listed as a Good Article in March 2007, and last reassessed in Sept 2007. It has been tagged with sourcing concerns since August 2008. I have done a GAR, and I feel that the article doesn't meet current GA criteria. The main contributors have been notified, though are unavailable or not able to do the work at the moment, and there has been no progress. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, interested WikiProjects are being contacted as editing assistance may be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Belfast/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the weather tables... are they generally accurate? The answer to that question would have bearing on whether we should use them and how strongly we should feature them, I'd think.
I ask because I checked one at random ( Buffalo, New York) and it sure isn't. See Talk:Buffalo, New York#I am confused about the climate table. In a nutshell, the table does not seem to reflect the sources (unless I'm reading them wrong -- they're complicated), plus one source ended 25 years ago which, things being as they are, is an awful long time. Plus in this case there's another simple curve graph which doesn't jibe with the table.
Maybe this doesn't matter so much. You can certainly gather from the tables the knowledge "In high summer (June-July-August) the hottest part of a typical day is in the mid-to-upper-seventies Farenheit (mid-twenties Celcius)" and so forth, and that's probably more or less true, and is good enough for many readers (and better for some). But maybe we should actually say that rather the implying a high level of accuracy we apparently don't have.
A spot-check of a few random instances by someone who is confident they can read the sources correctly (that take me out) would be useful in answering this question, I guess. Herostratus ( talk) 15:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
plus one source ended 25 years ago whichthat can't be helped because 1961–1990 is the last normals period which NWS has computed sunshine duration normals, while percent possible sunshine data ended in 2009 for all but a few locations; percentages on their own are not really useful. So, other than to update normals (which are only released every 10 years), monthly record highs/lows, there is no excuse whatsoever to edit the data once I've touched it anyway. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 15:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah OK I see it now. It's at the National Weather Service site. It's hard to find and hard to ref because all the various suppages use the same URL. Too bad, but I don't know any simple solution to that. The addition of this, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) is useful because it does support the data I was looking at (monthly temperature avg high/low. It's hard to read and requires calculation but at least it's all right there. The title change (from "Climate data for Buffalo, New York (Buffalo Niagara Int'l), 1981–2010 normals" to "Climate data for Buffalo, New York (Buffalo Niagara Int'l), 1981–2010 normals, extremes 1871–present" is an improvement IMO and so is the Threadex link.
But OK. I was just raising the question. I missed the data. It's under "NOWData" rather than "Local Data/Records", which does have the data I was checking, but only through 2005. Another editor changed the May average daily high from 66.5 F to 68.7 F (etc.) and you have to figure he's got some ref for that or else he's correcting a misreading of the existing ref. Maybe not, but you can't assume that. You have to check the ref. It's frustrating because there ought to be simpler way to confirm basic and common raw data like this, but that's the fault of the refs and not us.
I guess we could add "then go to such-and-such place" or something as part of the ref. It's non-standard but I'd consider doing it. We do encourage page numbers for books. For large databases under one URL it'd make sense -- until they change the website interface. So I dunno. But OK, thanks for addressing my concern. Herostratus ( talk) 00:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The weather box for Buffalo is correct based on the sources in the weather box and from the WMO page (exactly the same numbers). That change in the May high from 66.5 F to 68.7 F would then be incorrect and possibly vandalism. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 16:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Are metropolitan areas covered by this wikiproject? It came up at Talk:San José metropolitan area as your project not covering that. However, Talk:Tokyo carries a WPCITIES banner, and that is not a city, it is a metropolitan regional government. -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 04:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Cities for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 15:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
There is an RFC going on at Template_talk:Geographic_reference#rfc_5B71C8A. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
Hi everyone! I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I'm a graduate broadcast journalism student at American University and am taking a class on Wikipedia. I've posted some pictures from my study abroad trip to Paris on Wikimedia Commons. Any feedback or advice for future posts is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3C80:244:28BE:AED0:62E1:224 ( talk) 04:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Question: For a major city (like the primary city in a metro area), should the city's major airport be listed in the infobox? Seattle, Los Angeles, and New York City do this, while Atlanta, London and Paris do not, and this is currently being discussed at Las Vegas. A second question is whether it matters if the city's major airport is not in city limits. Seattle's major airport is not, and New York City lists two major airports that are and one that is not, and you could make an argument for adding other area airports to LA. Ego White Tray ( talk) 15:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Ego White Tray ( talk) 02:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Seven days have past since the last opinion on the matter was made. I'm closing this discussion with the result of not including airports in infoboxes as that seems to be a clear consensus. Ample time was allowed for opposing parties to make their points. I have opted for formal closure since we have a lot of
edits to undo, and a formally written out consensus should help justify removal of content (link here in the edit summary). Feel free to
challenge the closure if you see fit. Thanks! —
MusikAnimal
talk
16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't overlook Special:Contributions/68.191.43.129. JohnInDC ( talk) 16:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I just discovered this discussion after seeing a link to it in one of MusikAnimal's edit summaries (good job providing that, thanks). The way that the blocked editor was adding the airport information was by adding the full names of the airports, followed by the airport codes. Lengthy airport names such as Novosibirsk Tolmachevo Airport, George Bush Intercontinental Airport and Ürümqi Diwopu International Airport are the norm, but if just the codes and link(s) were provided, for example as ( URC/ZWWW) the information could be conveyed succinctly. It's more or less on a par with the time zone, postal codes, telephone dialling prefixes and vehicle registration codes that are typically included in infoboxes for cities. As for airports outside the boundaries of a city, that is very common. If reliable sources refer to an airport as serving the city, that should be enough for us to associate it with the city. — rybec 00:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Neutral notification of ongoing discussion of where the boundaries of the East side of Los Angeles are taking place now for your editing pleasure at the above noted link! Bonne santé, mes citoyens!— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 02:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
A requested moves discussion has been started at Talk:Newport#Requested_move on a proposal to rename the article Newport to Newport, Wales.
This article falls within the scope of this project, so project members may wish to contribute to discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I recently joined the project, and on the guidelines pages, I had a brief discussion (with a single other editor - Dkriegls) regarding trying to conform all the top US cities (as per List of United States cities by population) to follow the guidelines as closely as possible.
As has been pointed out in other discussions on this talkpage, while there is no strict policy on the format, it is also a quality of Wikipedia that folks don't necessary read an article all the way through, but simply go to the section in a city article which they are interested in. Additionally, even though this project is unique in that it is user-regulated, if we are striving to make articles as encyclopedic as possible (as indicated by the ratings scale), shouldn't we also be attempting to make the project as a whole as encyclopedic as well?
All that being said, I'd like to have a discussion regarding the viability of standardizing the city guidelines, and then beginning a project of bringing them all into that standard format. To me, this would solve two issues: first, the upgrading of the entire project to more closely resemble the historical conformity of encyclopedias (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica); and second, it would aid people looking for a particular fact in an article, if the order was standardized. I've already gone through the first 26 cities on the list, and have gotten mostly positive feedback. In fact, only on two articles were any negative comments made, on Chicago, where my edits were reverted, but after explaining that they were per the guidelines, no further comments were made. Only on Washington DC was there an editor who simply does not like the guidelines, was there any significant negativity. Also, not sure if this is the right talkpage (should it be on the guidelines talkpage)? Onel5969 ( talk) 14:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
In quite many articles, there are prominent mentions that Lonely Planet or some other travel organization has named the city as the best for this of best for that some time in the past. Given that many travel organizations make several such lists (best city, best for nightlife, best for shopping etc) every year, and with new cities each year, I don't really see the relevance. Unless there's an official ranking of some sort, I would recommend removing all such mentions from city articles, or at least only keep the most recent (2013-2014). If Sarajevo was ranked best by Lonely Planet for something in 2006 or Thessaloniki best for something else in 2009, I'm not sure it's on any encyclopaedic value. This mentions are not proper rankings so saying the city is best is rather dubious. Particularly when there have been several rankings since in which the city is not mentioned. Jeppiz ( talk) 15:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 01:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC).
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The usage of Plymouth ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Plymouth -- 70.50.151.11 ( talk) 05:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I am writing here to see what the consensus is, Ohconfucius ( talk · contribs) has been progressively removing twin town listings from city articles labeling it as cruft. he provides some explanation here but I don't think there is any community consensus for this removal. what do people think? LibStar ( talk) 03:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I have nominated Portal:New York City for Featured Portal status. Please engage in discussion at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:New York City. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Could we get some more eyes on this please? I have to leave the net for the weekend in a few minutes, and I do not really have the time to try to deal with the very over-eager new editor there. From the appearance of his talk page, this may well end up at AN/I. John from Idegon ( talk) 22:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Banská Bystrica was reviewed and listed in Jan 2008. It has been tagged with sourcing concerns since October 2012. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet several MoS criteria. The ten main contributors have been notified, though no work has been done. As there appears to be a fair amount of work needed, the article will be delisted in seven days unless someone objects. See Talk:Banská Bystrica/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Greenville, SC should be listed as Mid-Importance, instead of Low importance. Greenville's urban population is 400,492, and has a metro area of 850,965. The cities ranking below Greenville in those categories are all listed under mid-importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OurKing15 ( talk • contribs) 18:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Anyone know what the difference is here? Planned city redirects to planned community, and the cities category includes some unincorporated communities (e.g. Celebration, Florida). -- NE2 00:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Carnoustie was reviewed and listed as a Good Article in Sept 2008. The article has been tagged with sourcing concerns since Dec 2009. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet GA criteria for the WP:Lead, the size and focus, the prose, and sourcing. The main contributor has been notified, though is not able to do any work at the moment. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, this WikiProject is now being informed as the article may be delisted. See Talk:Carnoustie/GA2 for more details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Per #Greenville SC to Mid-Importance, I would like to propose a reform to the WikiProject Cities priority scale. It places Canberra as more important than New York City, Tirana as more important than Las Vegas, Pretoria as more important than Sydney, so on and so forth. I think it's clear that population or political stance doesn't necessarily equate to the topic's value to the project as a whole. How about adopting a more general assessment criteria, like that outlined by the Version 1.0 editorial team? — MusikAnimal talk 17:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Askam and Ireleth was reviewed and listed in Sept 2007. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet GA criteria. Main contributors have been notified, and some work has been done, but progress is slow. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, this WikiProject is now being informed as editing assistance may be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Askam and Ireleth/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Basingstoke was reviewed and listed in Aug 2007. It has been tagged with sourcing concerns since June 2012. I have done a GAR, which indicates that the article doesn't meet GA criteria. The main contributors have been notified, though are unavailable, so work has not been done. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, this WikiProject is being informed as editing assistance will be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Basingstoke/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Belfast was reviewed and listed as a Good Article in March 2007, and last reassessed in Sept 2007. It has been tagged with sourcing concerns since August 2008. I have done a GAR, and I feel that the article doesn't meet current GA criteria. The main contributors have been notified, though are unavailable or not able to do the work at the moment, and there has been no progress. Following the guidelines at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, interested WikiProjects are being contacted as editing assistance may be needed to prevent the article being delisted. See Talk:Belfast/GA1 for more details. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the weather tables... are they generally accurate? The answer to that question would have bearing on whether we should use them and how strongly we should feature them, I'd think.
I ask because I checked one at random ( Buffalo, New York) and it sure isn't. See Talk:Buffalo, New York#I am confused about the climate table. In a nutshell, the table does not seem to reflect the sources (unless I'm reading them wrong -- they're complicated), plus one source ended 25 years ago which, things being as they are, is an awful long time. Plus in this case there's another simple curve graph which doesn't jibe with the table.
Maybe this doesn't matter so much. You can certainly gather from the tables the knowledge "In high summer (June-July-August) the hottest part of a typical day is in the mid-to-upper-seventies Farenheit (mid-twenties Celcius)" and so forth, and that's probably more or less true, and is good enough for many readers (and better for some). But maybe we should actually say that rather the implying a high level of accuracy we apparently don't have.
A spot-check of a few random instances by someone who is confident they can read the sources correctly (that take me out) would be useful in answering this question, I guess. Herostratus ( talk) 15:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
plus one source ended 25 years ago whichthat can't be helped because 1961–1990 is the last normals period which NWS has computed sunshine duration normals, while percent possible sunshine data ended in 2009 for all but a few locations; percentages on their own are not really useful. So, other than to update normals (which are only released every 10 years), monthly record highs/lows, there is no excuse whatsoever to edit the data once I've touched it anyway. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 15:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah OK I see it now. It's at the National Weather Service site. It's hard to find and hard to ref because all the various suppages use the same URL. Too bad, but I don't know any simple solution to that. The addition of this, from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) is useful because it does support the data I was looking at (monthly temperature avg high/low. It's hard to read and requires calculation but at least it's all right there. The title change (from "Climate data for Buffalo, New York (Buffalo Niagara Int'l), 1981–2010 normals" to "Climate data for Buffalo, New York (Buffalo Niagara Int'l), 1981–2010 normals, extremes 1871–present" is an improvement IMO and so is the Threadex link.
But OK. I was just raising the question. I missed the data. It's under "NOWData" rather than "Local Data/Records", which does have the data I was checking, but only through 2005. Another editor changed the May average daily high from 66.5 F to 68.7 F (etc.) and you have to figure he's got some ref for that or else he's correcting a misreading of the existing ref. Maybe not, but you can't assume that. You have to check the ref. It's frustrating because there ought to be simpler way to confirm basic and common raw data like this, but that's the fault of the refs and not us.
I guess we could add "then go to such-and-such place" or something as part of the ref. It's non-standard but I'd consider doing it. We do encourage page numbers for books. For large databases under one URL it'd make sense -- until they change the website interface. So I dunno. But OK, thanks for addressing my concern. Herostratus ( talk) 00:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The weather box for Buffalo is correct based on the sources in the weather box and from the WMO page (exactly the same numbers). That change in the May high from 66.5 F to 68.7 F would then be incorrect and possibly vandalism. Ssbbplayer ( talk) 16:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Are metropolitan areas covered by this wikiproject? It came up at Talk:San José metropolitan area as your project not covering that. However, Talk:Tokyo carries a WPCITIES banner, and that is not a city, it is a metropolitan regional government. -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 04:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Cities for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 15:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
There is an RFC going on at Template_talk:Geographic_reference#rfc_5B71C8A. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 14:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)