This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Cities/Assessment page. |
|
![]() | Cities Project‑class | ||||||
|
Proposing ranking as follows, please comment. Alan.ca 23:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Territorial capital can be unclear in an international setting. I tagged "Stavanger" High, but I am uncertain.
It doesn't though, have more than aprox 110.000 people, population as indication of importance does however suffer from overemphasizing densily populated areas. -- Eivind Kjørstad 10:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
class = Dab/Template/Cat/Stub/Start/B/GA/A/FA
priority = Low/Mid/High/Top
needs-infobox = Yes
needs-photo = Yes
peer-review = Yes
old-peer-review = Yes
collaboration-candidate = Yes
small = Yes
Class and priority are well described. needs-infobox and needs-photo are pretty self-explainatory. What of the others though? What exactly is meant by the variable peer-review. Is this yes if it has had one, or yes if it needs one? collaboration-candidate - is that where more than one WikiProject have tagged any given article?
The small function doesn't seem to work.
A question about the city infobox. Is its layout handy for towns and cities which are not located in the United States? See York, Dublin, Eindhoven etc for examples.
Frankly, its a mess. It works, but its a mess. I'd say we should identify all the variables needed for the differing countries and regions, and then make a generic template that all towns, cities and villages etc use. Articles on areas that include more than one settlement (counties for example) are presumably outside the scope of this project, and should therefore use a different infobox. It needs standardised. People using the encyclopedia for research about cities or whatever, shouldn't have to work hard to get the info they need. They should be able to very quickly ascertain info from an infobox that looks quite similar throughout Wikipedia.
So who's good at coding.. whatever 'language' this 'pedia uses..? -- Mal 05:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I ran across this template tag in Palmersville, Tennessee. This is apparently a tiny unincorporated community that the Census Bureau does not treat as a CDP. Two templates dominate the short article. It's not clear to me why this article (or any similar article about such a tiny community) was flagged as requiring expert attention from this project. Any way to figure that out? (The tag was added by an unregistered user.)-- orlady 18:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The sections Requesting an assessment and the assessment log seem to contradict each other. Could someone clarify for it (not only for me but on the page as well)? akuyume T C 21:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I Dont Understand Wikipedia anymore..i Feel Really Mad because i posted A City to Assessment and it's already a week and no job has been Done yet..Can any body to re-assest Santo Domingo EdwinCasadoBaez 07:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
As I noted in the edit summary to Talk:Bellefontaine, Ohio, I am of the opinion that assessments are a truly dumb idea, and one that takes editors away from the primary mission of furnishing this encyclopedia with knowledge and even important secondary missions of maintaining the encyclopedia and guarding against abuse. That said, assessments simply will not work-- and thus, are a complete waste of our time-- if those assessing the articles do not leave comments explaining how they arrived at the assessments. Not every article can be a Good Article Candidate (GAC). Not every editor uses the GAC process, for whatever reasons. These editors' works, then, should not be penalized by some random editor who, seeing only that the article has not been through GAC, decides to effectively deface the article by leaving what amounts to an unsourced assessment. We don't allow unsourced claims to remain in the main article space. Why should we allow it in our assessments, especially while they are in a prominent spot at the top of the talk page? -- SwissCelt 11:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What about population less than 200,000 but DOES HAVE international news coverage by media agencies? Small towns and cities with school shootings would be a good example.. Pearl, Mississippi (21,000+ pop.) or Columbine in unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
So, i've been thinking about the importance ranking a bit. The current situation is that "State/Provincial/Regional capitals" should be rated as High importance. This led to me rating Yellowknife, Northwest Territories as High importance, because it is the capital the Northwest Territories, even though it's only got a population of approximately 19,000.
Norway is divided into 19 counties: Hordaland, Nordland, Vestfold, etc, each with its own administration centre or capital, such as Stavanger in Rogaland, Moss in Østfold and Bergen in Hordaland. As Norway is a thinly populated country, none of the county capitals except Oslo (which is both a county and a city, and also the national capital, which gives it a Top importance ranking anyway) have a population of above 240,000, and in fact most of them have a population of less than 50,000. This leads to most of them being ranked as Low importance. The same seems to be the case in England, where the county towns are also not rated High (unless of course they have a high population or international recognition). Also, it seems capitals of country subdivisions named "province", "region", or "state" are getting special treatment just because they are named that and not "county" or similar, and it also doesn't make sense that in country subdivisions where the largest city isn't the capital the largest city could potentially be rated Low while the capital could be rated High.
However, i'm not going to ask for the Norwegian or English county capitals to be rated as High importance just because they're county capitals, rather, i'm going to ask for every city with a Wikipedia article to be treated the same no matter if it's the county capital or not; they should be rated purely based on their urban area population (important, as some cities, especially US ones, seem to have incredibly small city municipalities (or similar) while the urban area population could be up to 5 times larger) and/or international recognition/news coverage.
Now, this is of course not a big issue but i was just a little annoyed when rating Yellowknife, Northwest Territories as the only thing that makes it High importance is it being the capital of an insignificant Canadian territory, thus giving it the same rating as Toronto, which has a population of 261 times Yellowknife's population in its urban area and is overall a far, far more important city. Anyone agree? -- Aqwis 16:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Meta has a list of 1,000 vital articles. 44 of them are cities The following Meta are capitals and therefore high-priority here:
|
|
|
But these Meta aren't capitals, and therefore aren't high priority:
I propose that any city article, capital or not, that cracks the Meta 1,000 be top-priority no matter what. As you can see, the non-capitals list includes cities from all over the world, mostly with populations of several million. Thoughts? Purplebackpack89 ( talk) 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The Cape Town article has been flip-flopping between High-importance and Top-importance, because it may or may not be considered a national capital. South Africa's current constitution doesn't actually specify a capital, but the general wisdom (as taught in South African schools, etc.) is that there are three capitals: Pretoria for the executive branch, Cape Town for the legislative, and Bloemfontein for the judicial. But if one is absolutely forced to name a single capital, Pretoria is it. So I'd like to find out what the community's opinion is: is it unfair, so to speak, for South Africa to have multiple Top-importance cities (in which case Pretoria must be Top and Cape Town and Bloemfontein High, since they are both also provincial capitals) or should all three be Top? (The historical basis, by the way, is that the South Africa Act 1909 made Pretoria the "seat of government", Cape Town the "seat of Parliament", and Bloemfontein the "seat of the Appellate Division" [the highest appeals court]). By the way, I note with a little amusement that Cape Town is currently listed as an example of a Top-importance city on the priority scale - I'm going to remove it for now while this discussion goes on. - htonl ( talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Have alook at the change lists. There's a small group of minor Canadian settlements in Saskatchewan that are repeatedly reassessed, flip-flopping class and importance ratings. One I've checked has no change history ... ! Anyone know what's going on? Is someone showing compulsive behaviour or is there a mad bot? Folks at 137 ( talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a military base and not really a city. Though it appears to have some characteristics of cities. Does this article really belong in this wikiproject? WTF? ( talk) 18:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There does not seem to be a consistent way of assessment for lists. Nor does the assessment scale for the normal article provide real guidance. I would suggest a guideline along these lines, please let me know what you think. CRwikiCA ( talk) 08:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Cities/Assessment page. |
|
![]() | Cities Project‑class | ||||||
|
Proposing ranking as follows, please comment. Alan.ca 23:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Territorial capital can be unclear in an international setting. I tagged "Stavanger" High, but I am uncertain.
It doesn't though, have more than aprox 110.000 people, population as indication of importance does however suffer from overemphasizing densily populated areas. -- Eivind Kjørstad 10:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
class = Dab/Template/Cat/Stub/Start/B/GA/A/FA
priority = Low/Mid/High/Top
needs-infobox = Yes
needs-photo = Yes
peer-review = Yes
old-peer-review = Yes
collaboration-candidate = Yes
small = Yes
Class and priority are well described. needs-infobox and needs-photo are pretty self-explainatory. What of the others though? What exactly is meant by the variable peer-review. Is this yes if it has had one, or yes if it needs one? collaboration-candidate - is that where more than one WikiProject have tagged any given article?
The small function doesn't seem to work.
A question about the city infobox. Is its layout handy for towns and cities which are not located in the United States? See York, Dublin, Eindhoven etc for examples.
Frankly, its a mess. It works, but its a mess. I'd say we should identify all the variables needed for the differing countries and regions, and then make a generic template that all towns, cities and villages etc use. Articles on areas that include more than one settlement (counties for example) are presumably outside the scope of this project, and should therefore use a different infobox. It needs standardised. People using the encyclopedia for research about cities or whatever, shouldn't have to work hard to get the info they need. They should be able to very quickly ascertain info from an infobox that looks quite similar throughout Wikipedia.
So who's good at coding.. whatever 'language' this 'pedia uses..? -- Mal 05:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I ran across this template tag in Palmersville, Tennessee. This is apparently a tiny unincorporated community that the Census Bureau does not treat as a CDP. Two templates dominate the short article. It's not clear to me why this article (or any similar article about such a tiny community) was flagged as requiring expert attention from this project. Any way to figure that out? (The tag was added by an unregistered user.)-- orlady 18:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
The sections Requesting an assessment and the assessment log seem to contradict each other. Could someone clarify for it (not only for me but on the page as well)? akuyume T C 21:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I Dont Understand Wikipedia anymore..i Feel Really Mad because i posted A City to Assessment and it's already a week and no job has been Done yet..Can any body to re-assest Santo Domingo EdwinCasadoBaez 07:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
As I noted in the edit summary to Talk:Bellefontaine, Ohio, I am of the opinion that assessments are a truly dumb idea, and one that takes editors away from the primary mission of furnishing this encyclopedia with knowledge and even important secondary missions of maintaining the encyclopedia and guarding against abuse. That said, assessments simply will not work-- and thus, are a complete waste of our time-- if those assessing the articles do not leave comments explaining how they arrived at the assessments. Not every article can be a Good Article Candidate (GAC). Not every editor uses the GAC process, for whatever reasons. These editors' works, then, should not be penalized by some random editor who, seeing only that the article has not been through GAC, decides to effectively deface the article by leaving what amounts to an unsourced assessment. We don't allow unsourced claims to remain in the main article space. Why should we allow it in our assessments, especially while they are in a prominent spot at the top of the talk page? -- SwissCelt 11:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
What about population less than 200,000 but DOES HAVE international news coverage by media agencies? Small towns and cities with school shootings would be a good example.. Pearl, Mississippi (21,000+ pop.) or Columbine in unincorporated Jefferson County, Colorado. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 21:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
So, i've been thinking about the importance ranking a bit. The current situation is that "State/Provincial/Regional capitals" should be rated as High importance. This led to me rating Yellowknife, Northwest Territories as High importance, because it is the capital the Northwest Territories, even though it's only got a population of approximately 19,000.
Norway is divided into 19 counties: Hordaland, Nordland, Vestfold, etc, each with its own administration centre or capital, such as Stavanger in Rogaland, Moss in Østfold and Bergen in Hordaland. As Norway is a thinly populated country, none of the county capitals except Oslo (which is both a county and a city, and also the national capital, which gives it a Top importance ranking anyway) have a population of above 240,000, and in fact most of them have a population of less than 50,000. This leads to most of them being ranked as Low importance. The same seems to be the case in England, where the county towns are also not rated High (unless of course they have a high population or international recognition). Also, it seems capitals of country subdivisions named "province", "region", or "state" are getting special treatment just because they are named that and not "county" or similar, and it also doesn't make sense that in country subdivisions where the largest city isn't the capital the largest city could potentially be rated Low while the capital could be rated High.
However, i'm not going to ask for the Norwegian or English county capitals to be rated as High importance just because they're county capitals, rather, i'm going to ask for every city with a Wikipedia article to be treated the same no matter if it's the county capital or not; they should be rated purely based on their urban area population (important, as some cities, especially US ones, seem to have incredibly small city municipalities (or similar) while the urban area population could be up to 5 times larger) and/or international recognition/news coverage.
Now, this is of course not a big issue but i was just a little annoyed when rating Yellowknife, Northwest Territories as the only thing that makes it High importance is it being the capital of an insignificant Canadian territory, thus giving it the same rating as Toronto, which has a population of 261 times Yellowknife's population in its urban area and is overall a far, far more important city. Anyone agree? -- Aqwis 16:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Meta has a list of 1,000 vital articles. 44 of them are cities The following Meta are capitals and therefore high-priority here:
|
|
|
But these Meta aren't capitals, and therefore aren't high priority:
I propose that any city article, capital or not, that cracks the Meta 1,000 be top-priority no matter what. As you can see, the non-capitals list includes cities from all over the world, mostly with populations of several million. Thoughts? Purplebackpack89 ( talk) 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The Cape Town article has been flip-flopping between High-importance and Top-importance, because it may or may not be considered a national capital. South Africa's current constitution doesn't actually specify a capital, but the general wisdom (as taught in South African schools, etc.) is that there are three capitals: Pretoria for the executive branch, Cape Town for the legislative, and Bloemfontein for the judicial. But if one is absolutely forced to name a single capital, Pretoria is it. So I'd like to find out what the community's opinion is: is it unfair, so to speak, for South Africa to have multiple Top-importance cities (in which case Pretoria must be Top and Cape Town and Bloemfontein High, since they are both also provincial capitals) or should all three be Top? (The historical basis, by the way, is that the South Africa Act 1909 made Pretoria the "seat of government", Cape Town the "seat of Parliament", and Bloemfontein the "seat of the Appellate Division" [the highest appeals court]). By the way, I note with a little amusement that Cape Town is currently listed as an example of a Top-importance city on the priority scale - I'm going to remove it for now while this discussion goes on. - htonl ( talk) 21:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Have alook at the change lists. There's a small group of minor Canadian settlements in Saskatchewan that are repeatedly reassessed, flip-flopping class and importance ratings. One I've checked has no change history ... ! Anyone know what's going on? Is someone showing compulsive behaviour or is there a mad bot? Folks at 137 ( talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This appears to be a military base and not really a city. Though it appears to have some characteristics of cities. Does this article really belong in this wikiproject? WTF? ( talk) 18:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
There does not seem to be a consistent way of assessment for lists. Nor does the assessment scale for the normal article provide real guidance. I would suggest a guideline along these lines, please let me know what you think. CRwikiCA ( talk) 08:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)