Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:58, 19 April 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Cities/US Guideline page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months

	This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Cities This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Flags on sister cities sections

See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cities#International_relations_and_twin_cities_-_use_of_flag_icons.

flagicons in infobox

Hi all. An editor, Vaselineeeeeeee, has been systemically going through the US City articles and removing flagicons from the infobox, citing MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. While I don't really have a preference as to whether or not to include them (I don't mind them), their reasoning for using that MOS is a bit flawed. While the opening statement there is "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.", there is actually a paragraph which deals with the type of articles that cities fall under: human geographical articles. In that paragraph, the MOS states, "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes." So I thought I'd run it up the flagpole and attempt to get a consensus. Currently, the infobox example on our page does not include them, and using that as a standard, Vaselineeeeee would be correct in removing them. Perhaps there was a discussion about this prior to my joining the project, if so, I apologize. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, we had a very lengthy discussion on Talk:Edmonton, and most editors feel that they should not be added. I was against removing them from the infobox, but several editors removed my additions of the flag icons. Since there was a discrepancy in major city articles I decided to remove most flags to avoid confusion. If you look at the Edmonton talk page, there are many editors saying that they are distracting to the eye, etc. If you want to contribute there as well feel free. I do not think there is a set in stone rule for if they should be included or not. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Vaselineeeeeeee... Edmonton, not being a US City, would fly by the rules of the group that oversees Canadian cities. As I said, I'm not adverse to removing them, but I just want to get a consensus from the folks who edit the US Cities. Onel5969 (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm inviting a couple of editors who have shown activity on this issue on the city pages: Epicgenius, Alansohn. Onel5969 (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Canadian city articles' policies are different from US city articles' policies, and the consensus on Talk:Edmonton only applies to Canadian cities. If there is consensus to remove flags on US city articles, however, I will follow that consensus. We can open up an RfC for what to do regarding MOS:FLAG in American city articles. Epic Genius (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe flags should be used in city infoboxes. Everybody knows Miami is in the US. A flag for emphasis is not useful. Some editors sprinkle flags around like confetti. We don't need a decorative effect here. GroveGuy (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For years, I've noticed multiple editors saying the flags shouldn't be included in city articles, so I've been removing flags from articles as I've come across them. I basically agree with other people about them just being fluff. I'm currently on the "NO FLAG" path until someone tells me otherwise. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi all... me again. I was just attempting to head off what I saw as the potential for edit wars on various pages. Can we all agree to leave it status quo until we reach a consensus here? Onel5969 (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You need to read to the bottom of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG to get to the Wiki rule: "where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan)...the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not". Edmonton definitely falls into this category. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What User:GroveGuy said came off very arrogant. You cannot just assume that "everyone" knows that Miami is in the US. By that logic, you might as well not even mention anything about the US if everyone already knows it. I believe flags should be included as it enhances the term and gives it a better idea of what it is to the reader. There is a lot you can get from a country just by looking at their flag. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To those of us who have made many edits to articles about cities and towns, I'm sure you'll agree that a lot of time is spent "cleaning up". This includes the removal of exhaustive lists of elementary schools, personal photo collections, geo-coordinates added to geography sections, vast unsourced trivial narratives about the local landfill, and members of garage bands added as "notable people" because their bus broke down in middle of town and they spent the night at the local motel. These edits are added by well-intentioned editors, but they detract from the encyclopedic quality of Misplaced Pages, and experienced editors remove them again and again and again. I completely agree with the rationale at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG for NOT adding purely cosmetic cruft like infobox flags: "they are unnecessarily distracting". Misplaced Pages isn't a travel guide, kids book, or graphic organizer. It's an encyclopedia. Let's add content, not fluff. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Magnolia677. as has been already pointed out, Edmonton, Alberta is not germane to a discussion on the consensus for US cities. But, just so everyone knows, Magnolia677's statement does not appear to be correct. Edmonton, and many other cities, are not both human and physical geographic subjects. They are human geography articels, and the applicable par tof the MOS is Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes. Meters (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So...Manhattan--which is used as an example at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG--and has sections about history, geography, demographics, economy, government, education, sports, culture and infrastructure...IS a "human and physical geographic subject". Edmonton, on the other hand, which also has sections about history, geography, demographics, economy, government, education, sports, culture and infrastructure, IS NOT a human and physical geographic subject. Could you explain that? Thanks again. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You refer to MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, but I'm not sure that you understand what it means. Again, "Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes; however, physical geographic articles – for example, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, and swamps – should not." Edmonton -- and the same is true for virtually every single US city -- is **NOT** a "physical geographic article". It is not a mountain; it is not a valley; it is not a river; it is not a lake; nor it is not a swamp. The reason that Manhattan is offered as a potential example of covering both human and physical geography is that Manhattan is largely one big island. As Edmonton -- and Astoria, Queens and Hoboken, New Jersey -- are all examples of "human geographic articles", MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is clear that they "may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes". The number of sections in the article has nothing to do with being a "human and physical geographic subject". A "human and physical geographic subject" has to do with a place like Manhattan which is both a human-defined place and a physically-defined place; This is NOT true for Edmonton or just about every other city in North America. What is the confusion here? Alansohn (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, what's even better than an unnecessary Flag Icon? Simply typing the words like "United States" (or "USA") and "Florida" in the appropriate Infobox parameter fields. That answers your concerns, and avoids the totally unnecessary Flag Icons. You also assumed that most readers know nation flags, or more improbably U.S. state flags (can anyone here pick Florida's flag out of a lineup?! – if you can, you're better at this than I am, and I'm pretty good...), when there's no evidence to show that. The bottom line is that the vast majority of Flag Icons used in U.S. city article Infoboxes are unnecessary, and simply typing out the words for the country and state names is more than sufficient. --IJBall (talk) 07:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely disagree with Magnolia677. Flags are not "cruft". By that logic, why ever include flags? Why even have a code to include a flag? In any circumstance a flag is used as what you call "fluff". Can you explain that? If you believe it is cruft, why have have highlighted sections of charts, ( ex. Manhattan) etc., after all this isn't a graphic organizer right, I am sure the readers can figure it out themselves no? It adds a "design" to enhance the article and the specific city. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Magnolia677, Edmonton IS a human physical geographic subject, and should have flags just like how Manhattan, NYC, The Bronx, etc. have flags. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Flags shouldn't be used when nationality is emphasized too greatly (e.g. using it in a person's article). They could, however, theoretically be used if it's a geopolitical subdivision like Manhattan, and there is no guideline or policy stating otherwise. See WP:FLAGCRUFT. Epic Genius (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

My position on the question of Flag Icons in Infoboxes can be pretty well summarized here, and I agree with others that Flag Icons in Infoboxes (excepting those Infobox parameters that are directly designed for flag images) are generally "fluff", superfluous, and unnecessary. Certainly, non-U.S. city articles generally don't use them (at least not for prominent cities such as London, Paris and Berlin, though there are definitely exceptions especially when you get down to some of the esoteric "village"-level articles where editors do like to sprinkle around Flag Icons in Infoboxes like elementary school stickers). But even more than my disdain for Infobox flags in city articles is my strong desire for some consistency on their use (or not) – we even see this in the U.S. city articles where some articles use Flag Icons in Infoboxes, and others don't. What I'd really most like to see here is just that some consensus be made, and applied across all U.S. city articles. There's no question that I certainly come down on the side of wanting all of the Flag Icons stripped out of U.S. city articles' Infoboxes (as I think that they are unnecessary, add no informational value, and are basically "decorative" rather than useful). But if the decision goes the other way, can we please at least make a concerted effort that the decision is implemented uniformly across all the U.S. city articles?!... --IJBall (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• This discussion has taken place here, and at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Icons#WP:INFOBOXFLAG question. Both discussion have not led to consensus. There appears to be two issues. First, the policy outlined at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG needs to explicitly differentiate "human geographic articles" from articles which cover "both human and physical geographic subjects". Second, there is clearly a wide range of opinion about whether flags should even be used in the infoboxes about settlements such as cities, towns, and counties. Is there an editor who would be willing to prepare a proposal so we can obtain a wide range of opinions, and hopefully, consensus? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677 - Thanks for that info. I was sure that this had to have been discussed somewhere before, just didn't know where. I've never done a proposal before, so it probably would be a good exercise for me. I'll give it a whack over the next couple of days. When I have it ready, I'll put it on my sandbox, and let folks take a look at it. Onel5969 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Onel5969: – that sounds excellent. Please let us all know when you get further along in that process. As someone with pretty strong opinions on the subject, I look forward to taking part in the discussion on this... --IJBall (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• WRONG VENUE All of the cities affected are Canadian. This is the wrong place for this discussion. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually this is the right place for this particular discussion, even if it was started for the wrong reason... --IJBall (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually :) - the discussion, if you look at my original post, was started in the US Cities page, because an editor was making wholesale changes to US City pages. So, can't think of a more appropriate venue. The fact that the editor was doing that due to something which happened on a Canadian city page, only speaks to that editor's motivation, not to this discussion. Onel5969 (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The flags at that size are not comprehensible to most. Making them bigger will just draw to much attention to one part of the box as they already do a bit at the current size. So basically they are not needed...if they were there would be a parameter for them thus making then a readable/legible size. Thus my vote for any action would be remove....that said... decisions of this nature are hard to implement to say the least....as we are talking about so many pages. For some the norm is have them and other not to have them...its a hard one for such a small flag. -- Moxy (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but if a "consensus" policy is reached, then at least editors will have some justification to link to if/when they start removing Flag Icons from Infoboxes. (And, FTR, we seem to be moving closer to consensus to removing them from U.S. city articles' Infoboxes, from what I am seeing here...) --IJBall (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Census-designated places

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There are many articles about US settlements that begin like "XXX is a census-designated place in YYY County..." and go on to repeatedly refer to the subject as "the CDP". I find this usage grating and believe it's off-putting to the 99% of readers who have never heard of "census-designated places". In the vast majority of cases, I think "XXX is an unincorporated community in YYY County..." is preferable.

Article ledes are supposed to give a definition of the subject. The Census Bureau does lots of research to figure out the definitions of local communities, so it is a valuable source. But its use as a source should not be confused with what defines these places, which are the people and buildings on the ground.

It's important to mention the place's CDP status when it is relevant. In most articles, that means in the Demographics section, where extensive Census statistics are given.

"XXX is a CDP" seems to have originated in this 2004 conversation about Rambot. The idea appears to have been that local editors in each area would sort out the best phrasing to use. Rambot's creator later wrote, "Clearly we should use CDP as it refers to the statistics, but it is not so clear that the article should use CDP as the dominate name/type". But today, there seems to be an attitude that this is the way Misplaced Pages articles about CDP's are written, and anyone who tries to change this phrasing will be reverted.

There are certainly exceptions, such as CDP's that don't really correspond to local ideas of extant communities, or where there is a confusing overlap of similarly named municipalities and CDP's. For example, there are places like View Park-Windsor Hills, California, where the Census Bureau jams two nearby communities into one CDP. Since the conglomeration doesn't really exist except as a Census Bureau concept, it's fine to call it a CDP (if we really have to have an article about it). Some of the northeastern states have CDP's within incorporated areas (since they have no unincorporated areas), so some other phrasing is needed there. But these are a minority of cases, and they should not derail a conversation about the majority case. Toohool (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should article ledes use "census-designated place"?

In general, should an article about a U.S. unincorporated community that is a census-designated place begin:

1. "XXX is a census-designated place in YYY County..."

or

2. "XXX is an unincorporated community in YYY County..."

Toohool (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If the designation is a CDP, that needs to be in the lead, especially if all the demographic information in the article comes from the Census Bureau entry on that CDP. If a broader definition of that community can be properly sourced, then that should be included too. Since the lead contains a wikilink to Census-designated place, if users find that to be an unfamiliar term, they can go there to find out more, just like if a place is classified as a city, village, town/township, borough, hamlet, etc., all of which vary in definition by state and country. Further, "unincorporated community" can often be quite ambiguous (since they typically have no defined boundaries) and often lack reliable demographic measurements, while a CDP has defined boundaries and regular measurements, just like an incorporated area. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree there needs to be more consensus on this topic. Thanks for asking this question. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• 2 is far more preferable. Only bureaucrats care about CDPs. Most humans care primarily about communities and neighborhoods—not county lines (except in Appalachia), CCDs, ZCTAs, μSAs, PSAs, CSAs, or any of the rest of census bureau alphabet soup. (Be honest, how many knew these actually exist?) That said, a thorough article might mention which specific parts of those it is wholly or partially within, and maybe adjacent XYZs, but not without first mentioning adjacent communities and cities. None of this is lead material. Instead, it belongs in a minor (approximately) Nitpicky technical divisions of the Census Bureau section. —EncMstr (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I've always been fond of a construction I borrowed from @Bkonrad: that I've been using for years: "Foo is an unincorporated community in Foo County, Foo State, United States. For statistical purposes, the United States Census Bureau has defined Foo as a census-designated place (CDP). The census definition of the area may not precisely correspond to local understanding of the area with the same name." That said, a handful of CDPs in Oregon (the only state's community articles on which I work) do not correspond with a community in any real sense "on the ground". And as @EncMstr: above can vouch for, I do my due diligence as far as research. In those cases I've suggested keeping just CDP in the lede. Personally I think it's up to each state to make the call. Question: Do all lede sentences across the project have to be consistent? There is often variation with addition of "rural", "historic", "northern", etc. Valfontis (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• CDP or census-designated place is bureaucratic jargon. Misplaced Pages should first use terminology that is more familiar (although the article that unincorporated community leads to conflates two distinct senses of the term "unincorporated" and likely causes more confusion than it clarifies, but that is a separate matter). In general, a CDP is designated to provide statistics for areas that are commonly recognized as communities (although without official boundaries, a local sense of the community may not always precisely match the somewhat arbitrary boundaries of a CDP). In some cases, CDPs could be designated or named for areas that were more artificial entities (such as Greater Galesburg, Michigan) or that encompassed several smaller communities (such as Shorewood-Tower Hills-Harbert, Michigan). In such cases, the named entities are actually CDPs only rather than a distinct community. older ≠ wiser 16:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The reality is it's likely going to be a case-by-case basis since CDPs and what constitutes a "community" are going to vary from area to area along with the other realities others have mentioned about CDPs that combine smaller communities or CDPs that cover only a portion of what is considered a community. Locally, in the county I live in, we have two unincorporated communities (Wayland, Ohio and Diamond, Ohio) and two CDPs (Brimfield, Ohio and Atwater, Ohio). All four of these entities are part of a respective township (Paris Township, Palmyra Township, Brimfield Township, and Atwater Township) and each township is the better definition of a "community" for all of them. The two unincorporated communities (Wayland and Diamond) both have a respective Post Office and ZIP code, while of the two CDPs, one has a post office and ZIP code (Atwater) and the other (Brimfield) does not. In both CDPs, they cover a smaller area of their respective township, but the sense of "community" is the entire township. The unincorporated communities, in general, don't really have a sense of community separate from their townships either; they're simply relics of a past time and have that post office, and their respective ZIP codes cover larger areas. Both the townships and CDPs have official and different population measurements from the Census Bureau, (the unincorporated communities do not), so while they could be combined in one article, it might create confusion with two separate demographics sections. Right now both Brimfield and Atwater have CDP mentioned in the lead because that's what the respective articles are about: the CDP, not the community. CDPs do have boundaries (find maps here), but only for the purposes of measurement, similar to census tracts. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I phrased the RfC to cover only articles that are about unincorporated communities that are also CDP's. If a particular CDP can't accurately be called a community, other more accurate words should certainly be used. I feel that calling it a CDP should be a "last resort" though. For example, "unincorporated area" would work in many cases. Toohool (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Still think it's a case by case basis, though since we have the ability to wikilink, I don't think there's a reason to whole-scale avoid using a valid and defined term, any more than we would avoid using any other wording that may be unfamiliar to many or have a different definition. It's similar to how different states define a "city" or a "town" (for instance, a "town" in New York is equal to a "township" in Ohio while a "town" in Ohio is an unincorporated area; or the fact that a city in Ohio is any incorporated area with 5,000 or more inhabitants but in Virginia is an entity independent of a county regardless of population). Again, if the infobox displays the population numbers, land area, and other data of the CDP, that's what is being defined in the article, so no reason to avoid calling it what it is. If editors feel having "unincorporated area" in a lead would be helpful, I'm not opposed to adding it, but making CDP a last resort? No, I don't see a need since there are thousands of CDPs across the country and Google and other map programs show CDP boundaries on their maps as if it were a city boundary, so people are seeing them. Going back to Brimfield, Ohio, the CDP boundaries have been displayed on maps for over a decade and I never knew what exactly I was seeing until I came across what a census-designated place actually is and the fact that Brimfield has a CDP within the township. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

• I never heard of a "census designated place" before I found Misplaced Pages, and I live in a CDP. Around here, we just call it an unincorporated community. On the other hand, if the bureaucratic terms is more proper, I don't have a big problem with its use. I eventually learned what it is, so I guess other people will, too. But it seems like the common name really is "unincorporated community", for what it's worth. So, I guess I'm alright with either. Sorry for being so wishy-washy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I would bet that most of the population don't use the terms "unincorporated community" or "census designated place". As for myself, I have seen U.C. term used far more than C.D.P. If a community is like a tiny city and not part of another community, then "unincorporated community" should be the primary way to describe it. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

1. For a tiny community, I propose "Xyz is an unincorporated community and CDP in County, State, United States.". (assuming it is a CDP in this example)
2. For a tiny community, I propose that if CDP is used in the intro, it must be wiki-linked, and use the short form CDP instead of the long form or any "long winded" explanation of what a CDP means.

• 2. Unincorporated. I agree 100% with what Toohool says about usage. CDP status should be mentioned when relevant, but otherwise we should follow local conventions: "Village of X" or "Town of Y" and note the unincorporated community status. I understand that the phrase "unincorporated " isn't much less unwieldy than "census-designated place," but at least unincorporated intrinsically contains the distinction I think it is important to make—whether one of these small towns is an incorporated municipality or an unincorporated area governed by its parent county. I also have concerns about the case Toohool mentioned at the top where more than one unincorporated settlement is crammed into a single CDP by the Census Bureau. And I agree with the comments that "CDP" sounds awfully bureaucratic and technical, even if, again, "unincorporated" isn't much better—a little better is still better. Darkest Tree Talk 16:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

In many states, "Village" and "Town" are legally used to designate incorporated communities of a specific size. Even if the citizens living in an unincorporated use these terms, we can't use it in the article because it conflicts with the legal use for incorporated cities. Even in states that don't legally use "village or "town" for incorporated communites, I think it would be best to not use those terms since many nearby states do use them. If people don't like "unincorporated community", the call it a "community". • Sbmeirow • Talk • 19:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Changing the order in which sections are presented on US city articles

There is currently a discussion taking place at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject New Jersey#New Jersey towns, section order to examine changing the order in which sections are presented in New Jersey city articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• Project-Class WikiProject Cities pages
• All WikiProject Cities pages