Talk:Intelligent city

Two major movements

Two major movements shape actually what intelligent cities are: The Intelligent Community Forum and the series of annual conferences on Intelligent Environments. (unsigned)

Singular or plural ?

Dear all,

isn't the singular a standard in Wikipedia ?

I mean, of course: shouldn't the article be named Intelligent city, instead of Intelligent cities ?

All the best,
--Hgfernan (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

To note that the article has now been moved to 'Intelligent city'. PeterEastern (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Just seen that the two concepts were merged. This is a big error.

The concepts of "smart city" and "intelligent city" refer to two different development and planning perspectives of cities by the use of ICT. At Google scholar you will find 2270 papers on "Intelligent city" and 1740 papers on "Intelligent cities". This is real index of significance of a concept and not the number of views compared to another concept on Wikipedia.

My suggestion is to restore the previous form of two Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackrock01 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge

Please, merge with Smart City. Inaki.a001 (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Does anyone disagree with a merge? This article only has some 5% of the views of smart cities article. Probably worth putting a banner on the article. Thoughts? PeterEastern (talk) 08:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• I have now merged the key content from this article into Smart City because it fits there well regardless of a merge. PeterEastern (talk) 08:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• I have now converted the article to a redirect to Smart city. PeterEastern (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That seems a bit hasty.The Intelligent city article has a number of believable sources about that very subject, so clearly wasn't an invention of someone's mind. I would tend to give more than 10 days to allow people to comment on the proposals (people lead busy lives and the concepts are not straightforward to disentangle).

From what I can see from a cusory reading of each article, the Smart City concept seems much more practical and grounded in reality, while the Intelligent City idea seems more conceptual (and no evidence it's yet been explicitly applied). There's actually a paragraph here (unsourced) which explains the difference.

I've reverted the redirect of the Intelligent city article. There's no evidence it has been merged at all into the Smart City article and it would be a shame to lose it.

--Sionk (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for diving into this topic. As I noted on your talk page recently, I have been doing some heavily and structural editing in this area, and it is good to see someone engaging in dialogue with that, and pushing back on some of my edits. I worry for the future health of WP when there is no pushback! I take you point about the merge being a bit hasty. Do notice however that an informal merge request had been sitting on this page unchallenged since March.

For the avoidance of doubt, my intention had been to first rationalise the number of articles first, and to then work on the remaining articles to integrate more of the content from these earlier ones. Do note also that I have already cut/pasted one entire section from this article into Smart city and added key references to 'further reading'.

My main dislike of this article in particular is it's focus on pulling apart the different terms for cities in great detail. As such it is more of a dictionary definition than an encyclopedia. If we do keep it I suggest we would need to change the emphasis to discuss the subject more and the terminology less. We should also note that much has been clarified in the domain of future/smart/digital/intelligent cities since 2009 when the bulk of this article was written.

Anyway, back to the merits of having one or two articles. I have found this source to be the most useful one when trying to sort out usage of different terms. Here are the key quotes in relation to intelligent cities, that I would suggest support a cautious merge:

• "Intelligent Cities is an idea sometimes used interchangeably with ‘smart cities’, although some of its origin can be traced to the idea of ‘virtual cities’ in the 1990s. Often ‘intelligent city’ is used to describe the use of communication infrastructure and digital spaces to strengthen local innovation systems, solve problems and create more responsive public services (Allwinkle and Cruickshank 2011)."
• "Future city terminology can convey either environmental, social, economic or governance aims, or a hybrid of some or all of these elements. Although terms such as ‘garden city’, ‘inclusive city’, ‘competitive city’ and ‘intelligent city’ tend to refer to one specific domain, the more commonly used terms tend to have broad, hybrid or ambiguous meanings. This especially applies to current phrases such as ‘smart cities’, ‘sustainable cities’, ‘future cities’ and ‘liveable cities’. The high degree of conceptual crossover and overlap means most terms are highly compatible with each other, but reflect different sources or alliances, often with a desire to suggest conceptual differentiation despite substantive overlap"
• "Another significant trend is that the future cities discourse has created a lot of interest in the global cities of London and New York, despite neither being directly associated with projects bearing these labels. London is the city where searches for the term ‘intelligent city’ are most frequent, while New York has visible interest in ‘compact’, ‘liveable’ and ‘green’ cities. This suggests not only that the debate and level of engagement is advanced in these two cities, but that they have a high degree of conceptual, political and intellectual influence on how the terms are taken up elsewhere."

-- PeterEastern (talk) 05:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Give that the reasons for the merge outlined above have not been disputed, I am going to add a merge-to banner to this article. PeterEastern (talk) 10:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I note that this article gets 20 views a day compared to 600 for smart city which also is supportive of a merge. PeterEastern (talk)

I have now completed a selective cut/paste of all notable content into Smart City and converted this article into a redirect. I many part that I have not moved is the definition section that is already well covered in the smart city article. PeterEastern (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)