Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Sister Cities

On articles such as Washington, D.C., the list of sister cities does not match what is provided by Sister Cities International. In this example, the portion of the article even says itself that only 10 of the entries are listed on that website. I understand that agreements may be signed outside of Sister Cities Intl., but where can that information be found? Is there another general website that I am missing, or is this something that should be referenced for each city not listed at Sister Cities Intl.? My particular concerns is the trend of new and/or anonymous editors of adding new sister cities to numerous city articles without any indication of whether such is true or not. Sláinte! --Thisisbossi 16:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

When lack of a local source is unable or hard to find, I've found that Sister Cities International's website is a good definitive source for these. But I have noticed that there can be some discrepancies. For example, looking at Los Angeles, California, and there are some cities not on the SCI website that are on the Los Angeles Sister Cities website. In this case, I've gone with the local source as the better one and removed SCI from being referenced. Dr. Cash 20:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why do we consider Sister cities notable? Are we sure it passes WP:NOT? The information seems trivial at best. Alan.ca 22:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think they're definitely notable. But I still wouldn't put the priority very high. They show some interesting symbolic relationships between two cities internationally. Many cities have public displays of their sister city relationships as well (see Los Angeles, California, Louisville, Kentucky as examples). Dr. Cash 04:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sister Cities are "notable" since they are cities, and all cities are "notable." The Sister City relationship doesn't have to be "notable" to be appropriate content for an article, it just needs to be verifiable. It seems like it would be good information to include in an enclopedia article, since it is interesting (to some of us) in itself and because it provides a useful research lead, both to the local Sister City committees and the frequently "notable" people involved and to news articles about the Sister City relationship. For example, one of San Jose's sister cities is Dublin. It started because our Irish-American mayor made friends with the Lord Mayor of Dublin; they both ended up leading delegations to the other's city, which generated lots of news coverage (plus, I got to meet the LM and his entourage, since they were interested in garbage and wastewater treatment); the Lord Mayor became Taoiseach of Ireland, which meets just about any notability standard that could be thought up here. Similar exchanges involving "notable" personages are typical of sister city relationships, depending on the size of the cities. Regarding pairs that aren't listed on the SCI website, I think that some were affiliated with the organization, but dropped off when the local committee didn't manage to sustain itself. Others might have been products of the People to People Program.--Hjal 06:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding media

What is appropriate for inclusion in a Media section for a city? Local newspapers, radio, and TV stations seem like locks, but recently, users have been adding online news sources dedicated to covering a particular area in the Media section of several cities on my watchlist. (For example, OwensboroReport.com for Owensboro, Kentucky and MuhlenbergNewsOnline.com for Central City, Kentucky.) Some of these look like blogs to me. A link was also added to a local classified ad paper in one instance. What guidelines can I cite in terms of links in the media section? Acdixon 19:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Consider reviewing WP:EL and WP:NOT. Alan.ca 01:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review requested for Madrid

A Peer review has been requested for Madrid, the article about the capital city of Spain, and an article within the scope of WikiProject Cities. Please feel free to edit the Madrid article to improve it and/or leave a comment at Wikipedia:Peer_review#Madrid. EspanaViva 18:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! There was a list of concerns provided quite some time ago at Talk:Madrid/Comments. Alan.ca 11:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've started to peek at it too. —MJCdetroit 13:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy the comments referred to above directly onto the peer review page. Thanks again! EspanaViva 20:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

City Infrastructure

I would think that a city's infrastructure - water, electricity, sanitation, transportation, parks & gardens, cemeteries - are essential to its operation and say a lot about a city's region/culture. I see great use in adding this category to the Wikiproject:Cities - does anyone else share this opinion, or see logic in this suggestion? THEPROMENADER 08:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Could you provide an example of an article where you have included this content that you feel exemplifies the inclusion in other city articles? Alan.ca 03:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for ThePromenader, but I can offer examples I've noticed around here:

• New Haven, Connecticut
• State College, PA

--orlady 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the New Haven article doesn't sway me either way. However, the State College, PA article is an example of a list bringing down the quality of the article. Do you know of any FA class articles with such a section? Alan.ca 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't claim those were good examples; they are merely examples I had run across recently. I agree that the State College content is poor. Also, I am dismayed to see that the New Haven article does not mention shipping facilities in the city's harbor. --orlady 16:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

San Jose Utilities includes the "infrastructure" for water and wastewater, plus garbage & recycling services, gas and electricity, and cable. Transportation is in the section just above this one. Since cities were frequently founded because of their water supply (and have sometime failed when their water supply failed), this seems like enclyclopedic information. High tech firms look at the price and dependability of energy, availability of clean water (having Hetch Hetchy water may mean not having to purify much or at all before use in manufacturing), and treatment plant capacity and discharge restrictions, just as they look at highway access and rail spurs when they choose new locations. OTOH, not every city has cemetaries in town—San Francisco evicted almost all of theirs 100 years ago.--Hjal 05:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems the San Jose article is 73 kb in length. My main concern when considering these options for official coverage is that we may be creating huge articles that are overwhelming to read and maintain. Do you know when San Jose was reviewed for FA class status? Alan.ca 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As someone unfamiliar with San Jose, I find the utilities info in that article to be informative. However, the list of stuff that the city recycles could stand to be trimmed: "The list includes all plastic categories 1 through 7; aerosol cans and paint cans; polystyrene including "packing peanuts" and hard foam packing, such as in electronic and computer products' boxes; aluminum furniture; small metal appliances; metal pots and pans (including cast iron); and clean cotton, linen, polyester, rayon, and wool fabrics (for example, blankets, clothes, cloth diapers, rags, and sheets)." (I will go trim it.) --orlady 16:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Progress chart

I replaced the featured article listings on the page with a progress chart, similar to progress charts that have appeared in other wikiprojects. The progress chart was originally put together by the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Team, and I just updated some of the numbers. They should be correct as far as I can tell.

So, it looks like most of the articles tagged for this Wikiproject are unassessed and unrated. So I guess there's a lot of work to do with the tagging. But on the bright side, we've got 36 articles that are currently rated as Featured Articles, so that's great! Dr. Cash 23:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• FYI, I created that chart/bot process and it is included in our Assessment Department page. Changes to the table are documented in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Assessment#Assessment_log. Alan.ca 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding Template:Infobox City to all U.S. Cenus Areas (41,903 cities/towns/townships/villages/etc.)

I am considering adding the Infobox City template to all place articles in the United States (41,903 of them, mostly from the Rambot). Please read and contribute to the discussion at the template's talk page: Template talk:Infobox City#Adding to all US Cenus Areas (41,903 cities/towns/townships/villages/etc.) --CapitalR 11:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

City template

The page says "There are 3 proposals for a revised city template, see talk page", but the talk page doesn't list any. Are there still proposals, or is there a standard template? In particular, was there resolution on the "notable natives" section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eostrom (talk • contribs) 06:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Wondering this myself. The main page itself is a mess. There are two different city templates on the main page... Mahanga^{Talk to me} 22:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Check the archives. I did a quick check and found a brief mention here and the first few discussions here. As far as I can gather (it was before my time here, too) there wasn't much discussion or consenses. Brien Clark^Talk 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer the "notable natives/residents" to be well down in the article for two reasons. 1) the article is about corporate identity not individual accomplishments. Cities aren't notable because certain people live there. 2) more practically, this section gets vandalized more than others. Vandals may not get that far in the article. Other sections take more intelligence to vandalize!  :) Can this be changed? Student7 19:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem on WP:FAC

Jerusalem is currently undergoing a featured article candidacy. The FAC page is transcluded below (feel free to remove it from this page if the FAC gets too long):

Jerusalem

Peer review SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

You may be looking for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jerusalem/archive2 which was originally at this page.

Self-nomination The Jerusalem article is comprehensive and very well-referenced, fulfilling all of the featured article criteria. Although there has been some controversy in the past about the idea of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, the article has remained relatively quiet and stable, with objections being very rare. The article presents the city of Jerusalem in a neutral light with "brilliant" prose. The article does not use any fair-use images and it does not appear to violate any standards set forth by WikiProjects and Wikipedia in general. Before anyone gawks at the length shown when hitting the edit this page link, I would like to note that there are only about thirty-four kilobytes of readable prose; that is well within the "rule of thumb" established by Wikipedia:Article size. -- tariqabjotu 04:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Tariq, per the FAC instructions, you forgot to identify this as a self-nomination; you're the top contributor to the article according to page history stats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Without going into great detail about the unnecessary nature of the red text... I thought that instruction had been removed (and it really ought to be; it's not like it's my article and it shouldn't make a difference whether the nominator has worked on an FAC). -- tariqabjotu 02:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The reference for it being the largest city seems very strange indeed. Don't they have a census?--Pharos 08:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know; I agree there are too many sources for that one fact (there is a census) and for the fact regarding Jerusalem being a Jewish center since the 10th century BCE. Take a look at #Sources (January 2007) from the talk page. -- tariqabjotu 11:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have shortened the references in question accordingly. -- tariqabjotu 13:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I've re-lengthened them. Unfortunately, this claim was the subject of a lengthy debate and edit war that lasted almost two months, until sufficient high-quality sources were provided so that it was indisputable. Sadly, certain topics are going to be disputed ad nauseam until they are proven to death, and the coffin nailed and chained shut with a giant padlock. This happens to be one of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • A response to Jayjg has been provided on the talk page of the article. -- tariqabjotu 20:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support, after tariqabjotu's extensive efforts (disclosure - I've been a very minor contributer to the article, mainly on the talk page). okedem 08:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a note, for compliance with FAC instructions; Okedem is in the top 10 contributors to the article, according to page history statistics. (Nothing personal, okedem; I'd just like to see better compliance in general with the instructions at FAC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As flattering as that might be, it's only by number of edits, not by content. Almost all of those edits were reverts of vandalism. I've added very little content to the article. okedem 20:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Interesting article on a great city. Some suggestions: "Sports" subsection should be pruned. Which clubs won in which year is not necessary in this article (years are important in individual club articles). You can simply delete the subsection, and include the names of popular sports and prominent clubs in a paragraph at the end of "Culture" (before the subsection "Religious subsection"). The short paragraph on "Israel Festival" may be merged with the upper paragraph, and a separate short paragraph on sports may be created.

It would be nice if some crime statistics are added in the "Demographics" section. The one-sentence paragraph on the use of "Jerusalem stone", why is that added in "climate"? Any impact of climate on the use of the stone?

I have a feeling that the article is over-wikilinked. Have had some talks with User:Tariqabjotu in this regard. Comments from other users would help in this matter. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the amount of links is fine (not over-linked). I don't think a reader should have to go back looking for a link, when he just wants some information about a specific subject (and so doesn't read the whole thing in one sitting). okedem 08:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the championship years from the Sports section, although I was a bit apprehensive about removing the sub-section altogether; it seems to go against the article structure established at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities. I'll find some information on crime in Jerusalem a bit later (unless someone else gets to it first) and add crime as a sub-section under demographics. -- tariqabjotu 14:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to get around to this in about sixteen hours. I'm having trouble finding crime stats in English. I was able to find this page which seems to relate to crime statistics, but I don't know Hebrew. I'm can't seem to find the English translation and the search box on the English version of the Police website is not working. -- tariqabjotu 04:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

These are crime statistics, and they do have statistics for the different districts (like the Jerusalem district), but only in absolute numbers (like "number of murder cases"), not anything comparative (like "number of robberies per 1,000 residents"). Not very useful. okedem 09:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I do not think starting the article with "Jerusalem is Israel's capital" is the most npov way to handle the dispute over Jerusalems' status. As a suggestion, I point you to Encarta's intro for Jerusalem which I think handles it very well:

Jerusalem (Hebrew Yerushalayim; Arabic Al Quds), city lying at the intersection of Israel and the West Bank, located between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea, about 50 km (about 30 mi) southeast of the Israeli city of Tel Aviv-Yafo. Jerusalem is composed of two distinct sections: West Jerusalem and East Jerusalem. West Jerusalem, which is inhabited almost entirely by Jews, has been part of Israel since Israel was established in 1948. East Jerusalem, which has a large Palestinian Arab population and recently constructed Jewish areas, was held by Jordan between 1949 and the Six-Day War of 1967. During the war, East Jerusalem was captured by Israel, which has administered it since. Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital, but Palestinians dispute the claim and the United Nations has not recognized it as such. Jews, Christians, and Muslims consider Jerusalem a holy city, and it contains sites sacred to all three religions. --A.Garnet 13:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to turn this into another "Capital of Israel" discussion, but concisely - Israel doesn't "claim" Jerusalem is its capital. Jerusalem is, de facto and de jure, its capital. It is the seat of government, parliament, supreme court, president's and PM's quarters. Israel has designated it as capital, and it serves as capital - thus it is capital. International recognition is not a prerequisite for a capital. okedem 14:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe a more than signficant part of the international community does not accept Israel administering East Jeursalem as part of its capital, therefore this is a significant political dispute, enough to warrant us handling the intro with a bit more sophistication (certainly for an FA). I believe there is nothing wrong with a similar intro to the Encarta suggestion I made above. --A.Garnet 14:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been an age-old issue on this article. See Talk:Jerusalem/capital, Talk:Jerusalem#Capital of Israel, Talk:Jerusalem#Capital, "largest city" out of intro, Talk:Jerusalem#RfC, among other places. Take that as you wish. However, let me point you to the definition of capital. On Wikipedia capital and seat of government are two different articles, but they are essentially the same thing (the former article defines capital as the principal city or town associated with a country's government). According to Merriam-Webster, the capital is a city serving as a seat of government. Well, those definitions certainly apply here. The executive, judicial, and legislative branches for Israel are all located within the city of Jerusalem. There is a footnote attached to the statement in the first line. On this topic, I might advocate saying seat of government instead of capital or closing the gap between capital and the mention of the controversy. However, the very act of suggesting this could result in me being shunned from society. As usual. -- tariqabjotu 14:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of seat of government is a good alternative. What do you mean you will be "shunned from society" for suggesting this? --A.Garnet 14:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Essentially, one would see what boils down to we've discussed this before; now get over it. The problem is that this dispute has been muddied up by accusations that people advocating mentioning capital without qualification are pro-Israel, Jewish Zionists, etc., etc., whereas people against it are trying to make Jerusalem the capital of Palestine or are anti-Semitic, pro-Muslim, etc., etc. There have been times when this mud-slinging has been avoided (especially recently), but it's still a problem. I believe seat of government is the best way to keep the important fact in the intro without having to over-emphasize the controversy. In my opinion, it's neutral, but others see it as dancing around the topic. Note that prior to September 2006, "capital" was not mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Additionally, an RfC from January was inconclusive. -- tariqabjotu 14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont want this FAC to be reduced to a dispute over the intro, but imo, if there is a better more encylopedic alternative, then it should be used regardless of what people "want". Seat of government is an excellent alternative and I would support it. Thanks, --A.Garnet 15:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Other alternatives raised included saying "national capital" and linking to Positions on Jerusalem. That could be a reasonable idea as well since most people know what a "capital" is and so the link to Positions on Jerusalem might be more useful. If I remember correctly, okedem (talk · contribs) agreed with an intro that included that (see this section), although I'm unsure if (s)he was aware of that link. So for clarification the ideas proposed over the past six or seven months have included....

1. Current phrasing.
2. "capital", with link to Positions on Jerusalem
3. seat of government, instead of capital
4. Moving "capital" out of the first sentence
5. Closing the gap between saying "capital" and mentioning the related controversy

To be honest, all I care about is getting this article featured. I can live with the current phrasing if most people are okay with it, but I get the feeling that that is not entirely the case. On a side note, however, I'd like to point out that, as far as I know, the "international community" has rejected Jerusalem as the capital of Israel as a form of punishment. In the same manner many Arab nations refuse to recognize Israel as a sovereign nation as a form of punishment (for what...?), much of the international community refuses to accept Jerusalem as Israel's capital -- even though it is -- due to the annexation of East Jerusalem (against some UN resolution somewhere, I believe). I think we may have trouble with the first sentence of this article being used in a Today's Featured Article Main Page blurb, as some important information is missing, but the footnote should suffice here. The expectation that someone would at least read the entire introduction (which does mention the controversy) is not unreasonable. Additionally, the statement by itself that Jerusalem is Israel's capital is not incorrect. So again, I'm okay with the current wording, but okay if a great number of people see it as problematic. -- tariqabjotu 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Attempting a compromise here, I added seat of government, without removing "capital", to emphasize the correctness of the term capital. -- tariqabjotu 16:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on this is: We shouldn't use any phrasing which does not include the word "capital", since that's simply evasive. We use the word capital for every other capital city in the world, and Jerusalem shouldn't be any different. We should state the fact that it is capital, and it should be in the first sentence, as it is a major function. Despite all objections, going by the definition for "capital", Jerusalem is one.

Linking to "Positions..." seems like a good idea.

Is there a difference between "capital" and "national capital"? okedem 17:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a difference between "capital" and "national capital". -- tariqabjotu 17:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how to close the gap between "capital", and the controversy, since that's a whole paragraph, and I don't want to flatten the issue to just a few words (like "its status is disputed"), when we can be far more informative. Honestly, I think the current phrasing is the best possible. I know the "capital" issue bothers many people, but it's just stating the facts, not saying that it's okay or anything. okedem 17:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the current wording is probably the best possible. I definitely believe that any Main Page blurb that mentions capital should link to Positions on Jerusalem since the footnote, for obvious reasons, cannot be put on the Main Page. But, on placing the link in the article itself, I'm indifferent; we may have done enough already. -- tariqabjotu 17:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

How about stating "...capital, as claimed by Israeli law..." (with footnote, of course).--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. I say this again - by any common definition of the word "capital", Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. It's not claimed, it just is, regardless of how right or internationally recognized it might be. okedem 19:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont find your position constructive okedem, you do not seem willing to accept anything that does not introduce Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, regardless of its internationally disputed status. Put simply, we cannot introduce Jeursalem on the front page of Wikipedia in front of 2m+ people as the capital of Israel, not when that capital entails the administration of an occupied part of the city whoses status remains unclear and the centre of much political debate. This is very simple, the solution is very simple as has been shown by myself and Tariq's suggestion. Now imo if this solution cannot be implemented because it will risk edit warring, and we must rely on a pov wording open to controversy, then this article is not stable enough to warrant FA status (which is a shame because the rest of the article is very good). --A.Garnet 20:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You do not seem to address my point. A capital is a simple term, and it has a definition, which you can find in any dictionary and encyclopedia. Following that definition, Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Writing it any other way would distort the truth, and mislead the readers. It's current status and function as capital is reality, and not open to debate. Whether it should be under Israel's control, whether it's just and legal - that's another thing.

The controversy is handled well in the last paragraph of the lead. For the front page we can use something like this:

"Jerusalem ... is Israel's capital, and largest city (though its legal status is disputed, see Positions on Jerusalem)...". okedem 20:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

<- (de-intent) Exactly. The Main Page blurb does not have to be the first paragraph of the article. Additionally, a suitable Main Page blurb is not a pre-requisite for featured article status. The threat of preventing featured status from being granted is not constructive at all. -- tariqabjotu 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My friend, I have made no threat in preventing this from reaching FA. I have said on the contrary that I would support your earlier suggestion and that the article is very good. For me however, no reputable encylopedia would begin an article on Jerusalem stating it as Israel's capital unless explained within the greater conflict. I'll leave this for other editors to comment lest you think I have some kind of interest in preventing this from reaching FA. --A.Garnet 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where I should put this comment, but here willdo: Just want to say that the point in the sentence about Jerusalem's status as Israel's capital not being recognised by the UN is irrelevant - recognition of capitals (any capitals) is a bilateral matter between governments. If you want to make the point I think you're trying to make, you need to say something about the number of countries that have located their embassies in Jerusalem (not many). PiCo 10:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment "Demographics" would be comprehensive with coverage of population density, literacy, sex ratio etc. Crime scenario is not that important. Languages spoken should be mentioned.
• "Culture" Can we have something on the cuisine, dress (clothing)? Any indigenous sports? Any products unique to Jerusalem which are probably sold in some alleyways in the Old City (just guessing :)).
• "Economy" What is the primary source of income? Tourism or service sector? Or may be both are equally contributive.

Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps some of the information under Demographics would be nice, but I want to warn you that those statistics may be difficult to find. As those pieces are tailored to the Indian city Wikiproject, I have a feeling they are easy to find in India's census. The same might not be true for Israel and Jerusalem. -- tariqabjotu 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Ok, if data is not available, then of course that cannot be added. Please have a try. And what about the cultural bits like clothing and cuisine etc?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Please try this, this, and related documents. How did they generate the data here? Here is a book. Someone may find it in some library. However, IMO, data is really hard to get. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean to say data is really hard to get? If you meant really easy... um... I have been doing some searching and found very little prior to posting the comment above. Regardless, the first couple of sources look good. The book does not look like something that could be found in a standard library. Regarding the link in the middle, I stumbled upon that earlier but was dismayed that the stats included the West Bank and Gaza. If I remember correctly (from online sources I mean), the last census was in 1995. I'll try to find that and also look for later estimates, since 1995 information is a bit outdated. -- tariqabjotu 19:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen the things I added today to "demographics" and "economy"? The CBS has some good data. okedem 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright; I'll take a look at those. I'll be out of town until Sunday night (~ 00:00 UTC Monday). I may have Internet access while I'm away, but I cannot guarantee that. During that time, feel free (as always) to improve the article. -- tariqabjotu 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I really did mean that data is really hard to get. I did some search, and presumed you might have done much more extensive search than what I did. I must clarify that I did not make any sarcastic comment. I am only trying so that the article becomes even more comprehensive. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support Its very very well done. Its very well cited, and I'm highly impressed with this article Max 07:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Object switched to "support", see below. The fact that a large part of the city lies in the occupied territories should be explicitly mentioned in the introduction, as that is a central topic of debate, not only relating to Jerusalem itself but also to the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a whole. The statement from the introduction Israel's annexation of the primarily Arab neighborhoods that form East Jerusalem has been particularly controversial, as Jerusalem has been claimed by Palestinians as the capital for a future Palestinian state is not explicit enough. Given that even "occupied territories" is a hotly debated term it may be difficult to find a suitably NPOV way of phrasing it, but nevertheless it's a very important fact and must not be weaseled around. Kosebamse 11:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  I don't understand your objection. The issue is mentioned right there in the lead, and is not "weaseled around". Do you want it to be phrased differently? Make a suggestion, then. The issue is also handled in "History-->The state of Israel", and the whole section of "Government". okedem 11:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  Where is it "mentioned right there in the lead"? The only reference that I can find is the sentence that I cited and that is IMO not sufficient. There is no link there to the capture of East Jerusalem in 1967, to the law that formalised the annexation, or to the occupied territories in general. I am thinking of an explicit phrase along the lines of "situated partially in the occupied territories of West Bank (see also Jerusalem Law and Positions on Jerusalem)". I certainly would not insist on a particular way of phrasing it, but the matter should not be mentioned en passant and without a relevant link or two. Kosebamse 12:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC), amended 12:53, 12 April 2007

  I have made a suggestion on Talk:Jerusalem. Kosebamse 13:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  The matter has been discussed on Talk:Jerusalem, new phrasing is better IMO, retracting my objection. Kosebamse 14:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  Support. Overall, a well written, neutral and comprehensive article. (Note: I have made another suggestion for improvement on the talk page. )Kosebamse 15:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support. A good, in depth article that presents Jerusalem with as much of an NPOV as I have seen on Israel pages. --יהושועEric 19:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support. An inordinate amount of time and effort has been invested in this article, more than in many other FAs. nadav 10:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to stick my neck out and declare that 1d is a problem for me. The bias towards Judaism and Israel is variously subtle and not so subtle. It's a very difficult topic on which to achieve geopolitical and cultural balance in this context. Tony 13:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you have any examples? -- tariqabjotu 22:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Just to start, what hits you in the face is the point of departure: it frames J entirely in Isreali terms, rather than taking a broad, historical sweep, and then providing the detail. Propriety is too hot an issue to take that line at the top. It's not good enough to put the disclaimers further down in the lead. The ambiguous (some would say "rich and complex") status of the city in political terms should be respected at the point of departure. I see now that similar issues have been raised above. The point of departure bias appears to be repeated on a smaller scale in lists in the lead. I think it needs to make more effort to acknowledge the Moslem view. I have absolutely no religious affiliations, and I have no interest in prioritising race and culture; quite the opposite. Tony 02:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

"frames J entirely in Isreali terms"? I think that is an exaggeration. We can all agree that NPOV is a priority for this article, but obviously we must mention in the first sentence the country where (most) of the city is located. In future, the east side will hopefully be the capital of Palestine, but there is no reason to omit that it is Israel's capital/seat of government already (and will continue to be, according to the Oslo accords). It would be unprecedented and unencyclopedic to bury the current status after a long history section. For that topic, we have History of Jerusalem. nadav 08:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Look at other articles about cities with long histories - they necessarily focus on modern times, and leave most of the history to another article. There's no way to avoid "framing Jerusalem in Israeli terms" - It's under Israel's control, has been for 59 years (west) and 40 years (east). It's populated by Israeli citizens, and is the nation's capital, housing all branches of government. It's an Israeli city, for better or worse. Of course, if you (Tony) have specific suggestions - please express them on the talk page. okedem 09:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Other cities with long histories? Like ... London or Paris, or Beijing? They are not the subject of bitter disputes over sovereignty. I'm not suggesting that the Israeli hold over the city be ignored in the article, or even in the lead. On the contrary, I'm suggesting that this claim not be framed as the starting point, and that rather a sense of the long, rich, multicultural history of the city be the theme in the opening paragraph, followed by a careful account, from a NPOV stance, of the current geopolitical status. Otherwise, WP might be seen to repeat in its text one of the adversarial perspectives that may be fuelling the real-life conflict. To achieve NPOV in this article, as I stated above, is a difficult task, although achievable, I think, with greater sensitivity to the major groups that lay claim to such sovereignty than is conveyed by the current opening. A special treatment is required; pointing to the structure, tone and content of articles on Moscow or Delhi, IMV, misses the point; Jerusalem is like no other city.

I must reiterate that I mean no ill-will to any religion or cultural group in my recommendation that a more balanced opening be developed. My only concern is to ensure that WP's worldwide reputation for balance is not put at the slightest risk by a gold-star endorsement of the opening wording. Tony 09:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not confuse the legality of Israel's claim over the city with the reality of it. Jerusalem, regardless of international perspective, is under Israel's full control, and has been for a long time now. It is an Israeli city, and that's the fact today. There's serious controversy over its future, sure, but that is handled in the article right now. The only sovereign entity there is Israel, even if other group want sovereignty too.

I can't really say anything more - if you'd like to make specific suggestions, I'd be glad to discuss them with you, and I'm sure the other editors would too. okedem 10:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

But my point is that the article currently does confuse those two concepts. Tony 11:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to skirt the issue by placing the current status after a long history section. I do, however, see a compromise. We keep the current first sentence, but move up to the second sentence the statement "Jerusalem has been claimed by Palestinians as the capital for a future Palestinian state" which now appears towards the bottom. Reactions? (We should probably move this discussion to Talk:Jerusalem by now). nadav 10:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Support This article is as NPOV as possible satisfying both sides. A great article and thoroughly fascinating Flymeoutofhere 10:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Object The lead is simply unacceptable, as it does not adequately summarize the article. It has no word on history, only on religion and geography. The reader will never learn that Jerusalem is first and foremost the holiest city in Judaism. Now the article jumbles together Jerusalem's role in Judaism, which is immense, and the fact that the city was Muhammad's first direction of prayer, a minor and insignificant fact, which was only the case for a very brief time period. Beit Or 17:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Did you miss this sentence: "Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the spiritual center of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE."?

I don't pertain to know much about Islam, but Jerusalem is considered holy to Muslims, and that's a fact. The lead doesn't talk about the reason, and says nothing about direction of prayer (besides, isn't Jerusalem where Muhammad is believed to have ascended to the heavens from?). What would you like to add about history? We can add a paragraph summarizing the history section. okedem 18:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is such a sentence, but its buried after the completely misleading claim "Jerusalem is considered important to the three major Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam." The lead does mention Muhammad's direction of prayer despite the extremley low importance of this fact; please read carefully. Beit Or 18:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem is holy to Christians and Muslims only because it is the holy city of Judaism, to which the other religions are styled as successor traditions. I am not aware that Jerusalem, unlike Mecca, Medina, Najaf or Karbala, has ever played any practical role in Islam, either related to the discharge of religious duties or as a center of administration, excepting seventeen months during which it was the direction of prayer for a few hundred people who had never visited the city.Proabivouac 19:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. The Night of Ascension is exclusive to Islam and the crucifixion of Jesus is insignificant in Judaism. -- tariqabjotu 03:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Tariqabjotu. Do you have any evidence for your assertion that "Jerusalem is holy to Christians and Muslims only because it is the holy city of Judaism". --Agha Nader 03:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Object, simply because the article - like the city, it sadly seems - will never be entirely stable, and will never be free of NPOV arguments and partisanship. Featuring it will invite more strife and discord, and that's precisely something we don't need on this topic. This may very well be the best-written article in WP; but the underlying topic is simply too controversial to showcase it. My apologies on all those who have worked hard on it - my view should not discount your efforts and accomplishments. --Leifern 18:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This objection is not actionable and can be disregarded. (Rule of thumb: most any objection containing the phrase "this article can never be a featured article beccause..." is inactionable) Raul654 03:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how I could address this. Many changes are being made according to statements on this FAC and the talk page or in attempts to fight vandalism, but that does not make the article unstable. Objecting to granting featured status on the basis that doing so might lead to "strife and discord" does not seem to be reasonable. If there is a problem with the article as it currently is, please raise the matter. However, if your objection is based solely on conjecture (i.e. "what could happen"), there's no decent objection here. -- tariqabjotu 03:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, look at the discussion that's resulting from the nomination itself. For some people, anything that gives Jerusalem any amount of legitimacy as Israel's capital or even a holy city for Jews is unacceptable; for others, efforts to deprive Israel of its sovereign right to choose its own capital is reprehensible. You can't bridge those two views in an article. --Leifern 13:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
      • I beg to differ on that last point. A compromise seems possible here as people from both sides of the aisle (if there is an aisle) seem to have converged upon Talk:Jerusalem#Compromise. Ultimately at the end of the day, some of the objections may just be out of line. Everyone is free to voice his or her opinion, but no one is bound to accept it as correct when that's just not the case. -- tariqabjotu 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Object I must concur with Beit Or regarding the lead. It is certainly appropriate to mention Jerusalem's secondary role in Christianity and even more minor role in Islam, but to treat these as mirror images of or somehow analogous to Judaism's singular focus on Jerusalem, which appears to have been quite consciously done at several turns, constitutes undue weight. A greater emphasis on history in the lead will also help address this problem.Proabivouac 19:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, please assume good faith - we're all working for a better article here.

Look at it another way - Judaism is a minor religion, with a few million believers. Islam and Christianity have, combined, billions of believers. Thus, even a relatively minor role is one of them can be viewed as very important.

Look. We can all argue about what weight to give each thing, and we'll never be completely pleased. We can't make the lead long enough to include everything, and we don't want to leave things out. Instead of calling out what you think is wrong, why not suggest a better way to phrase things? Please try. The talk page is right there, waiting for you. okedem 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to concur with Okedem on this; I don't see the problem. Jerusalem has been the holiest city in Judaism and the spiritual center of the Jewish people since the 10th century BCE seems to cover the matter. -- tariqabjotu 04:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Object I still do not agree with the current wording of the introduction. It's status as capital should be explained within the context of the conflict, not stated as fact in the first sentence. I have already said however that i'd agree with "seat of government" and the capital dispute explained further below. --A.Garnet 19:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

And I have explained why "capital" should remain, given that Jerusalem fulfills the definition of capital, which can be found in any dictionary or encyclopedia, and does not include any demand for international recognition. Saying anything other than "capital" would distort reality, and mislead the readers. okedem 19:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be fine for almost every other city; but not for this one. On one side, yes, J does fulfil that definition, but it's a disputed definition. That is why POV cannot be satisfied by privileging that statement. The order in which the participating cultures/religions are treated, on the largest and the smallest levels, should also be varied during the article, to give a sense of even-handedness. Tony 22:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Please try not to over-politicize the lead; it simply states the facts as they are. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm gobsmacked that you can't see that the current wording is highly politicised. That's why people are raising POV here. BTW, Object (Cautious withdrawal of object) until the issues are fixed. Tony 22:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The only thing "politicizing" it is your attempt to claim that simple facts are "political". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, everyone agrees that as of now all of Jerusalem is controlled by Israel. That is not the point. The argument is that the question of what Jerusalem's status should be is so very controversial that mention of it should already be mentioned in the very beginning. Encyclopedists have struggled with this issue before. Encarta devotes its entire first paragraph to this controversy. What do you think of the compromise on the talk page? nadav 23:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a fact that Jerusalem is controlled by Israel; it is also de facto and de jure Israel's capital. The U.N. has no input into which cities countries elect as their capital, nor do other countries. To insist that basic facts cannot be stated because of Palestinian wish lists and demands is fairly absurd. Shall we also say that Tel Aviv is not an Israeli city, because Hamas insists that it too is "occupied Palestinian land"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No no no, I would never say that. Instead we should give more weight to the question of future status by adding text on Palestinian claims, while keeping fact that Jerusalem is Israel's capital. nadav 00:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"a disputed definition"? Disputed by who? Can you find any definition of "capital" which has a requirement for international recognition? All definitions I found are basically this: "a city is the capital if it's designated as such, and/or if it's the seat of government." Jerusalem fulfills both these terms, so, obviously, it's the capital of Israel. Capital describes a reality, and shouldn't be bent to political claims. okedem 08:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I am very saddened by the turn this discussion is taking. Editors have worked so hard on this article and it has been years in development. FA status would have been a remarkable statement that even on tough issues with entrenched POV's, compromise is still possible and an excellent article can exist on Wikipedia. Perhaps I was too optimistic. It seems people are too unwilling to work together and accept compromises that achieve a higher goal. (I don't want to ponder the political implications.) It will be sad indeed if Leifern's objection is proved correct. nadav 23:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment regarding lead I have made a few changes to the intro. Please review and comment either here or on the talk page -- wherever you feel is more appropriate. -- tariqabjotu 06:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO the change is not an improvement. What does "remains meaningful to Palestinians, who see it as the capital for a future palestinian state" mean? It certainly does not do justice to the intensity of the struggle over the status of Jerusalem. The second Intifada is known as the Al-Aska Intifada. Jerusalem's status is one of the key (some say intractable) issues at the core of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Many Palestinians considered Oslo a sell out becuase it prosponed the decision on the status of the Jerusalem to the final stage. Then there is the question of the attempts by the Israeli authorities to create facts on the ground by attempting to reduce the Palestinian population (by denying planning applications, beurocratic obstacles to granting residency rights of babies born to Palestinian families, removing residency rights from Palestinians who have spent more than two years abroud, constructing the wall on a route which isolates Palestinian areas, encircling Palestinian areas with new jewish neigbourhoods. Of course this does not need to be detailed in the intro. But the intro should make the bitterness of the conflict over Jeruslem clear (a conflict which has claimed hundreds of victims in Jerusalem over the last two decades). And the conflict should be given more space in the body of the article. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the Jerusalem article, not the Arab-Israeli conflict article. -- tariqabjotu 10:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

So it is. But the two are so intimately linked that is hard to talk about one without the other. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Tariq. This isn't the place. Do you want the lead to read: "And Palestinians have murdered more than a 1,000 Israelis in what they call the Al-Aska Intifada over control of Jerusalem"? Let's not turn this into another fight. Not everything needs to be about the conflict. It's mentioned, and that's enough. Please, we're trying to reach some acceptable phrasing here, and we can't put the entire article in the lead! okedem 10:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not consider "And Palestinians have murdered more than a 1,000 Israelis in what they call the Al-Aska Intifada over control of Jerusalem" to be a NPOV formulation. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 10:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nor would I, and I would never actually add such a sentence to the lead. What I'm trying to say it that we don't have to focus on the conflict in every single paragraph and article here - it's just not the place. If we stray from the cold hard facts (and start guessing just how important Jerusalem is for the Palestinians) we'll fight forever, and get nowhere. Better to stick with the current formulation. The lead already has more than enough about the current status, considering it's only the last 60 years, in a city with a history of at least 3,000 years. okedem 11:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

More comments

• Support. Tariqabjotu is to be commended for tackling this, and he's done a remarkable job of steering a middle course and trying to describe each position fairly. It's carefully written, well-sourced, interesting, comprehensive, easy to read, and it's a good length. I hope that editors who are opposing only on the basis of strong POV will reconsider. We don't have to agree with articles to be able to see the quality in them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Further comment—SV, this "middle course" is a matter for debate. What some reviewers see as a one-sided framing of the point of the departure, and in the ordering of other information in the article, is unchanged. Here's an example from lower down in the lead of subtle framing towards the Israeli claim:

"The civic and cultural center of modern Israel extends from western Jerusalem toward the country's other urban areas to the west, while areas populated mostly by Arabs may be found in the northern, eastern and southern districts." "Modern Israel" (as a state, with all of the advantages and prestige that a nation carries) is pitted agains individual "Arabs". The nation frame is reinforced in the same sentence with "the country's". The western part of the city is framed in terms of national ownership, and one that extends outward geographically into the "nation". By contrast, the other major group, the Arabs, are billed as only "mostly" populating "areas"; these are worded in terms of areas that "may be found" (vs. "extending"), and are further described as mere "districts". The bias in this article would provide fodder for a whole linguistics PhD dissertation.

As well as Criterion 1d, I wish to broaden my objection to 1a. Here are examples of why:

• • What is "storied history". "Storied doesn't seem to be a word.
  • Unnecessary amplifications and repetitions at the top: "... is Israel's capital and seat of government. It is Israel's largest city[iv] both in population and area, with a population of approximately 724,000 (as of 2006) in an area totaling 126". "is Israel's" x 2; "population" x 2; "area" x 2. Is "both" necessary? It's not used for "captial and seat of government". Is "totaling" necessary, instead of the unmarked "of"? Perhaps as a personal preference, I'd use "about" rather than "approximately", as shorter, plainer and less spiky.
  • "Barely one square kilometer,[7] the Old City is home to several of Jerusalem's most important and contested religious sites, including the Western Wall and Temple Mount for Jews, the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque for Muslims, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for Christians."—"in area" is required after "kilometer". There are two subset items ("several of" and "including"); can we do without one or both of these to strengthen the flow?
  • "Surrounding the Old City are more modern areas of Jerusalem." Is "of Jerusalem" necessary in this firm context? "More" is ambiguous—it could mean "further" or it could be comparative (more modern than the old city). Is the word necesssary at all? In any case, if it's retained, it needs a deictic ("the"). Tony 03:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • First, storied is a word. And so is nitpicking. I took care of most of the items in the second half of your statement. Regarding the first half... I pretty much left that alone. The lead is being discussed on the talk page quite a bit. In my opinion, I think you're over-analyzing things. There is little choice but to "pit" (uh... sure...) the country of Israel with individual Arabs. There's no other country to discuss, so what else are we to say? Israel is one of the most developed country in the region, so... you know... que sera sera. Neutrality does not mean distorting facts to ensure a disadvantaged group is portrayed as equal to a more advantaged group. Like I said, you're reading into things too hard. If you're willing to debunk an article based solely on petty semantics over whether "may be found" is used versus "extending" while also complaining that "population" is used twice in the first paragraph, you have come to the wrong place. -- tariqabjotu 04:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tariq. This looks like nitpicking, and moreover it comes down to stylistic preference. I think it reads very well as is. Even if you don't agree, will you dismiss the entire article because of it? nadav 05:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, whether we like it or not, around Jerusalem there's one sovereign country, Israel, and areas/districts populated with Arabs/Palestinians. Only one sovereign body here, one country. If you'd really like, we can add something like: "...mostly by Arabs may be found in the northern, eastern and southern districts (including areas controlled by the Palestinian National Authority)" (these are Bethlehem and Ramallah).

Of course there is some "framing" of Jerusalem as a part of Israel - It is a part of Israel! Israel controls all of it, it's Israel's capital, it's an Israeli city with Israelis living in it! So we talk about its history, we talk about the conflict, we talk about Palestinian claims to it, but still, today, it's an Israeli city. How would you like to phrase it?

Please, try not to read hidden meaning in every little word here. These words were chosen in good faith, not to try and hide/distort the truth. Don't confuse style with content. okedem 12:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• At the link you provided, "storied" = often spoken of or written about; famous:

Theirs was the most storied romance in Hollywood.

I suggest that you use a more familiar word, and one that you can be sure is appropriate. Romance novels or the tabloids may "story" a love affair, but I'm unsure whether the history of a city is an appropriate use for this epithet.

These were examples of why the whole article needs the attention of a copy-editor, preferably one who's unfamiliar with the text.

It's easy to accuse me of "overanalysing" that passage, but you offer no qualitative rejoinder or rebuttal to the points I made in that analysis: that the bias is subtle and infused throughout the wording. Accusing me of "petty semantics" and "reading into things too hard" isn't going to contribute to serious debate here, either. And if you don't care about ungainly repetition, right at the top, you've come to the wrong place; this article isn't going to satisfy the criteria. Nor is your insincere and apparently gloating "que sera sera" a serious rebuttal. There's a circularity about the world-view espoused here. Tony 07:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of turning the entire future of the Jerusalem article into a silly argument over a word, let me offer the following def.s from Random House unabridged [1] and from Merriam-Websters [2] resp.: "1. recorded or celebrated in history or story: the storied cities of ancient Greece.", "2 : having an interesting history : celebrated in story or history <a storied institution>" nadav 12:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that you were sending mixed messages when you advocated both word variety (by complaining about the repetition of "population") and lack of word variety (by complaining about the "areas" vs. "extending" bit) in the same comment. Additionally, I'm unsure where you get gloating from. I was saying that Israel is the most developed country in the Middle East; that's the way it is whether you like it or not. So, it would be very difficult to portray Israel as being on equal footing as the West Bank or whatever political entity is located there. I did provide a rebuttal: you're reading into things too hard and inventing bias where none is actually present, in the same manner you misinterpreted my words (most likely inadvertently). I'm not sure how else to convey this. -- tariqabjotu 18:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Tony often comes up with nitpicking details regarding his own personal preferences that have nothing to do with proper or even preferred usage, and then opposes FA status ostensibly for those reasons. It's best to ignore them, rather than get worked up. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Tony, I feel you're being too harsh. The copy editing points you made are largely minor and boil down to preference. For example, I wouldn't write "Surrounding the Old City are the more modern areas of Jerusalem," but there's nothing wrong with it. It might be faster for you to tweak the writing than to leave detailed examples here.
• As for the POV issue, I can't see a POV in "The civic and cultural center of Israel extends from western Jerusalem toward the country's other urban areas to the west, while areas populated mostly by Arabs may be found in the northern, eastern and southern districts."
• You wrote of that sentence

  "Modern Israel" (as a state, with all of the advantages and prestige that a nation carries) is pitted agains individual "Arabs". The nation frame is reinforced in the same sentence with "the country's". The western part of the city is framed in terms of national ownership, and one that extends outward geographically into the "nation". By contrast, the other major group, the Arabs, are billed as only "mostly" populating "areas"; these are worded in terms of areas that "may be found" (vs. "extending"), and are further described as mere "districts". The bias in this article would provide fodder for a whole linguistics PhD dissertation.

• It is a fact that there is a state of Israel and that there is no other state on that piece of land. I feel that in trying to deconstruct that sentence in terms of bias, you may simply be reflecting your own, because I think most people would not see in it what you extracted from it. This is understandable because biases are hard to shake off, but I feel that tariqabjotu has managed it. How would you rewrite that sentence, as a matter of interest?
• I spoke to a friend about this yesterday. He was born in Israel and lived in Jerusalem for a few years as an adult. He is non-Zionist and doesn't like that the State of Israel exists in its current form, and he is himself a good writer, so I asked him to read this article. He said it was excellent. He said he doubted there is a more neutral way to present the contentious issues, and he called the article "a work of art." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why should we care about your non-Zionist friend? Beit Or 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Since when are the opinions of non-Zionists acceptable on Wikipedia? :-) ابو علي (Abu Ali) 14:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Because he's Israeli and cares deeply about the country; because he loves Jerusalem and knows a lot about it; and because he's non-Zionist and so, while loving Israel, he understands the hostility toward it. He's also a good writer. For all those reasons, I was interested to see what he made of the article. He called it a "work of art." I thought that was worth mentioning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have a Zionist friend, who is a professional writer and thinks that this article is a badly-written exercise in skewing the image of Jerusalem. Sounds impressive? Beit Or 22:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I was going to make a point-by-point analysis of the history section to demostrate it weaknesses, which are multiple. Since I have no time for that right, it may be enough to point out the on-going disputes on talk regarding history and lead to show that the article in its current state is light years away from featured status. Beit Or 21:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That discussion only started as a way to satisfy some of the complaints voiced here by you and others. As for Itzse, he meant well, but just added unsourced statements which were reverted. nadav 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm concurring with Nadav. The statement that this article is "light years away from featured status", especially based solely on those two discussions, is light-years away from being correct. -- tariqabjotu 23:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or, can you give an example of a sentence or paragraph that you feel is unacceptable: not just one that you don't like, but one that you feel is clearly too POV for FA status? Or if the issue is omission, can you give an example of a point you feel is missing and which you regard as important for neutrality? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you're pressing, a few quick points:

• The whole history section is mostly about changes in control. There is virtually nothing at all on the city proper: how it developed, for instance.
• The entire history of Jerusalem between the 6th century BCE and the time of Herod is missing. These are five centuries, full of lots of interesting events.
• "From that point, the rights of the non-Muslims under Islamic territory were governed by the Pact of Umar..." This is wrong and unhistorical, the Pact of Umar was developed by Muslim scholars of the 8th century onwards, who projected their rulings back to Umar in order to lend them greater authority.
• The section on religious significance contains three paragraphs: the shortest one on Judaism, the two longer ones on Christianity and Islam. This is absolutely unacceptable given the totally different weight given to Jerusalem by Jews, Christians, and Muslims. As I have pointed out above, the article strongly and consistently underplays the Jewish nature of Jerusalem.
• Why is there nothing at all on Jerusalem in literature and arts?

Beit Or 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If the Jerusalem article were any longer, it would be called too long. Editorial decisions have to be made on what to include. The time period before Herod is mentioned as including the Hasmonean rule. Note that there is also a lack of authoritative sources about this time, since it precedes Josephus. The religious significance paragraphs are merely summaries of topics that have entire subarticles devoted to them, so it is not useful to look at the difference of a few lines. Also, the Judaism paragraph appears first. nadav 00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Pact of Umar, the period discussed there is the 8th century. While its eventual codified form may have only appeared later, many scholars contend that its ideas date back to even pre-Islamic times. Most importantly, the statement in the article is sourced to an authoritative work by Marcus, who writes:

The Pact was probably originated about 637 by Omar I after the conquest of Christian Syria and Palestine. By accretions from established practices and precedents, the Pact was extended; yet despite these additions the whole Pact was ascribed to Omar...It is generally assumed that its present form dates from about the ninth century

So, in some form, the pact was already practiced. Moreover, the sentence in the article is also speaking about the 400 years that followed, which includes the time the time the pact was codified in its present form. If you don't like the current wording, I suggest you change it to something you find more agreeable. nadav 00:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Beit, much of the information you may be looking for is in (or at least should be in) the History of Jerusalem article, which is more detailed and lengthy than the section in the main Jerusalem article. I'll work on a footnote for the Pact of Omar though to clarify the matter and the questionable time frame of its creation. -- tariqabjotu 02:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The footnote on the Pact of Umar is even more POV (and, to put it bluntly, false) than the body of the article. In fact, it is the consensus opinion of modern historians that the Pact of Umar is a work of later Muslim jurists. If anything, the article seems to be getting worse. Beit Or 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you write something about it yourself for the article? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Will you give me a barnstar for that? :) Seriously, no, I'm not going to rewrite the lead and the whole history section. Beit Or 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No one asked you to; we're talking about the Pact of Omar piece. I too am itching to see your take on the matter. -- tariqabjotu 19:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Whether anyone asked me or not, this is what the article needs. Beit Or 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're not willing to propose a new wording for the footnote that you feel is neutral? I guess there's nothing else to see here then... -- tariqabjotu 19:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

One either reivews the article or makes substantial edits to it, but not both. At least, this is my understanding of the process. It is not appropriate to tell commenters on FAC "then go fix it if you care". In adidtion, I wasn't talking about the footnote only; both the body text and the footnote are unacceptable, and the latter has made the former look even worse. Beit Or 19:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to write something in the article, you can propose something either here or on the talk page. You can't just say the footnote is POV, but then withhold further rationale. The footnote clearly notes the timing of the Pact of Umar is debatable; one can easily find sources that support either position. What more do you want? -- tariqabjotu 20:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment above has misrepresented my arguments. I did not "withhold further rationale", but provided it, several times by now. It is a false and unattributed idea that the timing of the Pact of Umar is debatable; the consensus opinion of modern historians is that Umar never signed such a document. I can't be more clear than that. Beit Or 20:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The note doesn't say he did. Everyone agrees that in its current form, it did not originate with him. But Marcus says that in some (more limited) form it probably existed in his lifetime, and many point out that the pact is very similar to the earlier Persian law. Thus (say the experts cited in the note) it is reasonable to believe that the pact was already established practice in some form. nadav 00:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If by unattributed you mean sourced, then yes, that is correct. -- tariqabjotu 20:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

We're all editors here, Beit Or. We don't have one class of reviewers, and another class that does the actual work. If you want to see the section you complained about improved, and you know what you're talking about, by all means go ahead and improve it, or place your suggested text on the talk page for discussion. Can you give some sources for "the consensus opinion of modern historians is that Umar never signed such a document"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• comment images- can we get more images of the city, especially the modern city into this article. I think we could have a few more images of famous landmarks in the old city, but we need more images of the modern city here.--Sefringle 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A city peer review

Hi. I wondered if you have a moment to check that the outline of Minneapolis, Minnesota meets WikiProject City's goals, and if you have any suggestions or a model city to follow. A ton of work, but it is now separated into a main and daughter articles and has a template at the bottom serving as an index which seems to help on the smaller related articles. Here is a link to peer review in progress in case you have time. Thank you from a fan. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hello. Some feedback came during GA review, but none here or in peer review. So I am going with a hybrid of your outline based on the advice of the two people who have edited Minneapolis and have some familiarity with your project. Of cities that are featured articles, Mumbai has always looked liked one of the best to me (no second level headings). Among U.S. cities that are featured, the present Minneapolis outline is closest to Boston, Massachusetts and Ann Arbor, Michigan, along the same lines as Mumbai. Sorry to depart from the standard but I guess it was meant to be flexible. -Susanlesch 06:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

City definition debate - Halifax, Nova Scotia

Hi, I have been having a raucous debate with another user over the use of the word city on this page Halifax, Nova Scotia. I think the debate boils down to this - because the Halifax Regional Municipality is a rural, suburban and urban area, with a single municipal government, it is hard to call it a city. However, the former city of Halifax does not exist in any legal way... further the adjacent suburban and urban areas all run together, its one big conurbation. Anyway, please have a look at the talk page and tell me what you think, I am tired of the argument but I think the user is wrong, but I am at wits end. WayeMason 01:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion for standard city format

I think it would be useful to have guidelines regarding the introduction of city articles, as there is too little consistency. My suggestion would be:

• City name and population (only ONE estimate or census)
• Metro population (only ONE estimate or census)
• Brief note about founding/historical roots
• Nicknames
• Its economic basis
• Other characteristics commonly associated with the city, unique to it (e.g. LA: entertainment, Detroit: music contributions, Houston: energy and NASA, etc....)

I just cleaned up Long Beach's intro and it had 5 paragraphs on tourism. Any thoughts?--Loodog 00:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, in a note that applies to the introduction as well as the article as a whole, I'd like the phrase "is known for", to be heavily contraindicated.--Loodog 01:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that only one estimate or set of census data for population is enough. However, I've found that the population and demographic information are typically the most heavily edited text in city articles, especially from anon users. If we were to implement an only one-source population rule, it will be difficult to regulate all the city articles.

This brings up the second difficulty, which I've come across in the Riverside, California article. An editor properly sourced a reputable 2006 population estimate and inserted it into the introduction, demographics, and city box. However, the remaining demographic information (metro area, ethnic breakdown, etc.) was still either from 2000 census data or 2005 ACS data, making the demographics now incomparable. In addition, lists like List of United States cities by population and List of United States metropolitan areas become incomparable as well, since they source the 2005 ACS data. Undoubtedly, an editor, when faced with an only one-source population rule, will choose the latest most-up-to-date population estimate, creating the above-described mess.

The remainder of your list seems to be comparable to a version recommended on the WikiProject page.

Lastly, you cite the reasoning to keep "is known for" information with the last bullet of your list: Other characteristics commonly associated with the city, unique to it (e.g. LA: entertainment, Detroit: music contributions, Houston: energy and NASA, etc....). —Brien Clark^Talk 03:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I mean at all. What I'm trying to avoid is when articles say, in the intro, "2000 Census puts <city> at <population>, but a 2005 estimate puts it at <population>," when the numbers are virtually the same anyway.

The version you cite is recommended has no guidelines on introduction, which is what I'm talking about.

"Is known for" as an exact phrase is clumsy,peacocky, and OR. It's this exact phrase I'd like exterminated.--Loodog 21:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you're referring to just the introduction. I understand now. I agree that only one population estimate should be listed. I disagree with "when the numbers are virtually the same anyway." Since I left my message, a well-meaning editor inserted a 2006 population estimate in lieu of the 2000 census data in Lake Elsinore, California. The difference, which was close to 10,000 people, represented a 32% increase in population.

So which is better? To have the most up-to-date population numbers, or to have comparable data? I tried to have both in the introduction of Riverside, California, without listing two population figures. It's not perfect, but I think a good compromise.

As far as the exact phrase "Is known for", I agree that it's not usually the best choice of words. For example, the introduction to Hollywood, Los Angeles, California does a nice job while not using the exact phrase. —Brien Clark^Talk 00:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We could make some sort of guideline for listing only one population unless differences are greater than x%.--Loodog 00:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but the semantics might be difficult. Whatever number we choose, it will arbitrary and some people will think it's too high or too low. And that's assuming most people could properly calculate the percentage. We could leave it vague, like most Wikipedia guidelines. Something like, "Except in rare occasions, the use of only one population estimate should be used in the introductory paragraph." This would provide the rationale to prevent editors from keeping two very similar statistics in the introduction, while also providing wiggle-room for those that think a change of x% is enough to warrant in the introduction.—Brien Clark^Talk 02:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm adding this to the guidelines on the project page.--Loodog 02:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Flagstaff, Arizona

Just for your attention - the city of Flagstaff has passed GA status. LordHarris 11:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

City template proposal

I've worked up a proposal for the city template, with better descriptions for individual areas, and accounting for many of the popular section I have seen in several city articles recently. Please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Proposed Template, and let me know what you think. Dr. Cash 01:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on this topic was moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Proposed Template. Please discuss this there. Dr. Cash 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Dominican Republic and Latin America Cities...TO ALL WIKIPEDIANS

Hi I am part of the Wiki Project Cities and i want to encourage wikipedians to not only edit cities of the United States and North America but to try to expand all the cities around the world. There's a lot of important cities in Latin America which haven't receive enough importance and their articles Miss a lot of info...We should make wikipedia a place were everything can be found. Here are a couple of Cities in the Dominican Republic and the Caribbeans that need a lot of help.

• Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
• Santiago de los Caballeros, Dominican Republic
• Panama City, Panama
• Guatemala City, Guatemala
• Santiago de Cuba, Cuba
• Havana, Cuba

and Much others to be fixed and expanded....If anyone is interested please let it known in my Talk page...(lets make this cities look better)EdwinCasadoBaez 05:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Amsterdam

I would appreciate if someone familiar with editing articles on large cities could take a look at Amsterdam. The sections are a bit of a mess, and some advice on when a subarticle (e.g "Education in Amsterdam") should be made would be useful. --User:Krator (t c) 19:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox anyone??

I noticed that there isn't a user box for members to use so I made one! How does it look? Any comments or suggestions? -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 05:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, but one suggestion, due to the fact that this project is more than just cities, it would be nice if it said something more encompassing like, "...articles about cities and various other settlements." This would better match the scope of the project. Here is an example of the suggestion. —MJCdetroit 18:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox:

This user is a member of WikiProject Cities, a project dedicated to improving articles on Wikipedia about cities.

This user is a member of WikiProject Cities, a project dedicated to improving articles about cities, towns, and various other settlements.

Navbox

I have looked over several city articles—particularly the FA-class articles—and have noticed there is no navbox template for cities. For example, the Houston navbox is currently a modification of the US state navbox. I also found other navboxes rather small. I propose we discuss and plan the creation of a city navbox. --I Are Scientists 22:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Hi. Here is one and some related which you're welcome to ignore if they don't help or critique if they do. Today I removed some from the city article because they were slowing down loading. The city template used to incorporate some of those parts but I moved them to independent parts so that the plain top city template could go on all of its child articles without adding too much weight. Thanks for raising the topic. It will be interesting to hear what other template stories people have. -Susanlesch 01:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the examples. I looked at the template of the navbox for Minneapolis and discovered that it was just the template for a generic navbox. I think the US state navbox would be a fair example of what the city navbox should look like (including the city's flag in the upper left corner) with several modifications to fit, of course. --I Are Scientists 01:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Sure. I made it generic to match the "50 largest U.S. cities" template and whatever other people cook up. At one time it was quite not-generic, with a flag like a state (I remember wondering if it might matter that some of the flags are copyrighted). Just a record of why. Best of luck in your discussion. -Susanlesch 01:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles on city boroughs

Does an article on a city borough need to include info that applies to the whole city, for example, climate data, city newspapers, city council? If so, does it matter that this info would be repeated in all that city's borough articles? Epbr123 16:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Boston, Massachusetts FAR

Boston, Massachusetts has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Population figure

Does the population figure need to be mentioned in lead if its shown in the adjacent infobox? Epbr123 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Maps and infoboxes

Greetings!

I have been working in collaboration with Ixnayonthetimmay to produce a number of high-quality, high-resolution SVG format city boundary maps. I was really unaware of the WikiProject here and now that I've found you I want to take this idea here and get some feedback as well as ideas. Please be aware that it's largely US-Centric, but as the US Cities wikiproject seems dormant I figured I'd come here for information.

Let me attempt to summarize. A large number of the sample maps drawn by either one of us are available on Wikicommons, under the same user names. Feel free to poke over there to get an idea of what we have been doing. In short, the goal has been to replace the "Red Dot Maps" that have so long been the standard on US city pages with larger, more accurate maps depicting city boundaries within a county. The cities in Arizona are largely complete as far as this goes, and I have switched over to trying them out with Michigan cities (specifically Metro Detroit area). This has provided the additional challenge of trying to sort out the difference between incorporated cities, townships, villages and the like! I think we've done a decent job thus far but would like some feedback to make sure that the format we are using is OK.

Secondly, in doing so, I have been updating a number of city articles with the {{Infobox City}} template, adding information in as it is available to me. As the demographic and geographic information is largely culled directly from the article and this is something of a repetitive task, I have decided that a manually-assisted bot would be hugely helpful in this regard. I have put together a rough script that would do this work for me, but again, before seeking bot approval (and unleashing it on the city articles) I wanted to come here for some feedback on the idea.

Essentially the bot script I have written would do this. First, it checks to see if the article already has an infobox template. If it does, the script is designed to change only the map (I'm using a fairly standard naming scheme for the SVG maps) and leave the rest of the article and infobox intact. If there is no infobox, the script then does two things. First, it scans the article for the existence of a "Red Dot" map, and if it finds one, removes it. Secondly, it parses the demographic and geographic information that exists within the article. Since most US cities follow the same scheme as far as this information is presented it is fairly easy to parse and populate an infobox with it.

The script does not make automated edits, but requires user supervision. This is for several reasons. Firstly, since the task of drawing maps is onerous and takes a lot of time, I generally do one county at a time and the script is designed to implement the new maps. More importantly, however, is the fact that occasionally an article is not formatted per the "norm" and the script doesn't handle these well. Additionally, when an infobox is added a lot of times the screen formatting gets upset if there are other images in the article and requires the human touch to tweak them back in to shape.

Anyway, I'm hoping to get some constructive feedback on the format of these maps that we have been working on as a sort of community approval to proceed :) I am also interested in writing up a bot approval proposal for my script to help out, but before doing so would definitely like some input on the idea from you guys. Or, for all I know, one already exists out there and I am duplicating the effort. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sound good, but you may want to check with User:CapitalR, as he was putting together a similar effort (sans the maps). Maybe you guys can join forces.—MJCdetroit 03:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a fairly complete database (in the form of an Excel spreadsheet) with all of the data for 41,300 cities/towns/etc. in the U.S. for the infoboxes that I would be happy to share with anyone interested in adding information (all demographic info, timezone info, zip codes, state, counties, all areas, lat/longs, elevations, FIPS codes, and some other assorted info). I've been working on a bot over the past few weeks to get this into Wikipedia, but there's many problems that I still need to work out (mainly the integration of existing infobox data with the new data; I don't want to overwrite what people have already done). I also have a number of MATLAB scripts that I've written to generate maps (similar to the maps in St. Paul, MN and Miami, FL). That project has been put on indefinite hold, however, at least until I can get the bot working and running for the infoboxes. As it stands now, the bot will only move existing maps into an infobox, but will not add new maps to an article if they don't exist. My amount of free time isn't nearly what it used to be, so my progress is slow going, but I promise it will eventually get done. --CapitalR 13:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• The other major problem is mapping Wikipedia article names to the U.S. census records. This is no easy task; I already tried once and failed (my mapping had about 3% error, which, when multipled by 41000 articles, is way too big). I'll eventually have to come up with a better way to map the articles names, so if anyone has done this or wants to do this, that would be a great help (I'll give you the Excel file with all the names of the places). --CapitalR 13:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I've actually got a script that is about 90% complete that generates SVG maps based on the census data. There seems to be a push toward vector graphics on Wikipedia, particularly in cases of diagrams and things like maps. On the US Roads wikiproject they have a consensus to move to SVG maps when possible due to the better scaling of vector images.

I have also run into the problem of making a script that could edit existing infoboxes without deleting existing information, and, more importantly, to discriminate between which version (the current or the one I have available) is more updated/correct. I do seem to have a surplus of time on my hands lately, unlike yourself. I sure wouldn't mind trying to assist or see how we can synergize our efforts to get things moving better. Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 19:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as an update to anyone who might be interested, I've completed my map generating script. It's not 100% automated - the state minimap has to be added in to the county maps manually for style purposes, although highlighting areas after the minimap is added is an automated process - so it will still take a while to generate all the maps. Nonetheless I will have it start generating generic county maps as a base over the weekend.

I will refrain from uploading the maps for a while longer though, just to ensure some consensus on the move from raster images over to the vector format. Also, as I stated before I am interested in getting a script going to assist with updating the articles themselves. CapitalR has indicated that he was working on a bot for this so I want to refrain from stepping on his toes, first, but if it's ok with him I'll proceed. And as long as it's ok with everyone else :) Arkyan &#149; ^(talk) 22:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Belgrade on FAR

Belgrade has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Todor→Bozhinov 13:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Capitals? Task Force Capitals?

Greetings Wikiproject Cities! On Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals I have proposed the possibility of making A Wikiproject Capitals to focus strictly on national Capitals. Some Wikipedians have proposed a Task Force of this Wikiproject to do the job. I am commenting here to get your suggestions on that nomination since the Wikiproject would be a descenadnt of yours or it would be Task Force of this Project. Thanks! •Felix• ^T 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose a separate wikiproject on national capitals. National capitals fall under this wikiproject, specifically through the importance aspect of WPCITIES (all national capitals are assessed at 'top' importance). A specific Task Force under this project might be good, but a whole separate wikiproject is going way too far. Dr. Cash 20:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty then, thanks very much for the thoughts. I will try to propose this as a Task Force if that is alright with you all. •Felix• ^T 13:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dr. Cash. Capitals would fall under the scope of this project in the same manner that towns, villages, hamlets, townships, unincorporated communities, sections of municipalities, and neighborhoods also fall under this project. —MJCdetroit 13:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

assessment requests

There's a small assessment backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment that nobody seems to be attending to, so I'm linking it here in the hopes that someone comes along and takes an interest in Bratislava. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 11:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was given a B a long time ago. But it has been significantly expanded since then and deserves a new rating. Tankred 21:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10