751:
source's census or estimate be transparent? -are we dealing with core populations or conurbation populations? -are we using consistent guidelines in all countries, and if so what are they? If this were to be a mandate, I'd judge that rigorous careful explanation of all these (and other) technical issues would need to be laid out for consideration. Could perhaps the template result be appended by reference in a particular article, or does it always have to be actually physically incorporated? What we have is rather woolly if discussed generally. Perhaps, for example, a poorly organized table in a country for which the data might be outdated or in some way(s) contentious might not be a "value added" component at all. Would the absence of good data make it better or worse to have a template table added? It seems from reading this page that this question has provenance in a specific issue in regards to
770:. If this were about India, would an option be to reference the source rather than pedantically pulling the information into Knowledge? Or would adding Wikilinks to the transposed material so enhance things that it fully justified the editing time - well, I don't know really. Of course, if time were limitless it could be meritworthy... but time isn't limitless, and who is going to check, correct, maintain and promptly update these templates when they get lengthy and complex? Is it possible that templates are the least attractive editing milieu for many editors in an article? Do we know? Is it possible that numerous template tables of various types are not getting enough attention? What does usage and editing data show? And then there's
908:
been unsuccessful in having his way with inserting a template in the India page, he has been unsuccessful in having his way in the DRN he initiated soon thereafter. Now he is attempting, a third time, to have his way by posting to what he hopes is a larger forum. In this endeavor, he has been busily advertising the RfC across
Knowledge, from Jimbo's talk page to those of presumably mortal editors. If "India" is what is meant, then the statement should clearly say India. If other countries are implied, then where is the evidence that Mrt3366 has attempted to gauge opinion on their talk pages in the weeks before he initiated the RfC.
1522:
templates, and of the country pages that carry them, with invitations to weigh in. What is that if not canvassing? Why did he post only on Japan, US, Brazil, Germany, ..., the country pages that carry the templates? Why did he not post on Chad, Indonesia, Cameroon, Peru, ..., all FAs that do not have the template. He has changed the wording of the RfC not once, but three times, long after people have responded. And you are talking up mutual respect? That will surely make a cat laugh.
332:
article, but the template might catch your eye first. Or, a reader might be specifically interested in one city, but not remember its name, in which case going first to the article for the country containing that city, and looking around for a familiar name, is an excellent search strategy. (Since most of the world's reference materials are organized by name, trying to find information about something you don't know the name of can be a challenging problem.)
336:
elsewhere. But neither of these are objections to including the template -- much of the information in any article can also be found elsewhere, and all of the information in any article is already known to at least one reader. The real question is whether some information (in this case, the template) adds enough value, for enough readers, to justify its inclusion, and that's a sort of a slippery, subjective question. But I believe the answer here is yes.
420:
a city is important enough to a country to deserve mention, well, then it should be wiklinked in the text. I literally cannot imagine a time when I would be reading about a country, and my next goal would be to see a list of, and start jumping to, the largest cities in that country. That's simply not a relevant means of providing information about a nation. But, in any case, the idea of making it a default that it
1376:
picture, famously, is worth a thousand words, and there's a reason that virtually all books and other reference works targeted at a mass audience include a judicious mix of text, tables, pictures, and other graphical information. Most people like them. They make an article attractive and approachable. (Most readers would be put off by a featureless wall of text.) —
1440:(metro). It is natural to want to compare city sizes, and sometimes useful, but all too often it ends up being fairly arbitrary or misleading. Add to this the often arbitrary way metropolitan areas are defined—in the US they are usually (but not always!) defined by whole counties, thus often including huge non-urban areas—the
1242:
comment. This is clearly not the way to request commments works, I would suggest this request is closed and that users respect the consensus on the India talk page not to include it rather than continuing to use numerous boards and talk pages to undermine the talk page consensus, this is getting close to disruptive.
419:
be in articles, although I could imagine in some cases it's okay. In other words, the default should be to not include, and only include if there was a clear, strong consensus at any given country article. This is because I generally find such templates to be excessive and only very rarely useful. If
307:
respectively, they should contain such templates. I support 4 images because I believe some people (e.g. people with learning disabilities) may learn from the images what they couldn't learn from texts only. Hence the more number of images, the better. Yes, we can use tables and charts to display the
1258:
I'd only say, like an editor wrote on another page, it is unpersuasive to suggest that if a country is mostly rural or has slums, then pictures of major cities juxtaposed with stats about population may be misleading. We can state how much of a nation is urbanized and how much is not, can't we? Does
907:
Agree with
Dweller. There are other issues here as well. The RfC has been improperly framed. Not only is the statement a thinly disguised and over-conditioned allusion to India, but the potential answers also are slotted into different subsections that have all the makings of a poll. Mrt3366 has
589:
it clear that it is not compulsory for a featured article and in some instances clearly does not add to the article. Not all country articles need the template and in some like India it was not needed, only the talk page of individual countries can take a view on the weight of such a template and if
335:
With that said, it's also worth pointing out a few things such a template does not do. Does it add unique value? No, most/all of the information in it can be found elsewhere. Does it add value for all readers? No, some will already know the largest cities, or will prefer to find that information
1356:
I agree with
Dweller too. In general, I support having our articles being as far as possible made up of well-referenced and well-written prose, supported by well-judged, occasional, pictures. Pretty tables, schmalzy presentation, and decorative images and icons all make our encyclopaedia look cheap
1662:
It has nothing to do with a personal attack. You are sabotaging the RfC process by canvassing, by giving respondents fixed choices that are biased, and by changing the statement of the RfC again and again. Respondents here need to know what they are up against. They won't find out if I leave a
1375:
This comment really cuts to the heart of the debate. John, I love text-based media, too, and I tend to view extraneous decorations as unnecessary and intrusive. But I really don't think it's true that
Knowledge is "essentially a text-based project". (Can you cite a source for that assertion?) A
438:
I agree with
Qwyrxian. Any value added across the board is likely to be minimal due to information rot. Individual cases may include by local consent paired with editor willingness to maintain the template, but even then it might be best locally maintained within the article (case dependent). I
339:
Finally, I have been answering the question posed in the section header, "Does a largest cities template add anything to an article?". There are two different questions posed in the first section, "Should articles contain a largest cities template?" and "Should featured articles contain a largest
1456:
such a template it used, it really really should link to sources that not only verify the populations but also explain what exactly is being compared, how the delineated areas were arrived at, and whether the comparisons are more "apples to apples" or "apples to oranges", if that makes sense (ie,
331:
Does it add value? Yes. Such a template is one way -- one way of several -- that a reader who is unfamiliar with a country can begin to get a picture of it. One of the first things you might want to know about a country is what its principal cities are. Yes, those will be noted elsewhere in the
53:
depending on your viewpoint. There is a large consensus that a city population template not be used in every case, some of those opposing because the template are unnecessary in all cases and some opposing because they thought that it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Their argument that
1521:
place to decide, this is where people have weighed in. There is not going to be another RfC. Mrt3366 has wasted our time in three forums. His third attempt here is dead in the water. It has not gone his way, in spite of his frenetically plastering—earlier today—the talk pages of all the city
1419:
I also agree that "it depends". And would go further to say the very concept of "largest cities" is problematic. Methods for the delineation of cities differ from place to place. I don't know exactly how it works in India, but in the US and elsewhere you often find some cities defined to include
693:
Having confused the author of this RfC, here some extra explanation: Yes, I believe that a "biggest city template" can add something to an article. But no, I don't think it is always a worthy addition. And no, more then four pictures are never useful as it makes the template too heavy (there are
1491:
The essential question here -- "Should we include this particular piece of potentially-useful but somewhat-redundant information in a particular article?" -- is fundamentally a subjective one. People are (properly) requesting objective arguments beyond "I do/don't like it", and some people are
1301:
Leaving it to the "regulars" will allow for opposition of change to an article based on an individual's preference which is a recipe for petrifying content and preventing improvement (essentially turning an article into a monolith). To others I would say, "aesthetics" is not a free pass for the
750:
pictures? How many cities? What size of city counts? Which segues to- secondly, there are always technical aspects for a given article that need to be addressed: -what sources are preferred for the populations that are being stated? -should the source(s) always be cited? -should the date of the
1241:
Agree that this is to support an other stuff exist argument on what is so far a failure to gain consensus on the India page. I did comment in good faith and added a new header to match my reply but as this didnt match the required responses it was moved perhaps to give a wrong impression of my
745:
about an optional extra (as suggested by other reasonable responses)? Conceptually, I might (or might not) take the viewpoint that it's a "nice addition" when it's an "optional, appropriately sourced, up to date, clear summary" i.e I might (or might not) think it's "adding value" in different
951:'s comment for the most part, two questions were the way they are now, just after it was changed to what Fowler refers to as "over-conditioned allusion to India", fowler commented and then after a brief moment of pause it was reverted to what it was before with an added line in the "note".
778:- is one of these templates preferred over the other (probably, but why ARE there two, and now we are back at details, details, details...) I see a lot of issues at each level of the onion peel. In short, maybe this RfC should be closed as being incapable of attaining consensus.
1452:. I'm not sure how cities and metro areas are defined in India, but as far as the use of a "largest city" template for articles about nations in general, I would have to say not only does it depend on the nation, but in many cases it probably should be avoided altogether. And
879:
Thanks. The trouble is that you've introduced a huge lump of subjectivity. Furthermore, by saying that it's essential for country X that's one side of the arbitrary line you wish to draw and inappropriate for country Y that's one place lower in the hierarchy, it'd be open to
928:
PS It doesn't help that the initiator, Mrt3366, has been changing the statement of the RfC after people, such as I, have responded. If some of you are scratching your heads about my post above, it is because the statement that I responded to has now been changed!
755:. It really might be better if the objective is (or is not) to impose a universal mandate (or conversely is garnering general impressionistic input about a potential stylistic value-added option) for this to be made abundantly explicit. Or is it a question about
1361:, but I feel this line should be quite a conservative and text-based one. With the greatest of respect to the original poster, I really hate these boxes and would prefer never to see them again. They do not belong on what is essentially a text-based project. --
364:. But should we add such template to the article of country is something that should be discussed and cannot have a general RFC. Graphical/pictorial represntations provide information in a better way than the text(I am not saying that we just need templates).--
1335:
I agree with
Dweller. It all depends on the context. A city population template makes sense for some articles, but not for others. Inclusion of the template must be based on a case by case basis. It's not necessary to have a rule that requires it or restricts
570:
This should be left to the people who maintain the article on a regular basis to decide. If there isn't a commitment of those who are dedicated to the article to maintain it, then the boxes will get out of date and the content of the text and boxes will drift
720:
Firstly, it is most unfortunate that the wording of question itself and the resultant responses thereto speak collectively to the profoundly inexact meaning of what's being asked / looked at. Not only is there the question of whether the template "adds
530:
I'd say these are generally inappropriate. A few lines in-text linking to the largest cities should suffice, plus perhaps a link to a list of cities. These are enormous and do not provide information commensurate to their size/distraction.
488:
cities of a particular country should already be linked in the prose; tacking on a relatively large navbox at the end is just more visual clutter (even if it's collapsed, it's still clutter), which is proliferating to a damaging extent.
674:
No need for a rule about when to use such a template or when to add pictures to it. But I support a standard layout and I support lean templates. Finally: the call for the RfC is very selectively spread, hampering a valuable discussion.
1306:
crowd. The issue of whether such a template improves an article is not so clear-cut that a rule will work 100% of the time, but I can see sufficient benefit in general (which I have listed in my comment and don't want to repeat them
1120:
We're going off-topic here, but that may be okay since this RFC seems stillborn, but I fail to see how it is useful to link the mayor of El Paso to the City of Los
Angeles. Or hell, even to the mayor of Los Angeles.
746:
situations. But- are the numbers always readily available, are "agglomerations" and "cities" and "conurbations" the same thing or not, and are they necessarily cross-correlationally comparable? Do we care? How
1390:
And also I don't think that the template is merely for decorative purposes. If this template containing verifiable and relevant info, is decorative then any other table, pie chart, etc can be labelled as
245:— It may help foreigners (who don't know the locations of the cities or the exact topography of a nation) understand the largest agglomerations better. Many other articles currently use such a template:
381:— (invited by RfC bot) I think it is unequivocal that these provide important information, and that the standardization of a single template helps to orient people to the information they need.
125:
1495:
Finally, a reminder: Knowledge demands collaborative editing, and collaborative editing demands mutual toleration and respect. The process is guaranteed to break down without those. —
439:
would further argue that images are inappropriate, as any city important enough to warrant inclusion likely has an article where pictures would be more relevant and appropriate. --
1542:
Yes, I am talking about mutual respect. And while MrT's has, in several respects, been lacking, I have to say that yours has been, too. (But at this point I'm afraid we're
340:
cities template?". Those are a bit different. Ultimately -- and this is another very important answer for this whole thread -- I think such questions should be answered by
1694:
I, Madame Zelda, gaze into my crystal ball and see an endless stream of big city template in India RfCs in Fowler&fowler's future. Or (in my best singing voice please)
1580:. I don't know about a cat but it sure makes me laugh because I have not tried to disrespect anybody, at least not on this thread. And if you have something to say about
54:
sometimes these templates add value to the articles and sometimes they don't was not refuted, nor their suggestion that their inclusion or exclusion be determined by
1457:
Boston vs. Jacksonville). (PS, the headers in this RfC are confusing and my comments don't seem to fit under any of them, so I am adding them here at the very end).
498:
Useless & distracting. Simple list articles would do as well, & we have them. Maintainability will however not be a problem once wikidata is implemented.
764:
393:
883:
Don't you think we have enough hurdles to jump at FAC without the need for prescribing or proscribing this particular template? Someone willing to work on (say)
1141:
Agree with fowler. If you want to talk about including something in the India article, talk about that. Approaching the issue tangentially is sneaky at best. --
308:
image but these are also a form table/charts. We serve a global audience, so we should not cater to just one set of the viewers and ignore the needs of others.
1663:
post on your talk page. Not that some haven't already noticed (The Banner, MilborneOne, RegentsPark, Pfly, Resolute, ... have made remarks echoing my own.)
145:
Although it's not mandatory, try to back your claims with credible rationales that can help reach a consensus. If your comment falls entirely in the lines of
725:", which in itself would be subject to an extensive array of understandings, but the banner header reads "Does a largest cities/city population template add
1420:
vast, often non-urban areas, while others are defined as very small areas surrounded by vast urban metropolitan areas. Classic examples in the US include
973:
The first real change is conforming of question 1 with the main question. Does a template add any value to the article? It was updated for clarification.
1484:
Even if we can agree that this template adds value, it is clearly not going to be unilaterally required for every country article. (As it says over at
1481:
People should think not just about what they want to see in an article, but what other readers (or the hypothetical "average reader") might like to see.
729:
to an article", which is potentially a different question yet again. On what exactly is the questioner seeking input? Is this an RfC about a possible
768:
1449:
1474:
The right place to decide which features do (and don't) appear in
Knowledge's "standard format" (whatever that means) for country articles is at
1215:
Ok, I'll take your statement at face value that this is not about your desire to see the template in India (but only because I'm a nice guy!). --
1016:
390:
838:
Images: Either they'll be tiny, so as not to disrupt the template, or they'll be massive, in which case the template is incongruously large.
700:
Seeing that the the author of this RfC has changed the question of this RfC, I think this RfC should be invalidated and a new one started.
695:
694:
still people around with phone internet and capped downloads). And not always is it necessary or even useful to put down the top 20 (see:
1488:, "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question.")
1068:
Neither of those templates serve any purpose other than linkspam. Certainly they are not appropriate on an article with national scope.
759:? Based on the extreme breadth of comments here I looked at a few of the relevant templates, and I thought it was interesting to compare
1342:
450:
1094:
1042:
170:
165:
Should articles (esp. featured ones) about nations contain a largest cities template/city population template in demographics section?
86:
424:
be included is a simple non-starter, because this is at best a stylistic point that should be handled by individual article editors.
775:
1185:
aren't exactly the first three names that come to mind every-time we utter the word "nations". You cannot say something is useful
1098:
1046:
1026:
887:
to get it to FA already has enough on their hands without needing to worry about creating this template. Or deliberately not. --
1485:
1475:
341:
552:
Can't see the point of a one size fits all rule, here. National articles are huge as it is, but perhaps on something like on
1338:
55:
17:
1546:
wasting time; the discussions -- in, yes, too many forums -- are all long past the point of yielding any useful progress.) —
628:
A general rule requiring city population templates in country articles doesn't make sense - too many dependent variables. --
610:
but was moved by another user under a misleading header, if we cant add our own unbiased headers then i will move it here.
79:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1742:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1471:
There are a few points (some of which I've sprinkled in up above) which I don't think are receiving sufficient attention:
1592:, you wouldn't have kept commenting anxiously. It demonstrates nothing apart from your spiteful thinking, insecurity and
760:
1725:
1709:
1674:
1647:
1619:
1555:
1533:
1504:
1466:
1410:
1385:
1370:
1351:
1326:
1290:
1251:
1226:
1208:
1152:
1128:
1111:
1075:
1059:
988:
966:
940:
919:
896:
873:
849:
787:
713:
688:
669:
655:
639:
619:
599:
580:
565:
540:
525:
509:
493:
471:
455:
433:
398:
373:
353:
323:
114:
67:
1584:, you're welcome to say it on my talk page. None of what you have said is constructive to the discussion. There is no
369:
174:
90:
344:, who are the ones trying to define and encourage a standard "look and feel" for country articles across Knowledge. —
1720:
1669:
1528:
935:
914:
650:
644:
Agree with
RegentsPark. The US, which has the template, is 81% urban; India which doesn't have it, is 30% urban.
99:
2. If your answer is "yes" to the question above, should such a template contain images of top 2-4 cities in them?
1441:
561:
63:
771:
204:
146:
445:
1303:
1090:
1038:
783:
536:
365:
1632:" — there will be as many RFCs about as many topics as people want after this. So stop worrying so much.
1704:
1421:
1247:
1221:
1147:
634:
615:
595:
576:
553:
440:
184:
1715:
1664:
1523:
948:
930:
909:
645:
23:
1588:. I wanted to know what people think and I am successful, I will say. If you honestly thought this is
572:
514:
The title of the section says it all, these templates do not add any value to the individual articles.
706:
681:
557:
521:
469:
304:
270:
1357:
and tacky, and directly cause unproductive disagreements like this. I do agree it is good to have a
1169:? I wish to first determine whether or not these templates are useful in general for countries that
1596:
behaviour. This is a collaborative process I wanted input thus I requested comment, I have already
59:
1189:
when it comes to USA, UK, China, Canada but its usefulness magically disappears when it comes to
1125:
1072:
585:
As this discussion is to support an other stuff exists argument that failed to gain consensus at
429:
385:
810:
Yes: for some countries, it's a useful navigation tool. Ruling it out dogmatically seems silly.
1641:
1613:
1492:
valiantly attempting to inject some objectivity, but the subjectivity is not going to go away.
1404:
1320:
1284:
1202:
1102:
1085:
1050:
1033:
982:
960:
892:
867:
845:
779:
665:
532:
317:
212:
208:
150:
108:
1699:
1243:
1216:
1173:
have at least 10-20 different urban settlements. Because you and I both know very well that
1142:
660:
Agree with others. This doesn't need a rule. Let the regular editors of the article decide.
629:
611:
591:
415:
I'm actually going to go out on a limb and say that this is something that should generally
42:
1696:
an RfC in the morning, and in the afternoon, an RfC in the evening, and underneath the moon
1569:
1551:
1500:
1381:
1358:
701:
676:
517:
484:
the only measure of importance, and in many cases it's effectively an arbitrary one. The
461:
349:
124:
It would be preferable (but by no means mandatory) if the commenters, for now, focused on
476:
Not only do they add little value to country articles, but they serve little purpose on
1593:
1462:
1433:
1429:
1366:
1106:
1054:
250:
1577:
1573:
1445:
1122:
1069:
505:
490:
425:
382:
246:
200:
196:
1311:) that the presence of a city population template may be assumed to be the default.
763:
with cities as small as less than 20,000, and reflect on the 20 "agglomerations" in
1633:
1605:
1396:
1312:
1276:
1194:
1178:
974:
952:
888:
859:
841:
817:
661:
309:
262:
100:
297:, etc) that contain such templates, it helps me understand their city population.
460:
Simply put, this is an extremely stupid idea, and I hope it ends here. Regards.--
1565:
1428:, which is fairly small but surrounded by the much more populous and very urban
300:
224:
34:
RfC: Does a largest cities/city population template add anything to an article?
1547:
1496:
1377:
1308:
345:
1458:
1362:
884:
282:
1032:
that present this information along with additional encyclopedic content.--
360:
If the question is does a template add value to the article, the answer is
299:
IMO, as long as any of the facts and images added to the template would be
1263:
invalidate the city-templates altogether? I was told that “Slums exist in
328:
The short answer is "yes", but the long answer is a bit more complicated.
1692:
there will be as many RFCs about as many topics as people want after this
737:
is it or is it not confined to the 125 most populous nations, "for now")
500:
278:
274:
1714:
Please don't sell yourself short. A check for $ 10 has been fedexed.
825:
812:
No: some countries self-evidently don't need it. If someone ever takes
290:
178:
94:
1437:
1425:
1268:
1264:
1182:
833:
821:
294:
266:
254:
1275:
and 125+ other countries; slums everywhere have the same issues.”
1272:
1190:
1174:
829:
813:
756:
752:
586:
286:
258:
803:
Yes, for some and no for others and in any case without images
824:
to FA quality, the template will be far less useful than in
1644:
1616:
1599:
1407:
1359:
co-ordinated approach to the aesthetics of our articles
1323:
1287:
1205:
1165:
985:
963:
870:
320:
136:
country/article. It's about such templates in general.
111:
702:
677:
410:
No, such templates do not add any value to the article
167:", thereafter it was changed for clarity purposes to "
143:
change/modify the original form/structure of the RfC.
1572:. Just to let you know, I consider your comments as
1448:, including national forests and officially defined
696:
Template:Largest cities of the
Republic of Macedonia
858:Good opinion. I have clarified the question above.
1424:, whose city limits include huge rural areas, and
1084:They are helpful for the mayors and the cities.--
606:Just to note I originally added my comment under
1017:Illinois cities and mayors of 100,000 population
171:largest cities template/city population template
87:largest cities template/city population template
1682:Humorous digression that was not well received
1604:that in your talk page. What's wrong with you?
767:as well as the 13 pages in the cited source at
153:without any reason to back your assertions, it
765:Template:Largest urban agglomerations in India
231:) before comments to make it easier to count.
8:
798:This is a bit potty. For me, the answer is:
1677:
1006:Prefer alternative with additional content
1444:for example includes large areas in the
253:, and many developing countries such as
1163:I don't wish to talk about India here,
183:" because commenters were ignoring the
24:Knowledge:RFC/City population templates
1432:. An even more blatant example of the
1630:There is not going to be another RfC.
405:Yes, but it should not contain images
7:
75:The following discussion is closed.
1698:That will be five dollars please!--
1576:predicated on a gross violation of
761:Template:Largest cities of RondĂ´nia
1299:My reply to Peter Cohen's comment
1027:Mayors of the largest 50 US cities
281:. There are a number of FAs (e.g.
31:
776:Template:Largest cities of Russia
733:(as suggested by some responses,
480:articles as well. Population is
237:Yes, and it should contain images
1738:The discussion above is closed.
173:add value to the articles (esp.
89:add value to the articles (esp.
1304:it-just-doesn't-look-cool-to-me
126:top 125 countries by total area
1726:22:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1710:15:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1675:15:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1648:06:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1620:06:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1556:23:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1534:02:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
1505:13:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
1467:19:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
1411:13:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
1386:12:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
1371:16:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
1352:11:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
1327:08:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
1291:07:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
1252:18:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
1227:16:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
1209:07:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
1153:13:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
1129:01:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
1112:16:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
1076:14:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
1060:13:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
989:14:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
967:07:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
941:21:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
920:13:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
897:12:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
874:12:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
850:12:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
714:15:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
689:12:39, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
670:02:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
656:21:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
640:18:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
620:18:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
600:11:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
581:18:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
566:14:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
526:19:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
510:18:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
494:18:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
472:01:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
456:16:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
434:15:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
399:09:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
374:13:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
354:12:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
324:08:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
115:08:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Requests for comment
1:
741:is the questioner soliciting
68:18:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
1700:regentspark aka Madame Zelda
1570:straying away from the topic
788:01:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
590:it would add to the article.
541:22:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
1012:I prefer templates such as
1757:
1574:personal attack against me
556:it would be a better fit.
163:The first question was : "
1442:Seattle metropolitan area
1740:Please do not modify it.
772:Template:RFLargestMetros
77:Please do not modify it.
1267:(where they are called
947:Just to note, prior to
1517:Whatever might be the
840:There's my opinion. --
45:this RfC is closed as
1486:WikiProject Countries
1476:WikiProject Countries
1422:Jacksonville, Florida
794:Additional discussion
554:Urbanisation in India
342:WikiProject Countries
197:WP:Other Stuff Exists
271:United Arab Emirates
201:WP:Assume good faith
56:editorial discretion
132:a discussion about
1568:the discussion by
1166:don't you get that
194:Relevant policies:
78:
1736:
1735:
1717:Fowler&fowler
1708:
1666:Fowler&fowler
1590:dead in the water
1525:Fowler&fowler
1225:
1151:
1110:
1058:
949:Fowler&fowler
932:Fowler&fowler
911:Fowler&fowler
808:I'll explain why:
731:universal mandate
647:Fowler&fowler
638:
547:None of the above
524:
396:
189:
157:ignored entirely.
118:
76:
41:Per a request at
22:(Redirected from
1748:
1723:
1718:
1702:
1678:
1672:
1667:
1646:
1639:
1636:
1618:
1611:
1608:
1602:
1531:
1526:
1450:wilderness areas
1409:
1402:
1399:
1349:
1325:
1318:
1315:
1289:
1282:
1279:
1219:
1207:
1200:
1197:
1168:
1145:
1088:
1036:
1031:
1025:
1021:
1015:
987:
980:
977:
965:
958:
955:
938:
933:
917:
912:
872:
865:
862:
743:preference input
704:
679:
653:
648:
632:
515:
466:
453:
448:
443:
389:
322:
315:
312:
188:
117:
113:
106:
103:
27:
1756:
1755:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1732:
1721:
1716:
1705:my crystal ball
1683:
1670:
1665:
1643:
1637:
1634:
1615:
1609:
1606:
1598:
1529:
1524:
1406:
1400:
1397:
1343:
1322:
1316:
1313:
1286:
1280:
1277:
1204:
1198:
1195:
1164:
1029:
1023:
1019:
1013:
984:
978:
975:
962:
956:
953:
936:
931:
915:
910:
869:
863:
860:
796:
711:
686:
651:
646:
558:Alanscottwalker
549:
462:
451:
446:
441:
412:
407:
397:
319:
313:
310:
239:
230:
205:WP:IDON'TLIKEIT
147:I don’t like it
110:
104:
101:
81:
72:
71:
70:
36:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1754:
1752:
1737:
1734:
1733:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1688:
1685:
1684:
1681:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1623:
1622:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1493:
1489:
1482:
1479:
1469:
1434:City of London
1430:Greater Boston
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1354:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1300:
1294:
1293:
1255:
1254:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1156:
1155:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1115:
1114:
1079:
1078:
1063:
1062:
1009:
1008:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
923:
922:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
881:
839:
837:
811:
809:
806:
805:
795:
792:
791:
790:
718:
717:
716:
707:
698:
682:
672:
658:
642:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
583:
568:
548:
545:
544:
543:
528:
512:
496:
474:
458:
436:
411:
408:
406:
403:
402:
401:
388:
376:
358:
357:
356:
337:
333:
326:
298:
251:United Kingdom
238:
235:
234:
233:
232:
228:
161:Clarification:
159:
134:any particular
120:
98:
84:
82:
73:
60:Nathan Johnson
40:
39:
38:
37:
35:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1753:
1741:
1727:
1724:
1719:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1706:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1690:
1689:
1687:
1686:
1680:
1679:
1676:
1673:
1668:
1649:
1645:
1642:
1640:
1631:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1621:
1617:
1614:
1612:
1603:
1601:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1564:Fowler, stop
1563:
1562:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1532:
1527:
1520:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1487:
1483:
1480:
1477:
1473:
1472:
1470:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1446:Cascade Range
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1418:
1412:
1408:
1405:
1403:
1394:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1355:
1353:
1350:
1347:
1341:
1340:
1334:
1333:
1328:
1324:
1321:
1319:
1310:
1305:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1283:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1257:
1256:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1240:
1239:
1228:
1223:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1203:
1201:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1167:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1154:
1149:
1144:
1140:
1139:
1130:
1127:
1124:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1113:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1087:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1035:
1028:
1018:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1004:
1003:
990:
986:
983:
981:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
964:
961:
959:
950:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
939:
934:
927:
926:
925:
924:
921:
918:
913:
906:
905:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
877:
876:
875:
871:
868:
866:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
847:
843:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
804:
801:
800:
799:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
766:
762:
758:
754:
749:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
719:
715:
712:
710:
705:
699:
697:
692:
691:
690:
687:
685:
680:
673:
671:
667:
663:
659:
657:
654:
649:
643:
641:
636:
631:
627:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:No not always
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
597:
593:
588:
584:
582:
578:
574:
569:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
529:
527:
523:
519:
513:
511:
507:
503:
502:
497:
495:
492:
487:
483:
479:
475:
473:
470:
467:
465:
459:
457:
454:
449:
444:
437:
435:
431:
427:
423:
418:
414:
413:
409:
404:
400:
395:
392:
387:
384:
380:
377:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
338:
334:
330:
329:
327:
325:
321:
318:
316:
306:
302:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
247:United States
244:
241:
240:
236:
226:
222:
218:
217:
216:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
195:
191:
186:
185:main question
182:
180:
176:
175:featured ones
172:
166:
162:
158:
156:
152:
148:
142:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
116:
112:
109:
107:
96:
92:
91:featured ones
88:
80:
69:
65:
61:
57:
52:
48:
44:
33:
25:
19:
1739:
1695:
1691:
1629:
1597:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1548:Steve Summit
1543:
1518:
1497:Steve Summit
1453:
1392:
1378:Steve Summit
1345:
1337:
1260:
1186:
1179:Vatican City
1170:
1086:TonyTheTiger
1034:TonyTheTiger
1005:
857:
818:Vatican City
807:
802:
797:
780:FeatherPluma
747:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
722:
708:
683:
607:
533:Calliopejen1
499:
485:
481:
477:
463:
421:
416:
378:
361:
346:Steve Summit
263:South Africa
242:
220:
193:
192:
190:
187:altogether.
168:
164:
160:
154:
144:
140:
137:
133:
129:
121:
83:
74:
51:no consensus
50:
46:
1628:You said, "
1566:obfuscating
1244:MilborneOne
1217:regentspark
1143:regentspark
630:regentspark
612:MilborneOne
592:MilborneOne
573:Peter cohen
1393:decorative
1309:ad nauseam
1103:WP:CHICAGO
1051:WP:CHICAGO
703:The Banner
678:The Banner
518:MrDolomite
464:MarshalN20
301:verifiable
219:Users are
213:WP:NOTVOTE
209:WP:ILIKEIT
128:. This is
85:1. Does a
47:it depends
1600:clarified
885:Argentina
880:ridicule.
774:and also
486:important
283:Australia
221:requested
151:I like it
43:WP:AN/RFC
727:anything
571:apart.--
426:Qwyrxian
366:sarvajna
305:relevant
279:Colombia
275:Thailand
177:) about
93:) about
1594:mocking
1269:favelas
1222:comment
1148:comment
1107:WP:FOUR
1055:WP:FOUR
889:Dweller
842:Dweller
826:Ukraine
662:Kaldari
635:comment
291:Germany
223:to use
179:nations
169:Does a
95:nations
1722:«Talk»
1671:«Talk»
1586:my way
1578:WP:AGF
1530:«Talk»
1438:London
1426:Boston
1265:Brazil
1261:really
1183:Tuvalu
937:«Talk»
916:«Talk»
834:Brazil
822:Tuvalu
652:«Talk»
491:Powers
447:unique
422:should
295:Canada
267:Russia
255:Brazil
155:may be
141:do not
138:Please
1519:right
1395:too.
1336:it.--
1273:China
1191:India
1175:Palau
830:China
814:Palau
757:India
753:India
723:value
587:India
506:talk
452:names
386:Isaac
287:Japan
259:China
122:Note:
16:<
1638:3366
1610:3366
1552:talk
1501:talk
1463:talk
1459:Pfly
1436:vs.
1401:3366
1382:talk
1367:talk
1363:John
1346:talk
1339:SGCM
1317:3366
1281:3366
1248:talk
1199:3366
1187:only
1126:lute
1123:Reso
1073:lute
1070:Reso
979:3366
957:3366
893:talk
864:3366
846:talk
784:talk
748:many
709:talk
684:talk
666:talk
616:talk
596:talk
577:talk
562:talk
537:talk
522:Talk
478:city
430:talk
370:talk
350:talk
314:3366
303:and
277:and
225:hash
211:and
105:3366
64:talk
1635:Mrt
1607:Mrt
1544:all
1398:Mrt
1314:Mrt
1278:Mrt
1271:),
1259:it
1196:Mrt
1181:or
1171:may
1099:BIO
1047:BIO
1022:or
976:Mrt
954:Mrt
861:Mrt
832:or
820:or
735:and
501:DGG
482:not
417:not
394:Vex
383:Van
379:Yes
362:Yes
311:Mrt
243:Yes
149:or
130:not
102:Mrt
58:. -
49:or
1582:me
1554:)
1503:)
1465:)
1454:if
1384:)
1369:)
1250:)
1193:.
1177:,
1109:)
1057:)
1030:}}
1024:{{
1020:}}
1014:{{
895:)
848:)
828:,
816:,
786:)
739:or
668:)
618:)
598:)
579:)
564:)
539:)
520:•
516:—
508:)
468:|
442:No
432:)
391:WS
372:)
352:)
293:,
289:,
285:,
273:,
269:,
265:,
261:,
257:,
249:,
215:.
207:,
203:,
199:,
66:)
1707:)
1703:(
1550:(
1499:(
1478:.
1461:(
1380:(
1365:(
1348:)
1344:(
1246:(
1224:)
1220:(
1150:)
1146:(
1105:/
1101:/
1097:/
1095:C
1093:/
1091:T
1089:(
1053:/
1049:/
1045:/
1043:C
1041:/
1039:T
1037:(
891:(
844:(
836:.
782:(
664:(
637:)
633:(
614:(
594:(
575:(
560:(
535:(
504:(
428:(
368:(
348:(
229:#
227:(
181:?
97:?
62:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.