Wikivoyage talk:Huge city article template

Get around; Respect

Get around would seem to also include things one needs to know about the street system, asking directions, no? It would not seem to belong to Understand. Also, it looks like Respect has shown up in the San Francisco article and perhaps belongs here as well. (WT-en) Notty

So, two things: you should probably read Project:using talk pages and figure out how to sign your posts. Secondly, I personally think Respect probably should go in region or country pages, not city pages. Third, I don't get what you're talking about w/r/t Get around. --(WT-en) Evan 17:19, 8 Feb 2004 (EST)

I know how to sign posts, I just tend to forget to. I suggest you take the respect issue up with Maj, as she moved smoking from Understand to Respect. For what I'm talking about with regard to city streets, you can see an example in the Get Around section of San Francisco (WT-en) Notty 00:44, Feb 9, 2004 (EST)

Number of districts

I think we need some sort of guideline for how many districts a 'huge' city should have. Currently some places, like Rome and Berlin, which aren't actually "absolutely huge" on the scale of a Tokyo or New York City, are split into a very unwieldy number of districts.

The two easy ways to guide this would be...

• per population (eg. one district per 500,000: Helsinki gets 1, Rome gets 6, Tokyo 20)
• per page size (split off once guide reaches X kilobytes, target size Y per page)

Note that both are intended as maximum guidelines, eg. we don't need to split Dhaka into 18 districts if there isn't enough content to go around. Opinions? (WT-en) Jpatokal 05:20, 8 Feb 2005 (EST)

The second method is definitely easiest as it's already implemented. If you click "edit" and get the 32kb warning, you're looking at a huge city article. (= a huge article about a city, if not an article about a huge city.) -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 05:52, 8 Feb 2005 (EST)

The criterion I use (specifically, when considering Seattle) is if Lonely Planet can publish an entire 100-200 page printed guide on a city, it's absurd for Wikivoyage to put (potentially) the same amount of information on a single web page. By this criterion even Hanoi is a huge city, so there's leeway, of course. -- (WT-en) Paul Richter 06:10, 8 Feb 2005 (EST)

What is the Huge City criteria

This question has been nagging me for some time. What is it that makes a city a Huge City for Wikivoyage purposes?

I can readily accept that some of the major cities of the world, with several to tens of millions of people are huge cities. However, what is the criteria for deciding that a city is really a Huge city?

• It certainly is not just population!
• Is it both population and geography?
• Is it multiple city administrations?
• Is it clearly identifiable suburbs, each with a CBD?

Perhaps it's my insular view of the world from New Zealand but the distinction escapes me when I start wanting to say Auckland and Wellington metropolitan areas are huge cities. I was recently told that Greater Auckland has one of the largest land areas of any city in the world. Although the populations are only a million, or less, these cities are very spread out with 50 - 100 km trips needed to get across the city. In international terms is this huge and does this qualify as a Huge City? -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:06, 18 Dec 2005 (EST)

I think the answer is none of the above, and Project:Article templates already has the correct answer: for cities so big that they must be broken up into districts. In other words, a city becomes Huge when it has way too many attractions to fit into a single article.

As for your particular examples, Greater Auckland sounds like a region, not a huge city. Population doesn't necessarily translate into article template: Dhaka may have 13 million people, but as long as no tourist in their right mind visits it, it's likely to remain as a pathetic small city article-wise for a long time. (WT-en) Jpatokal 10:00, 18 Dec 2005 (EST)

I agree that Greater Auckland sounds like a region, but that is really the Auckland Region. My dilemma is that Auckland refers to four adjacent cities, North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland City and Manukau, which have no clearly definable boundaries other than lines on a map. At present these four cities are separate city articles, rather than being a single huge city article with 4 districts, one for each city. I am thinking of changing the Auckland and Wellington articles into the huge city template and wanted to get the criteria straight before plunging forward. I can understand having a big article that you want to break down, but what about lots of little city articles that go together as a metropolitan set and everyone keeps misinterpreting one as being the overarching metropolitan area because they do not understand the local government structure. Should we even be bound by the local government structure? -- (WT-en) Huttite 05:27, 19 Dec 2005 (EST)

We should not be bound by local government structure, but we should explain it. Ie. we do not organize London/Westminster and London/City of London as separate cities. In Copenhagen, Frederiksberg is organized as a district even though is an island municipality within the municipality of Copenhagen. If you asked some friends in Greater Auckland to recommend some good restaurants in "Auckland" would they give you restaurants in Auckland City or in Greater Auckland? --(WT-en) elgaard 10:39, 19 Dec 2005 (EST)

Huge Citys and Districts - Where do listings go?

Moved from Project:Travellers' pub (WT-en) Hypatia 08:59, 21 September 2006 (EDT)

Apologies if this has been covered somewhere else. I'm working on Prague at the moment and have been moving some of the content into the district pages that were largely empty. Looking at other huge cities like Berlin and San Francisco there doesn't seem to be a concensus on whether listings should stay on the main page or be moved into their districts. In my opinion, it's really confusing to have some on the city page, some in the districts and some doubled up. Should it be..

• All individual listings under their district page, with the city page giving an overview of the scene and pointing out highlights and good districts?
• All individual listings on main page, eat/drink/sleep sections in districts empty and/or deleted?
• All individual listings on BOTH the city page and districts pages? (removes point of having districts)?
• All individual listings on the districts pages and a random selection of listings on the city page?

The first option makes the most sense to me but that doesn't seem to be how districts are working at the moment. What does everyone else think? (WT-en) Thewayoftheduck 20:07, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

The first one. Maybe a little of the fourth. The second and third would be counter-productive. The purpose of district articles is to take unwieldy See/Do/Buy/Eat/Sleep/Drink listings out of the main article and parcel them out to the districts. Those sections in the parent city article would then be overviews (like in a region or country article), with maybe one or two must-see/-do/-drink/-etc bullet-point items, which refer the reader to the district article for the full listing. See Project:Huge_city_article_template for a better description of this than I can manage. -(WT-en) Todd VerBeek 21:09, 20 July 2006 (EDT)

San Francisco and Berlin aren't really our best examples of big city guide organization yet. Perhaps look at Paris instead. -- (WT-en) Mark 03:43, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

Ah, perfect. Thanks both of you. Paris looks fantastic btw. (WT-en) Thewayoftheduck 07:00, 21 July 2006 (EDT)

recommendations on when to (not) districtify a city

I would propose the following recommendations for those considering to districtify a city / to create just another district article. I would vote to put it somewhere like top of Project:Huge city article template (or probably as just another article in MoS)--not as a strict guideline, but as a recommendation to consider and think of.

I have recently undertaken a nightmare of cleanup and duplication removal for Budapest and its districts. I also explored city articles (and their district articles) like Berlin, London, Athens, Rome and San Francisco--and found these recommendations deadly applicable there.

The idea of the recommendations is that it's always easy to start districtifying, but it becomes a nightmare then for the future editors of the city--so we (those experienced maintaining and cleaning up a districtified city heavily) ask basically to start as late as possible.

• don't start districtifying a city before it's too much content on the city (32k editor warning?)
• don't create first separate article for a district before you have enough content for it
• to breed content for a district, start with creating a section for that district in the respective listings (See, Do, Eat, Sleep) in the city article
• once you have a separate district article, there'll be many misplacements, and therefore questions "which district does this belong to?"; the more district articles you have, the more misplacements (and duplication) will be. Therefore, once you have enough content for creating a district article:

• find someone who can act a docent for the city (you?)
• ideally ensure someone (you?) will watch over the city article and its districts for at least a year, fixing misplacements and removing duplication--otherwise, the districts (and the city article) will soon become a mess, much more terrible than before districtifying.
• post on top of city's talk page a clearly defined borders between the districts, and link to it from top of every district article's talk page--to reduce misplacements.

• but by any means, don't start separating content into districts until it will help a reader.

Comments? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 05:42, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Yeah, I think something like this is necessary. In particular, I think that a district map is critical, and if the districts don't follow easy boundaries (like Budapest's numbered districts) then they need to be defined on a street-by-street level. I'd also like to see consensus from several city residents before districting is allowed, because changing them afterwards is a huge pain. (WT-en) Jpatokal 07:47, 11 February 2007 (EST)

I don't like the idea that a city should need a docent or that any one person should be considered an "owner" for that article. However, I do agree that districts need to be clearly defined, preferably with a map or a talk page discussion that clearly delimits borders (for example: "District A stretches from the river to Boulevard B"). The same can also be said for regions - despite the fact that we've created a map and tried to describe regional borders for California we still constantly have to move cities that are placed in incorrect regions. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:10, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Ryan, I don't see how "ensure there's at least one person who will likely watch for the changes (and fix misplacements in time rather than once a year)" has anything do with ownership, could you explain this please?

This point is intentionally made "ideally...", so it's unlikely to happen in many cases. For cases when it doesn't happen, a docent is some substitute--you have noone who watches the proper placement of additions regularly, but at least you have someone to ask when in doubt--either when you came to add just a single listing item, or when you volunteer for a week as a temporary clean-uper (as I did for Budapest for a while). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:39, 11 February 2007 (EST)

I think my reservations are simply the idea that we would ever enshrine in policy even a recommendation that docents or anyone else should be given additional editing responsibility or status - the "find someone who can act as a docent" and the "find someone who will watch over the city article" recommendations are red flags in my view. It seem that if we clearly define what the boundaries of a district or region are then anyone should be able to help keep an article organized. That approach seems more beneficial to me than (for example) saying "X is in charge of keeping article A organized". -- (WT-en) Ryan 18:56, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Personally, I don't second your conclusion that "find someone [at least one person] who will watch over the city article" is giving that volunteer any status different from the rest of us.

However, I do believe that having at least one person who signed up for keeping an city article with its district sub-articles will only add up to quality and organization of articles here. In Budapest case, first split was done with noone's commitment to keep it organized; second split resulted in a major copy-paste and two articles sharing really much identical content (compare Buda and just before the cleanup). In lived 1.5 years(!) without any serious cleanup, and noone joined a several-day anti-duplication edit march I've volunteered. I don't mind to have done this job alone, but I would like the community to learn some lessons from this experience. This way or another, we do need to be responsible about splitting content between many pages. And asking a person willing to create just another micro-district to take some responsibility for consequences of his action (by watching over future edits for some time, for example) doesn't sound a bad idea for me.

Anyway, I would vote that there's at least 2 out of 3 measures should be taken to keep content organized: 1) district borders or a map, 2) docent and 3) long-time watcher. Different 2 may be used for different cities/ditricts, but any one of them is just not enough--let's have some redundancy here.

Thanks for reading till this point :-) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 20:53, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Please keep in mind that (with literally a couple exceptions) we are all volunteers here. No one can ensure that anyone will "take responsibility" for the future of an article. You know, I've split some countries and states into regions, but there's no way I could promise to police them for a year, because I don't even know if I'll be here a year from now. Yes, it would be good if people would in fact do that, but it has to be because they want to (which will work), not because they are required to (which will not). - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:00, 11 February 2007 (EST)

OK, let's skip "someone to watch for a year" for a while. We have a working practice of docents--why can't we recommend to ensure there's someone to ask a question when in doubt, i.e. at least one docent? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 22:48, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Another step in this story, I've just added a note into Districts section of the Huge City template to clearly define district borders. Any comments on this edit are welcome. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Comments down here. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 23:36, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

when to districtify: summary 1

OK, is there any objections on the list, if I remove "docent" and "dedicated watcher"?

---

• don't start districtifying a city before it's too much content on the city (32k editor warning?)
• don't create first separate article for a district before you have enough content for it
• to breed content for a district, start with creating a section for that district in the respective listings (See, Do, Eat, Sleep) in the city article

Once you have a separate district article, there'll be many misplacements, and therefore questions "which district does this belong to?"; the more district articles you have, the more misplacements (and duplication) will be. Therefore, once you have enough content for creating a district article:

• define district borders for those districts you are ready to separate; ideally have a map clearly showing districts and borders
• ideally, ensure consensus from city's residents that these borders are close to district division existing in a real world
• post the district borders section on top of city article's talk page

But by any means, don't start separating content into districts until it will help a reader.

---

Would this version gain a consensus? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:54, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Sounds pretty good to me, although I think having a consensus on the districts and a map should be definitely required. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:32, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Assuming it will gain a consensus here in several days, where's it better to stick? A new section in Project:Geographical hierarchy, with a short summary of it and a link to it in Project:Huge city article template and Project:District article template? Other proposals? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:27, 14 February 2007 (EST)

Added respective sections in all the articles mentioned above. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:57, 20 February 2007 (EST)

First, I've removed the section about deferring to residents of the city. Second, I've moved your commentary down to the section for rules-of-thumb about dividing up areas. Lastly, I changed the unclear neologism "districtify" into the more standard "split into districts". --(WT-en) Evan 14:30, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Evan, would it be OK to leave the residents-section without residents, in the following form?

> ensure consensus that these borders are close to district division existing in a real world

--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:45, 20 February 2007 (EST)

That's really pity we can't have a section name that speaks for itself (as When to districtify was)--I'm afraid "Districts in cities" would not compete in catch the eye of reader. Any other possible names for this section? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:18, 20 February 2007 (EST)

Objections

Discussion moved from Project:Geographical hierarchy

Apologies if this has already been discussed, but I feel like our policy on when to "districtify" is too cautious and not in line with our Project:Plunge forward policy. As a matter of fact, it was this policy that dissuaded me from adding Hyde Park, Chicago content while I was living there—the Chicago article was too big, cluttered, and overwhelming, while I only really knew anything about my neighborhood. Granted, Chicago is not a great example because it is clearly time for Chicago to have some districts (see existing discussion). I understand the concern that it can be hard to coordinate between districts and the main page and that we don't want to see a big proliferation of uncoordinated district articles. But perhaps it would be more in accordance with our practices to remove the existing guidelines about "farming information" for districts on the main article, checking whether the page is larger than 32kb, etc, and just emphasize the need to first make sure there is a consensus behind the new district hierarchy? --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald ^Talk 23:31, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Sounds good to me... I think that's the one and only thing that is important... bring it up on the talk page for the article, and wait a couple weeks or whatever to see if anyone has input on if and how to districtify. Beyond that, plunge forward! – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 02:42, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I oppose this. Maintaining districts is a royal pain, and there are way too many half-assed districtings already littering Wikivoyage, often ruining major destinations (eg. New York City, London, Barcelona). Plunging forward is precisely the wrong thing to do; districting after consensus is the right thing. (WT-en) Jpatokal 08:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

This was discussed earlier in Project:Huge city article template#recommendations on when to (not) districtify a city. I would recommend to move this discussion there (or that discussion here), I believe it would make the process easier for others. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 09:40, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes lets move this discussion—I should have looked at the Huge city article template page to begin with. Jani, I don't think we disagree so much, I'm basically arguing that the only guideline should be that any would be "districtifier" first spends a few weeks building consensus. I just don't like the part that says there must be a certain amount of content before creating districts because it runs counter to our most basic wiki policy: if you see room for improvement, plunge forward. Although, I must say I also like the criteria that there must be clearly defined district boundaries and a full hierarchy schematic before someone begins. I suppose that my main reason for disliking our current policy is that we somehow treat city districts as a special category of our Geographical Hierarchy policy, subject to special rules. I'm not convinced that is the way to go; any city travel guide worth its salt will break large cities into small districts by neighborhood. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald ^Talk 12:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I think it's similar to national parks, airports and other stuff that is not worth a dedicated article yet until it has enough content for a separate article. And the reason districts have special rules is simple: unlike cities or states, there's much higher chance that two people have different views on what districts given city has, and where's a border between them. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 12:51, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

Jani, what exactly don't you agree with? I think what Peter and I are saying is that a consensus should be reached first on IF and HOW to districtify... the rest is irrelevant. Checking to see if the page is larger than 32kb? I think we'd all agree that that is absurd. I do like your suggestion of having a map. But is that realistic at this stage since we have so few mapmakers? And should we set a specific amount of time one should wait after proposing it on the talk page? I suggested a couple of weeks above since that's our standard on so many things, but should it sit longer? – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 13:40, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

I would NOT agree checking the article is large enough (the 32k thing) is absurd. Without it, situations are likely that a town that noone's aware of (and not watching for changes in it) is started districtifying just because there's only editor who believes it should reflect its administrative set of districts. Even Budapest, which is far from being an unknown city, had such a story: districts appeared far before there was too much content.

We can rephrase criteria to something like "don't start until the page is overloaded", but I vote against complete removal of this guideline. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 01:07, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Your argument works for why we need to gain consensus, not why we need to check if the article is over 32kb. We should divide an article when it makes sense to do so for the traveler, not so that our browsers can handle editing the pages better. – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 01:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

In my opinion, districting an article is a last resort, and the guidelines should reflect this: they should lay down a minimum set of what needs to be done first and require consensus before proceeding. I agree that just saying "32kb" is rather silly, but having so much content that the article is unwieldy is, IMHO, a key precondition. Multiple sections with over 10 attractions/restaurants/accommodations/... listed, for example? (WT-en) Jpatokal 01:32, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Two weeks waiting for consensus on districts and borders is OK with me. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 01:09, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I object to waiting any period of time — consensus happens when there's a consensus. A waiting period does not guarantee anything and consensus may change too, so districtify when there's consensus. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 01:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

I would also object to having some sort of waiting requirement, but would not object to suggesting "about two weeks or so" as a guideline for giving people time to notice the "districtification" underway.

I strongly disagree that districting should be a "last resort." A travel guide for, say, Chicago, that doesn't break the huge city into neighborhoods is a bad travel guide. It really doesn't matter how much content we have written, a good city guide should break a big city into manageable districts, just as a good country guide should be broken into manageable regions, and there really isn't a reason why we should discourage anyone who wants to plunge forward on this rather large and difficult task. Plunging forward to create a good structure for future content IMO is very useful (it prevents our articles from becoming unwieldy in the first place) and should not be discouraged. I sure hope that other editors here would agree, since content organization comprises the majority of work I have done on this site. I understand Denis' concern that people will start clumsy "districtifications" for obscure towns, but I still have faith that our basic wiki practices (patrolled edits in particular) plus a plea to "go slow" on building consensus for new districts should take care of this potential problem. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald ^Talk 01:56, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Yep, I'll agree. I think a huge city is a huge city, regardless of how well written our guide on that city currently is. If it's going to be districted at some point, why not now? Especially if you've got someone ready and willing to do the legwork that knows the city... – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 02:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

The question is "which cities should be considered huge?" Do we have any objective criteria? Don't we have a number of cities that are large enough in size, but are of a really little interest for a traveller? And do we have enough volunteers to refactor content back from a dozen of stub district pages back into a main article (or, worse, into a different set of districts community later came up with?) For Budapest, we didn't have them--and consensus in its early years could be easily achieved by 2 or 3 people who were ever interested in Budapest in that time; that's why breeding enough content is a necessary measure. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:19, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't think an objective criterion is possible. If someone looks at a guide and thinks "this is getting too long", or if someone who knows the city thinks "this is going to get long", then it should be districted. And if it's going to be districted, it's better for that to happen before it gets too long: sorting a single list of budget/mid/splurge hotels into half a dozen district lists is a lot of difficult and tedious work, especially for anyone who doesn't know the city like a resident. By contrast, the dangers of districting a city that doesn't need it are relatively mild: if Fort Wayne sits with a dozen nearly-empty districts for a year, someone can just merge and redirect them to the main article. I'm all for waiting for a consensus, to make sure the districting is done wisely (how about suggesting that at least two people participate, as a sanity check?), but I'm opposed to waiting until the article has become a "huge" wreck. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, well said. The two people suggestion might be good... – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 20:34, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

Two people is not enough, again judging by Budapest example. It took me to have 3 people besides myself to participate in district borders discussion until we came up with some reasonable agreement. At the same time, it was only 2 people who decided to create Castle Hill district--a very questionable decision we decided to live with only because it takes too much effort to merge it back into a proper district.

What I learned from this experience is:

• before an article is large enough, it is likely to have too few watchers/contributors to have a consensus that will be supported as the guide on the city grows
• it's easier to experiment with districts division within single article with district sections inside it, than to move things back and forth between several articles of districts

And as long as we don't have any objective criteria for huge city, "city article is nearly overloaded today" is better criteria for starting districtifying than "two of us believes it will be overloaded some day".

To try walking in my January-2007 Budapest shoes, I highly recommend to find a badly splitted city (like it was with Budapest), and try to sort it out to districts and remove all duplication and misplacements you find. It's a huge headache, and I am keeping warning the community: without rules like that, 'normalizing' of a city with its mess set of districts and maintaining the districts later would eat huge efforts we would better use for creating new content. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 18:19, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think there's ever going to be a perfect solution. I'm often all for clarifying guidelines and spelling out the way things should be done, but in this case I think we're just scaring off or at least making it harder on contributors who can actually help and do good things. I've been slowly working on Los Angeles, and am about to do a lot more... and from my experience a few months ago when I first started working on it, it's pretty hard to get a group of people together who all know LA and all care about figuring it out. LA is the 2nd biggest city in the US!!!! So if I can't get a group together to work out a consensus on that, then it seems pretty unrealistic to write that into our guidelines, otherwise I think districting will grind to a halt. I'm here, I know LA pretty well, and I'm ready and willing to figure out a good way to district it. So why not? I do like what Peter is doing with Chicago though, where he drew a map to give people a visual thing to work off of while deciding the districts, and I'll likely be doing the same for LA soon. But even if it's just me with some occasional input from Ryan who lives here too, I'm planning to plunge fooooooorward... – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 19:53, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Most of the districting disasters I've seen have come not from a single person (or two) coming up with a less-than-perfect plan, but from huge cities or regions that had no plan in place, so people started creating districts or subregions ad hoc, and ended up with overlapping districts of varying sizes with gaps between them. That's a substantial problem, and delaying the creation of districts only makes it worse. As for Budapets, as I understand it, the problem there wasn't a bad districting plan (it was simple and almost self-evident, and remains in effect today), but the fact that editors didn't understand how to use it. Well, short of putting people through an orientation course before we give them editing privileges, there's no way we can guarantee that won't happen. It will. Given that fact, how do we deal with it? Comments in the main articles telling people where to stick it can help. But as long as we allow people to create new articles at will, and if we can't trust them all to do it well, our best bet is to try to anticipate the need for districts, so we can organize the data as it comes in, rather than creating "rules" (which cannot be enforced) demanding that districting be put off and delayed until that task becomes herculean. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:49, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

First of all, we definitely need to emphasize "reaching consensus on district borders" (IF and HOW to districtify) in the guidelines; currently it's implied but not stated clearly and loudly.

Second, looks like we should provide an alternative: either a careful-listening building a consensus, OR plunge forward as long as you are 100% sure and willing to recover consequences of a wrong division, if a future discussion will decide it is wrong / should be changed. The only problem remains when there's only one or two people, who get agreed on whatever division fast, and then disappear / decide not to maintain their approach to districtifying any more. I can't see any reasonable solution for this -- ideas?

Third, I just changed the guidelines so that it is now "we" instead of "you"--I think it's important to approach things from the right point of view.

Fourth, what about putting a banner on top of article page (not its talk page) while district borders is being discussed and consensus is not reached yet? "Discussion on splitting Cityname into districts is in progress. If you know city pretty well, please share your opinion." As long as we believe it will take a finite amount of time, and we need as much of locals as possible, it can help, doesn't it? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:49, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree with these comments and especially like the banner idea—the majority of our contributors are anonymous users who are unaware of ongoing discussions, but could have a lot of useful input for districting. --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald ^Talk 23:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

As for "how long should we recommend to wait for consensus": I like Talk:Rome#district borders Peter's approach for Rome to wait for support from someone who knows the city pretty well, ideally knows from traveler perspective or even as a local. Not sure whether it should be recommended to everyone, however--in the light of "don't make barriers to plunging forward" idea above. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 20:45, 6 August 2008 (EDT)

Districts Discussion template

I just created a template banner as per Denis' suggestion. I am trying it out on Chicago now and I guess I will see how people react! --(WT-en) Peterfitzgerald ^Talk 17:24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Did the banner help? Would you recommend to use it in future districtifying projects? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 02:57, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Well, I kept it up for about 2 weeks, but no new contributors joined the discussion, even despite the fact that Chicago is (I would think) a frequently visited page. That said, I can't see any reason not to put it on city articles for future districtification discussions, as a courtesy to those who might not look at the discussion. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:28, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

Peter, can you give a link to the Chicago page version with a banner in it, so I can use it for districtifying Barcelona? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:51, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

Here is the template link: Template:Districts discussion. I really should have posted this here earlier! Good luck with Barcelona, is that where you were on vacation? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 23:46, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

As I can see, you have posted it earlier--but I failed to see it. Yes, I'm just back from Barcelona (and other places in Spain, time to update my user page :-).

I've plunged forward to add 2 optional parameters to the template--described them in Template talk:Districts discussion]]. Please let me know what you think. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

a notice on districts on top of huge city articles

Following Evan's suggestion, I summarize a proposal from Talk:Budapest.

I'd like to put a notice on top of Budapest (which is split into districts) advising to print district pages along with the main article of the city. The banner should be aimed at occasional readers who come to Wikivoyage only to print an article or two on his next destination. It can look something like (as per Evan's suggestion)

Printable version of all Budapest district guides can be found in Budapest/printable

where Budapest/printable may look like User:(WT-en) Evan/Budapest. Alternatively, it may be just a text notice like this:

When printing this article, keep in mind that much information is contained in separate district articles. Consider printing them also: Buda, Pest and Castle Hill.

We need a notice like this for a non-expert user. Section like Budapest#Districts in printing doesn't give any idea that most of information he'll need on his trip is under the links that only appear once, under bullets which give, well, not so much useful information on first sight.

Until the reader reaches the See section (which, in Budapest example, is page #9 when printed) where the "See the Buda and Pest articles for detailed listings of sightseeing" notice first appears, the reader will hardly figure out that he actually need to print much more for his trip to Budapest. Frequently, he can't print missing pieces at that late moment.

Can we put a notice like this on top of Budapest? Does it make sense at this stage to discuss a change to the Huge City template? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 19:31, 10 February 2007 (EST)

Opinions, please? ;-) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 22:49, 11 February 2007 (EST)

Not a bad idea. I'd support it as long as it isn't obtrusive, and is similar in style to what {{otheruses}} or {{itinerary}} look like. It would be really handy to have a transclusion link like Evan is suggesting, that automatically puts all of the district info onto one page to print... is that possible? Would it be able to read the districts listed in the district section, or would they have to be manually entered into a template for each city? (WT-en) - Cacahuate 06:52, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I've just created a draft template for this: Template:HasDistricts; its usage can be seen in User:(WT-en) DenisYurkin/Budapest demo. Its text is maybe too long, and right now it works only for exactly 3 districts--not more, not less. I would appreciate any help on bringing it to live. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:52, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I think that might be confused with {{districtify}}... I think this should be just aimed at printing... what about {{printable}}? RE: the text, I like something similar to your above text better:

A printable version of all Budapest district guides can be found here

-or-

Budapest is a huge city with several district articles - consider printing them all

I think it should be low-key, and no boldface type. Ultimately people should be looking at and becoming aware of the "districts" section, so if anything other than printing it should be just a gentle director to notice that section (WT-en) - Cacahuate 15:54, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I like your approach to making it shorter. The only thing I need to add is that major part of information on city can only be found in district articles, but not in the city article itself. This is what I have so far:

Budapest is a huge city, much information on it is contained in separate district articles — consider printing them all: (list of districts)

Unfortunately, we can't provide a transclusion link at this point--see bottom of User:(WT-en) Evan/Budapest for reasons. Before we have a transclusion, {{printable}} name is bit misleading: it doesn't give a printable version as such, and I'd also like Huge / District word to appear in the template name, otherwise it will be expected to work for every city / article, which it is not about. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:34, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Well, I don't know much about the software so I don't know if it's something someone can write into it or not, but the transclusion would be amazing if someone can work it out. It would be even more awesome if the "printable version" link in the toolbox on the left navbar could detect the huge city template and automatically print the city with all of its districts... but maybe I'm just dreaming here.

Re the text, I don't think we should list the districts in this little header... some places have far too many, and they're already listed in the "districts" section. I think if anything it should be alerting people to the fact that there is a districts section... then they'll be aware of it, and notice it in the future anyway... until we can figure out the transclusion thing, I vote for keeping it as small as possible:

Budapest is a huge city with several district articles - consider printing them all

I think people will get the picture, we don't have to spell it out too much. I just suggested something that I usually hate and just argued viciously against on Project:Internal links - linking the word "district" to the district section on the same page. But in this case, I think it helps with clarity in a good way and helps to keep the text shorter (WT-en) - Cacahuate 17:02, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Then I would vote that this reference to districts list could be also readable in printing--like this:

Budapest is a huge city with several district articles - consider printing them all (see the Districts section)

but I can live with your version if you'd like to stay with it.

So what would name would you suggest for the template, keeping in mind we don't have a tranclusion right now? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:10, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I'm not sure what you mean about "readable in print" as I've never (gasp!) printed one before... would it not look right the way my last shorter version was? But would it matter anyway, since the notice to print the articles would obviously have already been heeded if they were looking at it on paper?  ;)

Re the template name, something that makes sense now and will make sense later if transclusion does happen, since once the template is implemented and in use it will be a bitch to change it... what about {{printDistricts}}? For now it will encourage you to print them, later on it will possibly provide a link to print them. I don't hate {{hasDistricts}} either. Before we go crazy on implementing this though I think maybe we should let this sit a few days to see if anyone else has opinions on it (WT-en) - Cacahuate 17:21, 18 February 2007 (EST)

Personally, I like the printDistricts name. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:30, 18 February 2007 (EST)

I've edited the template according to Cachuate's prototype; it's now live at Budapest.

Can we also include it to the Huge city article template, or we'd better apply {{printDistricts}} to several more concrete huge city articles? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:32, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I've added it to Los Angeles, which also has {{otheruses}}, an example of more than one template at the top of the page. (WT-en) - Cacahuate 20:06, 19 February 2007 (EST)

I've just added it to Huge city article template and to its quick version. Please let me know if there's anything wrong about it. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 00:57, 20 February 2007 (EST)

District borders

I agree fully that district borders should be clearly defined, but I don't think that the districts list is the best place for that. While a districts map showing borders is very useful to have next to this list, listing all the street borders would take up too much space and would best be done on the individual district page IMO. I think the descriptions next to district titles on this list should be less than one sentence, ideally. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 18:52, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Agree – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 23:16, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

Peter, I share your concern--but where should we place it then? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:50, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

I think the best place is either the intro or the understand section of each individual district. That's what I've been doing for Chicago and I think it has worked out pretty well. Another option is to list individual neighborhoods, rather than street borders, but this only works well if the neighborhoods have commonly understood and well-defined boundaries. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 21:17, 11 September 2007 (EDT)

That's fine with me. Peter, would you update the policy so it's fully represent your vision? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 17:11, 12 September 2007 (EDT)

LIST

How about having a comprehensive list of the cities that have gained huge city. Kind of like usable, etc. have worked!I think it'd be interesting! Thoughts?

Keep smiling,

(WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 19:56, 28 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I am looking for a list of cities that use the huge city template. Anyone knows where I can find this? --(WT-en) globe-trotter 10:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

Since they use the template via substitution, there isn't really a way to look up a list of huge-city articles. The closest thing we have would be at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:PrintDistricts, but that may not be comprehensive, as it may not be added to some articles that may have been districted. Looks like it may be a little over 50 articles? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 20:11, 14 July 2010 (EDT)

I have recently finished adding template:Districtguide to all pages which which I could find which are districts. There are curently 921 districts divided among 100 cities. My next efort is to add seedistricts and printdistricts where missing. I plan to add these only when at least some of the district articles have districtified content. (We have some cities with only one district article, and sometimes with merge tag on it.). So in a few days, you should be able to use Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:PrintDistricts for a current list of cities with real districts. Of course,, list will go out of date as soon as new districts are created, unless someone adds the templates. --(WT-en) Bill in STL 13:15, 17 September 2010 (EDT)

For this list, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikivoyage:Huge_city_article_template. Ar2332 (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Get out

The Get Out section serves one of the purposes served by Get Around in articles that use simpler templates. It would make a lot more sense to have Get Out sections be either a subsection of Get Around or, at the very least, located immediately following it. Having it buried at the very end of articles is extremely detrimental in some cases, particularly in the third world where domestic travel options are more important. Took the liberty of moving the one at Kathmandu, but feel free to revert if there's some substantive reason for its current placement. Please do explain here, though, if so. If not, any objections to changing this template accordingly? (WT-en) MrZaius 06:26, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I think Get out works best where it is now, seeing as it's meant to highlight nearby destinations. The way the layout is organized now works like a step-by-step to how to experience a city. First you have the brief intro explaining why you would come to this city, then you have to Get in, then figure out how to Get around, then you can See, Buy, Eat, Sleep, etc, and then when you're done with this city you move on to someplace nearby, hence Get out. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 12:02, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

And I agree that it works well in its current state for certain articles, but for articles like Kathmandu where the section is solely focused on intra-country travel, and the reader effectively must return to Kathmandu to leave the country, it doesn't make much sense. Any harm done in shifting it about in those few articles where the above applies? (WT-en) MrZaius 19:41, 4 November 2008 (EST)

For Kathmandu, Get out should focus on nearby stuff as well (maybe it just hasn't been added yet)... ultimately it won't be devoted only to intra-country travel – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 21:13, 4 November 2008 (EST)

Learn and Work proposal

I've posted a proposal for the Learn and Work sections over in Project:Big city article template#Learn and Work. Seeing as the Huge city template has these two sections as well, I thought I'd direct attention to it here. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 12:20, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

I read it, and I'va gotta say, I like the idea, I mean they just don't really fit much into their own. They can barely come up with on topic information (ones i've seen that're long just end up having stuff on livng there). it doesn't make sense having trhem like thAT. support. keep smiling, (WT-en) Edmontonenthusiast 12:47, 31 October 2008 (EDT)

Embassies, consulates and High Commissions

I added a bit on embassies (which applies to consulates as well, although we are less likely to include them in articles?) to the Cope section. I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything controversial—just summed up current practice. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 23:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)

Instead of embassies, Commonwealth countries have High Commissions in each other's capitals, although it is possible for a country to appoint a High Commissioner without having a permanent mission in the other country: eg, the British High Commissioner in Suva, Fiji, is also accredited as High Commissioner to Kiribati, Tuvalu and Tonga. Zimbabwe, before it was kicked out of the Commonwealth, traditionally had High Commissioners in other Commonwealth countries. When it withdrew from the Commonwealth, it changed the style of its former High Commission in London to "The Zimbabwe embassy". The old lettering can still be seen on the building. Both "Commonwealth" (not "British Commonwealth") and "High Commission" should have initial letter capitalisation. --118.93nzp (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Listings belong in district articles

This page currently advises writing content like:

• Attraction 1 in District 4 is really great.
• Also don't miss Attraction 2 in District 5.
• No trip to Huge City would be complete without stopping in District 3 and seeing Attraction 3.

This is problematic, as it all but invites subsequent editors to insert individual listings here, often as promotion or spam. Individual listings belong in district articles, not here.

It would be best to change the format to be:

District 4 is famous as the location of Attraction 5 and the waterfront area is home of Attraction 6 which is really great and Attraction 7 is not to be missed.

Be sure to stop in District 5 where the waterfront includes Attraction 8 and the main street leads to Attraction 9.

That may reduce the excessive detail at this level (which really belongs in individual districts) by keeping the main article sections as an overview. K7L (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The See section (as well as the eat, drink, buy, etc. sections) shouldn't be one-liners at all—it should be in paragraph form, hopefully with some sensible narrative to organize it. Chicago#See, for a pretty good example, has Museums, Architecture, African-American history, Ethnic neighborhoods subsections, all of which tell a story about the city while linking to relevant districts and mentioning the main city sights.

These policy articles are pretty outdated—thanks for working on them ;) --Peter ^Talk 19:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Get in by plane

There is the following recommendation:

Name the airport or airports that serve this city. Name the air carriers that serve the city, and rough schedules ("once a week, once a day") for getting to this city by air from other major nearby cities. Note transportation options for getting from the airport to the city center. If it's common to hire private planes to arrive in the city -- say, if it's in the bush in Alaska -- note the names of plane charter companies, and give contact info. If there's just no plane service to this city, leave this section out.

This is ok for a small airport. But for a huge city the airport would have so many connections that it would be very hard to maintain such a list. Wikipedia with its much higher number of users tries this (compare for example w:Madrid–Barajas Airport which has 340 connections (airline/destination combinations) and none listed in our Madrid guide). Same for London. No list and no external link to such a list. Should we link to the Wikipedia airport article or an air travel agency? --BIL (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

London should link to our article on Heathrow Airport; since we have the info here, no need to go interwiki to WP. London/Heathrow is an exceptional case, though, as that airport is city-sized. We usually won't have a whole page just about an airport. We list the most common destinations in "Get in — by air" but don't provide more detail beyond that as schedules change often and are impossible to keep up to date.

I wouldn't advise opening up the spammy can of worms that linking to travel agencies represents — every middleman wants their company listed instead of primary sources, but that does more to serve the one travel agent (as advertising) than serve the traveller. If the airport itself (not some middleman or agent) has a site with a list of destinations, link that.

The question of creating a "wikipedia=" field in the {{listing}} template was discussed at length in January but no consensus was reached and nothing was done. Some other-language WV projects use this, but en: is deadlocked on the idea at the moment. K7L (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Cost subsection for huge cities?

Swept in from the pub

Hello!

I just noticed there is no one place to put generalized information about costs in huge city articles. Is this by design? I was thinking about adding a "Costs" subheader within the "Understand" section? Costs in cities can be significantly higher than surrounding areas. It could be a very brief overview of what things cost in the city, specific local taxes, etc. I could instead put slices of the info in the Eat, Drink, Sleep, etc sections... but it feels like collecting this info in one spot would be more helpful for the traveller? Is there a preferred way to handle this? I couldn't find any good examples in the Chicago/DC/SFO articles. In my specific case, Boston is a very expensive city and I'd like to mention something about that towards the top of the article.

Thank you! --ButteBag (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I should think an infobox showing very rough average minimum prices for a limited number of things (hotel room, 2 course meal, pint / glass of the local tipple, most common transport pass / single fare, local tourist taxes like you said) would be very helpful indeed. The natural place for it would be the 'understand' section. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think in general we are a bit light on generalized "what does stuff cost" info compared to dead trees guides that usually have a "if your style of traveling is x expect to pay y for z" in the front cover. For example it would be great to give a general range of - say - hotels in Germany or domestic flights in the US to give people a hint at what to expect. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

General cost information goes in Buy. Powers ^(talk) 20:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

When should the "Huge city" template be used?

{{}} I was under the impression it was self-evident that the Huge city template should be used only for, y'know, huge cities (in population/attractions, not land area), but based on the discussion at Talk:Miyoshi (Tokushima), a slab of rural Japan that became a "city" in 2005 and is now districtified, this is not the case. Please help set policy for this at Wikivoyage talk:Geographical hierarchy#"Huge cities" that are actually rural areas. Jpatokal (talk) 12:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether something should be a region with city articles or a city with district articles is a judgement call, which isn't too much about whether the destination is a city administratively (neither London nor Paris is, to make that point clear). If there are a number of cities and towns with countryside in-between, calling it a city is a stretch, but I suppose that's what e.g. L.A. is like. I think it boils down to whether locals or the traveller would be surprised by us calling the place a city, or rather, whether a visitor would feel betrayed by us doing so. –LPfi (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Where is the countryside in L.A.? In some of the hills? It's mostly (sub)urban sprawl. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to the endless suburbia in LA? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 22:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Los Angeles includes Antelope Valley and Santa Clarita Valley. I haven't been there, but the articles give the feel that there is quite some countryside and even non-developed country amidst the sprawl. —The preceding comment was added by LPfi (talk • contribs) 05:51, May 16, 2024

I've been to LA quite a few times (my cousin lives there) and almost all of the endless suburbs of both Antelope and Santa Clarita Valleys are continuous with the main core of LA. I guess that's the byproduct of a city bulldozed for the car. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 10:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I had the same qualms about Buffalo. From what I picked up it seems to be determined by the amount of information editors (past or present) have bothered to add, rather than any intrinsic quality. (I'm not subtly being negative here this is just what I gathered.) Brycehughes (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• If the "huge city" template cannot be used when districts are warranted simply because of the name, which it seems some number of editors believe deeply to be true, then the template name should be changed to eliminate this problem and the protective attitude towards the template. Districtification should not be such a deeply personal thing. If a city/town/village has enough content to warrant districts, it should not be controversial to divide it into those districts. We should not be having discussions about how to avoid districtifying due to a template name. It's so wild to me to read entire article creation philosophies based solely around the name of this template when no one minds non-cities being called "cities". Perhaps there's a name that would be better suited, maybe something like "districted city" which is more literal and more about the state of the article ("it's districted") rather than a statement that some are interpreting to be about the city itself ("huge city")? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  I couldn't agree more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

  Except what could we name it to? The genie is out of the bottle; I can't think of a better name for such instances. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I proposed "Districted City" as a first thought. The reason being that it describes the state of the article rather than the city. You and others would need to state if you think "districted city" would change how people think about it. Or someone can propose another name, but I do think something that describes the state of the article rather than the city itself is probably important in neutralizing attitudes about districts. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That could work, but it seems a bit too technical for me. It's the same argument why we call tiny tucked-away villages as "cities" on Wikivoyage. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see how this proposal has anything to do with Miyoshi (Tokushima), the article that started this discussion. The concern there, as far as I can tell, is that the place is a rural region and possibly shouldn't be a city article at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone has suggested turning Miyoshi into a non-districted city article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

No. The real question is whether the article should be huge city, region or extraregion. –LPfi (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The entire discussion began on the talk page of Miyoshi (Tokushima) with the statement that it's "not a huge city in any sense of the word". The proposals to create regions/extraregions all stem from the desire to avoid calling it a "huge city" when it is not viewed to be one. The "rural region" argument was made to say it's not a huge city. The template name is lending itself to these arguments. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

So it may do, but either whether to call it a region or a huge city is about what that tells about its place in our region structure or the wish to call or not to call the place a city. Jpatokal claims that the area isn't a city but several with countryside in-between. I don't know whether the area is one, but it seems that the disagreement indeed is about that. If you think the huge city structure suites better for other reasons, please spell out those arguments. –LPfi (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

We could solve all these problems by removing the names and just numbering them. "Region" could become the article type "3", and "Big region" could become "3.2". Then we'd never have another discussion about whether this is "really" a city. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

But we'd argue "you cannot use type 2, that's for cities" :-) –LPfi (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We'd have to define "Type 4 is for a destination with places to sleep and eat and something to do. Most commonly, this is a city, town, or similar populated place, but this list of suggested sections can also be used for rural areas and parks."

And maybe put "Use the template whose sections matches what you want to put in the article, no matter what it's called" at the top of the page.

(And on the talk page, we can tell editors that every time experienced editor starts a dispute over something like "Type 4 is for cities, so you can't use that for that subject", we'll add intensifying formatting – repeated copies, bold text, colored highlighting, exclamation marks, the name of the editor(s) who needs to stop saying these things, a Javascript gadget that requires anyone reading the page to agree that they won't say that, etc. – until people get the message. It's good to ask whether ____ matches the subject matter; it's bad if our shorthand labels get in the way of people who are trying to do the right thing.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied with something like "District city", but some of the concerns about the "inaccurate" name might go away if we called it a "____ article" instead of a "_____ city". We use this template when our content is huge, not when the destination is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think "districted city" is OK. That phrase would appear only in template and guideline names. The question about the naming is about the phrase in {{PrintDistricts}}:

"X is a huge city with several district articles that contain information about specific sights, restaurants, and accommodation."

There is really no need to use the technical term in that sentence. We could as well say:

The information about X is split over several "district" articles. This page contains a summary and common information."

–LPfi (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The latter (your wording) could also work, and that avoids technical jargon for the most part. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• There are 2 proposals discussed separately above. There is the new name ("districted city") and there is a number proposal. Any comments regarding which is preferred? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Three if you include LPfi's proposal which is to just change the wording on {{PrintDistricts}}. This is the proposal that I favor. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I thought LPfi's suggestion was part of the "districted city" proposal discussion. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• [edit conflict] I don't think we really have any problem with the labels, other than when used in the visible article text, and I think verbal labels are easier to grasp than numbers. The case at hand is more about grouping locations in the region article and having clumsy links – or more generally: when to use the article type in question – than about what the article type is called. Thus I don't see a need to start using numbers instead, and I fear that would be a big operation with quite some side effects that we don't see clearly yet. –LPfi (talk) 11:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with LPfi. The number idea is not intuitive and will be hard for many editors to grasp and apply uniformly. I think LPfi's suggestion to simply change the wording on PrintDistricts makes a lot of sense and is the suggestion I would support. Mrkstvns (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I support the wording changes, as well. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)