Talk:City

"Metropolitan city" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Metropolitan city has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 24 § Metropolitan city until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 21:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

"Città" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Città has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20 § Città until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"Sat (Romania)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sat (Romania) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20 § Sat (Romania) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"Insular city" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Insular city has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20 § Insular city until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"City employment" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect City employment has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20 § City employment until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"City work" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect City work has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20 § City work until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"Desert cities" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Desert cities has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 20 § Desert cities until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Municipal definition ?

I’ve noticed an inconsistency on some of the states pages on Wikipedia like South Carolina for example. It says it’s most populous CITY is Charleston but the largest metro area is Greenville ( I’d assume it’s the largest urban area too but haven’t checked it). By the definition of “city” on this page the most populous city in South Carolina would be the Greenville urban area not Charleston as the Greenville area is the most populous human settlement. I know when you click on most populous cities it says municipalities, but shouldn’t it say “the most populous municipality in South Carolina is Charleston” instead of “the most populous city in South Carolina is Charleston” on the South Carolina page? That’s why I added municipal definition to the intro although I don’t think the 2 should be confused. I’ll go ask at the South Carolina and Charleston page too. Im not sure if municipalities that have the largest population in their state should say they are the largest city like Charleston, South Carolina for example because it seems to send the wrong message when there’s another human settlement in the same state that is larger especially when this is the definition for “city” on Wikipedia. Would appreciate an opinion on this Kansascitt1225 (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

You also need to take a worldwide view. For example, city status in the United Kingdom has a legal meaning and is awarded to local government, not specifically the built-up area. For the edge cases, see City of Carlisle and City of Milton Keynes. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:lead, you need to have written the body content first, then summarise it in the lead. So in the meantime I'm reinstating Remsense's reversion of your edit. Body content done, you can add it again. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok sounds good, I’ll look more into the UK cities definitions and boundaries too and get back to that when I have time Kansascitt1225 (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Mumbaiinindia.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Change of image

we have have to change images it is since year. Ironman291010 (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean by "since year"? Belbury (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

it has not changed since years. And also this image shows a metro not city. Ironman291010 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Do any of the images seem significantly inaccurate for being out of date?

The Metro photo is a good example of the types of transportation systems particular to cities. Belbury (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

we should rotate image Ironman291010 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ironman291010: No, we should not. There have been several discussions in the past about image selection, including most recently Talk:City/Archive_1#Montage, Talk:City/Archive_1#Lead_image_2 and Talk:City/Archive_1#RfC_Choices_for_lead_image. Consensus is required to make changes.

Image selection is not a competition, and this article is not a showcase for various cities around the world. On several occasions, image selection has degenerated into a "my city is better than yours" mess. We should use MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE to guide us on selecting the best images which demonstrate examples of the attributes of a city: housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, production of goods, and communication, as described in the first paragraph at the top of the article. Bazza 7 (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I concur with Belbury/Bazza. No compelling argument for a change has been presented. Sdkb ^talk 20:21, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

And I profoundly disagree. The only consensus here is that there is no consensus for any specific collage, as even this discussion right here demonstrates. The most defining element of a city is its people, not a big ferris wheel. By default, the lead image here should be one displaying a high density of people and structures. NYC, Tokyo, and Hong Kong are the only cities with iconic lead images which best fit the archetypal identity of a city. Any of these three cities would be appropriate to lead. The ferris wheel picture would be suitable to lead the Amusement park page. Let's use common sense now, please. Castncoot (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

That does not give you licence to change the collage to your personal choices. Or do you think that the collage can be changed at will, fifteen times a day? @Bazza 7 has explained all this just two posts above. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:59, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I'd really prefer not to have to go through another RfC. How about the following montage simply switching London's and Tokyo's positions as a compromise to incorporate all of the valid concerns expressed by the various editors above in this section?: @Ironman291010; @Belbury; @Bazza 7; @Sdkb; @JMF

The article's current montage screams "LONDON!" at the top. I hope that people realize that this directly violates MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. On the other hand, the Shibuya picture doesn't scream "TOKYO"- if anything, the first reaction to that picture really is just "CITY" seen directly at ground level, which is the ideal setting- not a picture postcard. I see no compelling reason for the unequivocally "London" image to lead the montage, when this article is supposed to describe the concept of a city in general. If anything, Tokyo still registers in many people's minds as the world's largest city (even though the UN doesn't recognize it as such) and therefore really does have a more compelling reason than London to represent the lead image. And London would still be near the top. Castncoot (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

From top, left to right: Shibuya Crossing in Tokyo; Westminster Palace in London; painting of Boulevard Montmartre in Paris by Camille Pissarro; the Rocinha favela in Rio de Janeiro; 6th Avenue in Manhattan; spice market in Old Delhi; Hong Kong; and the São Paulo Metro

Okay, all I hear are crickets from 5 different editors here. I'm going to take that to mean that everyone here is a reasonable person with a neutral point of view, and like myself, will find this simple and minimal change to be non-controversial (and will also hopefully find it to be a genuine improvement to the montage). Best, Castncoot (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Castncoot: Not everyone who contributes to improving Wikipedia articles has the same time zone, free time, health or impatience as you. Expecting instant responses to your comments is unreasonable. I have views on this which I have expressed before and will no doubt add to later. Bazza 7 (talk) 07:54, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think it's a problem to have the London banner at the top. Part of what defines cities is that they have iconic landmarks. In terms of composition, the London image is long, so it works much better to give it its own line.

Separately, what happened to the old image of the Old Delhi spice market? That was much better than the current one, because it connoted a bustling street better and because it was vertical, fitting in better with the other two vertical images on that line (as opposed to squishing them). Sdkb ^talk 02:16, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@User:Sdkb: Before I start yet another Rfc (which I find unnecessarily painful and divisive) when there's no policy or guideline indicating that we can't further improve and collaboratively achieve compromise consensus right here (after all, two out of the other five editors on this current thread apparently don't agree with you), what is your compelling objection to having the Tokyo image at the top and the London image right after it? I honestly believe that it's a better image, most importantly more neutral and more reflective of what a "city" most represents: its people, and at ground level, rather than an iconic postcard image of any one particular city. Castncoot (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Castncoot I agree than the current montage "screams LONDON" as you put it. But your suggestion shouts Tokyo.

The current and your suggested montages are for decoration, as shown by their captioning: there is no indication which aspects of cities are being depicted other than something nice to look at; and so it goes against the requirements of MOS:IMAGEREL.

You have said, several times, that the "most defining element of a city is its people". Does the article state that, or is this your unreferenced opinion? I could argue (also unreferenced) that it's the place's economy, and that its residents are simply a by-product: no economy, no city. But this is all by-the-by. We have Wikipedia guidelines and policies to stick to in this article, and that's what should be concentrated on here.

My preference, as I might have indicated previously, is for one of the following:

• No montage or image at all. There's no obligation for pictures at the top of the article. Proper illustrations are for the article body, and (with the exception of the random gallery at the end, which might also be removed) it is already adorned with a reasonable and relevant selection.
• If people are insistent on a montage, then it should show the aspects of cities from the article: so depictions of dense housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, production of goods, and communication, captioned as such; preferably without identifying any of the cities shown. Historical drawings (e.g. Over London by Rail, Gustave Doré c 1870) are just as valid as modern, glitzy photos.

Bazza 7 (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 Thank you very much for your incredibly insightful and detailed response. May I first say that the Rfc being referenced was from January 2024, approaching 3 years old now, and old enough to be in an archived discussion. There's no policy, guideline, or even valid justification at this time to mandate that the only way to veer from that Rfc would be through another formal RfC. There's no good reason why we can't come up with an improved result right here on this thread.

I agree with you 100% that there ideally should be NO montage. I also agree in tandem with you that if people insist on a montage then it should embody all different aspects of a city without screaming one. It sppears that you, like myself, are not thrilled with the current montage, which would be much more appropriately placed in a Gallery section and not in the lead, because currently the London banner steals all the oxygen out of the room and looks like a postcard advertisement from the tourism department, which is not the purpose of this article. Surely we can do better than this. If people insist on a montage, then perhaps we can come up with a 3x3 (or even 2X2) matrix of different aspects of a city given relatively similar weights, and with captions thst actually embody these different aspects. First of all, is there anybody here who insists that there must be a montage? Castncoot (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Something I would be open to (although still wouldn't be my first preference) would be to remove the London photo and just start the collage from what is currently the second row.

Cities are an ideal topic for a collage because they are a varied topic; I would be opposed to having no collage just because we struggle to decide what to put in it. Sdkb ^talk 17:19, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

From top, left to right: Lagos, one of the world's fastest-growing megacities; Shibuya Crossing in Tokyo; painting of Boulevard Montmartre in Paris by Camille Pissarro; the Rocinha favela in Rio de Janeiro; 6th Avenue in Manhattan; spice market in Delhi; Hong Kong; and the São Paulo Metro

How about this? We already have Paris representing Europe, but no cities from the fastest-growing continent, with now one-sixth of the world's population. Of course, the top one-third or so would need to be cropped out (I'm a terrible cropper), but otherwise in general, would it be something you folks can agree with? Castncoot (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

That's a good image. I took a stab at a crop at File:Lagos-centre-from-executive-lounge-Continental-hotel-2026-IMG_7970 (cropped).jpg. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 21:06, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Yours is a fantastic crop, thank you. I've inserted your cropped version into the above montage, just on this talk page. I think if people are generally on board with this change, then we can proceed to post it onto the main page. I'll be honest, I believe that this will be an important improvement to the montage. Castncoot (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• I don't have strong opinions on changing the images, but I'm curious why most entries list the city (London and Paris, for example) while the New York and Delhi ones are more specific. Also, why are Hong Kong and Old Delhi linked but not the other place names? Jessintime (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you for stating your concerns, now addressed. (By the way there are three entirely separate and different 6th Avenues in NYC, one each in Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens, hence the specific dab needed). As there is no apparent opposition to the change of image to Lagos, will proceed to make the change on the main article page now. Castncoot (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2026 (UTC)