Talk:List of Federal States cities by population

From OpenGeofiction Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is this page for City Proper or for city greater areas? --Zytik (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2020 (CET)

City proper. Talk to Rhiney boi 20:30, 14 February 2020 (CET)

Ok its already getting out of hand. How can Ramani possibly claim 10 million people, larger than Stanton, 1.5 times as large as New York City, when theres like 20 roads and thats it on the map so far: https://opengeofiction.net/#map=13/-42.7034/148.4522

Edit: You should have to have a city actually mapped first to some extent before placing it on here, nevertheless the most populous city in the FSA --Zytik (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2020 (CET)

Indeed - here is not the place for dreamings and unmapped stuff - an admin could delete this not existing metropoles. Poeple - stay honestly --Histor (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2020 (CET)
I really have no idea. Sadly I cannot change it, but it is what is on the map tagged with the population tag. Talk to Rhiney boi 21:42, 14 February 2020 (CET)

Well maintained, or not at all

"an admin could delete this not existing metropoles". Very similar to any other list of the "biggest bestest things". But you're not going to find an admin dedicating time to policing the list. Either it is self-policed and kept useful, or it will simply be deleted. /wangi (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2020 (CET)

I think it is not fair, to set unmapped towns (or whatever) in such lists. Years ago also we had the rule - "no red links" - for such a list. But o.k. - if you think, the list can stay so, then let it be. I not will delete anything from such lists. --Histor (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2020 (CET)
I rather delete towns/cities that are not really developed on the map from the list, rather than removing towns/cities that do not have a wiki page. I dont see the need of having a wiki page for every major city, and it is better to have no page than just a stub left like that for ages.--Happy mapping and God blesses you, ZK (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2020 (CET)
Many of these red links will never be developed, so I believe that we should delete those and keep the others. --Yoyo21 (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2020 (CET)
I'd say instead of deleting cities from the map that are red linked we should delete the link from those cities, aka instead of "City A" just "City A", and then focus as Zhenkang and Histor point to, delete cities off the list that aren't developed. My own Wallawaukee was a red link until earlier this month largely because we're told to emphasize the map first, but I don't think anyone would argue that it's not one of the most developed cities in the FSA right now. Cities like Luciano's Ohunkagan, Makaska are very well designed (though historically) but would also technically still be a red link for now. In contrast we have the barely developed Ramani claiming to be home to 10,000,000 people in the geographical equivalent of Montana??? THAT seems more like what should be removed from the list. Quality over quantity, and with the links it's easier just to make it a non-link if it's a city with enough mapping quality to warrant being there. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2020 (CET)
We spend so much time discouraging overwikification and encouraging a map focus, yet seem to punish the users that do good mapping work but refuse to overwikify. It's kind of ironic --Ernestpcosby (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2020 (CET)
This became popular among Federal States mappers, which I did not expect. Well, I did look at it a few weeks later, so...
Anyways, I agree with maybe demoting Ramani. Taviani has unknown/weird etymologies, and also uses real-life place names like Fortaleza. Honestly, I think that a city should be much more detailed than a couple of roads to be added to this list. Otherwise, this chart would be filled with projects which may not be later on.
IiEarth (talk) 09:47, 15 February 2020 (CET)

Better Alternative

Why doesn't this just become a collapsable infobox on the Federal States wiki page? That is much more centralized and less redundant --Zytik (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2020 (CET)

Move to Sandbox

I recommend we do the following:

  • Move this page into the OGF:Federal States namespace to establish this as a sandbox/internal coordination page
  • Add a “percent mapped” column where each city’s mapper(s) can assign something sort of estimate as to how much of the city is actually mapped
  • Agree on some percentage threshold where a city officially becomes “canon” of the FSA (50%? 75%? The percentage can be up for debate), in which case the city is added to an expandable table on Federal States as Zytik suggested
  • Relegating any city with a mapped completion rate of 25% or lower to a second “planned city” or “draft city” table to clarify that the city is being worked on but not yet ready to be considered “official”

-TheMayor (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2020 (CET)

I have no objection to this; the reason why I didn't add OGF:Federal States to it was because I thought that it would be a 'canon' page about the cities of the Flag of the FSA.svg Federal States and their population. I do see that many cities are sort of... Undeveloped, and so is Silverdale, so I agree with your procedures.
--IiEarth (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2020 (CET)
I like this overall but I feel like specific percents would disadvantage those doing historical mapping and those that would give a low percentage based on the level of detail they want to go into for the overall city. There seem to be a fair amount of well mapped established cities that would probably be significantly under 25% by that mapper's standard just based on the amount of detail in one area that the mappers intend to slowly add in other areas. Unless the percentage is referring to overall mapping and not to finished detail? But that could be a problem that encourages the "just bunch of roads" mapping. Hm. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2020 (CET)

Alormen Cities

I've removed the Alormen cities that were added to the page without notice or permission. The data was lifted from nodes on the map but those numbers are guidance for future mapping, not official estimates to be used for other purposes. None of the Alormen cities are in any shape to be referred to in the wiki. This page should be deleted or at the least the Mayor's recommendations should be followed. Ruadh (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2020 (CET)

To be clear, are you saying Alormen is essentially like Commonia and for the purposes of the wiki non-canon? Or just that it's not developed enough at this time to be viewed as canon? (I wasn't the one who added them, but I am a bit confused) --Ernestpcosby (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2020 (CET)
Hi Ernest, no worries , it's clear from the page history who added the Alormen cities to this list :) In answer to your question, no Alormen isn't exactly Commonia, it's safe to say that Alormen is a large FSA state with a number of big cities, they have names and locations but once we get into population sizes there needs to be mapping to support the claim. Alormen is a collaborative so I can't tell you for sure what will be mapped or how the cities will grow.. if at all.. it depends on who gets involved, how much time they're willing to spend mapping etc. From the beginning we envisioned Andreapolis to be the largest city but how big exactly? Only time will tell. Shawcross, Longstone, Dewar, Port Massehanne and Fort Sinclair are single nodes while the others are in the very early stages of development, they're proto-cities at best. In a situation like that I personally don't see the point of including them in a list that ranks them alongside other cities that actually have some mapping to support their population claims. Using Alormen in the wiki should be limited to what can be observed on, and justified by, the map. So if you want to write that a mayor of Wallawaukee originally came from San Pascaul I think that's fine but if you write that San Pascaul has, for example, a large ex-pat community of Freedemians then you better have mapped some nudist beaches there to back that up! :) Ruadh (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2020 (CET)

Automatic table

What about creating this table automatically?--Mstr (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2020 (CEST)

Hmm - only to put in the tag "population" a 10 000 000 and there is a big city?? I think, a city should be generally mapped and not be only a dot on the map, but with well filled population-tag. And no cities less than 100 000 inhabitants (a filter in your software?) --Histor (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (CEST)
We could filter cities with "is_in:state" tag, which is required for the table. As with the capital tag, we can regard unrealistic tagging as vandalism and remove/modify these tags, especially for the large ones? (should be approved by the coordinator) --Mstr (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2020 (CEST)

Template:MER-autoTable rfrsh

This seems fine to me. You could replace the current table if you want; not only does this reduce the work for people, but it also saves data.
--IiEarth (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2020 (CEST)
Before you use a table like this, the (nodal) data on the map should be up-to-date.--Mstr (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2020 (CEST)

Entenhausen

What is Entenhausen, and why is it tagged in state "tbd"? --Yoyo21 (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2020 (CEST)

What is Ramani and why is it in the list? If the list is done in this way, we can delete it -- immediately!--Mstr (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2020 (CEST)
In addition, making such lists without link to the position on the map does not make sense. Should I search on the map? The purpose of the list, as of all other lists as well, is fully unclear. We should delete it, no matter where Entenhausen/Ramani is located.--Mstr (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2020 (CEST)
Although I agree that cities such as Ramani that aren't really developed (not to mention Ramani's outrageously high population) shouldn't be on the list, making a joke city called Entenhausen (it translates to "duck house" in German, according to Google Translate) isn't the way to make this point. I would actually describe this action as vandalism. Why use behavior like this when you can respectfully bring up this issue on the talk page? --Yoyo21 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2020 (CEST)
Maybe you've already followed the discussion on the talk page? If you see this as vandalism, okay! But then the existence of the page (as it is) clearly breaks the wiki rules. Why to bring it up and discuss about issues which clearly contradict the rules? Why?--Mstr (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2020 (CEST)
What's the purpose of the page? To debate if a single node on the map is sufficient, or it requires 5 streets (3 of them with name) to be on the list? I'm sorry, but the presence of Ramani on the top of the list (for a long time and many edits!) shows that you are not eligible to maintain the project!--Mstr (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2020 (CEST)
Personal attacks and vandalism aren't necessary to make your point, mstr. Your behavior has been sad and pathetic. Like I said, only developed cities should be placed on this list. I don't understand why you think this entire list should be deleted, though. Where is the rule against this type of page? --Yoyo21 (talk) 04:17, 25 April 2020 (CEST)
You're welcome! I do ask you again: What is the reason to tolerate and excuse the absurd content of the list? There is neither the intention to list reasonable data nor to link to the map, it's just another list and thus a prototype of overwikification. My modification was not more risible than the original kind of "information", instead of mainting the page you are debating that this kind of "collaboration" makes sense... it does not! Thus, deleting data seems to be more logical than having this kind of discussion about a place which does not exist.--Mstr (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2020 (CEST)
Well Mstr, I agree with you. Ramani is a prime example of overrepresentation of a city that should not exist. I agree it shouldn't be on this table. However, the one and only thing I will insert into this discussion and nothing more is that you should think deep and hard about our first encounter with each other. I think that you changing the name to Duck House on the page, when seen through the lens what you did to me last year, and how it ruined my relationship with several people in the OGF community, is, frankly, disgusting. I am not returning to this conversation because I dont care enough to debate it further. --Zytik (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2020 (CEST)
Mstr, if you don't agree with lists, then why do you have a list of companies in Mergany? And, I will remove some places from this list later as well. --Yoyo21 (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2020 (CEST)
Please stop arguing here— take this to your private messages. Also, just my two cents; there's a list of companies in Mergany because locations are mapped, thus, it is not overwikification.
--IiEarth (talk) 07:50, 25 April 2020 (CEST)

I fully can understand Mstr. Such jokes like Ramani is a provocation for earnest mappers. I like this guys, which made some streets and some subway-station or whatever and then set a high value in the population-tag ande mean, now they have the right to show in a list that there is the biggest city of an area.

By the way: "Entenhausen" has a positive meaning in german language. It is the home of Donald Duck. --Histor (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2020 (CEST)

Since this issue has devolved into wiki vandalism, I’m proposing a new FSA rule that no single city outside a collaborative state should have a population above 3,000,000. Currently the only two cities in violation of this proposed rule are Ramani – which we all agree needs to have its population significantly downsized – and Xavier, a city in a state marked for withdrawal and will likely be changed or removed entirely when a new mapper comes in. This cap would not apply to the total population of metropolitan areas, so this would also encourage more American-style sprawl and suburban municipalities as well. If this sounds like a good idea we can discuss it on the forum and take a vote. -TheMayor (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2020 (CEST)
I think that rule makes sense. I almost feel like 2,500,000 would be a good cap since I think in the actual US only New York, Chicago, and LA surpass that and New Carnaby and Cosperica are both collaborative, but I suppose 3,000,000 is the easiest since everything falls under that already --Ernestpcosby (talk) 22:36, 25 April 2020 (CEST)
Mstr, I wanted to apologize for what I said to you a few days ago. I had a moment today when I realized what is truly at stake and what threatens the future of a better OGF. I think you are completely in the right here and we should make calls for much more aggressive cracking down on misrepresentations on the wiki. Cheers and stay safe in these uncertain times. —Zytik (talk) 07:06, 28 April 2020 (CEST)