Choice A. This image is inclusive of most continents, and most importantly, leaves room for growth and modification. The images are clear and the resolution is good, which is also very important. Unfortunately, choice B doesn't have a single redeeming feature: choice B excludes Africa, contains two pictures of Brazil (unnecessary), contains an obscenely large picture of a ferris wheel, thereby reducing pictures of Rio de Janeiro, Manhattan, and Delhi to eye-squinting peculiarities, and very significantly, has a layout which really doesn't leave room for sensible growth or modification. Castncoot (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
None. None of the proposals meet the principle of MOS:IMAGES, which in summary says that images in articles are to illustrate the points made in the text, not to decorate the page. All of your proposals are essentially decorative, failing to illustrate high-density "housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, production of goods, and communication" (as Bazza 7 puts it concisely). Of the options offered, D is the least worst. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
@CactiStaccingCrane: It illustrates perfectly what the eastern Mediterranean looks like from a very high altitude at night, but fulfils none of the requirements of MOS:IMAGE to illustrate some properties of a city as described in the lead of this article: high-density "housing, transportation, sanitation, utilities, land use, production of goods, and communication. Here's some for transportation; I've no doubt other editors could find better examples for all the categories.
I don't give a hoot but, for Pete's sake it needs to have an actual photo of a city in it somewhere, having no photos whatsoever is completely absurd. jp×g🗯️02:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
My goal was to indeed demonstrate utilitarian properties with this latest proposal, not to be decorative. If I've failed even with this attempt, then this may be a signal that we indeed need to go with no lead image at all. Castncoot (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
The discussion was along the lines of showing the qualities described without specifying location (since that only invites people to replace it with their home city). I recognise your good faith but, even ignoring the location naming, I struggled to see how the images you selected met the criteria. For example, if I wanted to illustrate intensive pedestrian traffic, the Shibuya Crossing is most famous example: your quiet pedestrian bridge does not hit the spot.
@JMF, the whole effort I was trying to implement was to use images from lesser-known secondary or tertiary cities, where a large proportion of the globe's population now lives, and specifically as Bazza 7 pointed out above which would portray the utilitarian nature of cities more representative of mundane reality than the most famous landmarks of the most famous cities. Norwegians do live in Trondheim, you know.. not just in Oslo or Bergen. This montage is a work in progress, subject to modification and improvement and perhaps even growth. But if it's irreconcilable, then I have absolutely no problem with having no lead section image. Castncoot (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I like it too: it is clear, useful, and doesn't encourage the perennial "my city is even prettier" edit wars. I reverted CactiStaccingCrane's idea (to use File:Number of people living in urban and rural areas, World (OWID).svg) only for procedural reasons. Half a day is a bit early to declare a consensus but hopefully... --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's ok for now. I may, over the coming months, look for illustrations which meet the criteria above and could be used to reinstate a montage. I'll alert contributors to this discussion if and when I have done that. Bazza (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Is it appropriate here to say that I don't like the idea of a montage at all? I'm sure they are proposed by people with much younger and better eyes than mine, and with bigger screens than mine. And I'll bet they never look at their montages on phone screens. HiLo48 (talk) 09:58, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
RfC2 montage with four images incorporated examples of the different aspects to a "city" as defined by the page; the images are clear and high quality; and because there are only four, the images take up less real estate on the page. I disagree with 𝕁𝕄𝔽 that the montage is merely decorative. I argue that the montage enhances the page. Option A is also acceptable. No image is unacceptable. Penguino35 (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
So let me repeat: Template:Tq, then they are decorative rather than illustrative. What has changed since the last time it was said?
And what stops one or more of the pics being replaced by an arbitrary editor with a prettier one of their own home city? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
None of the above - MOS:LEADIMAGE: a lead image should be Template:Tqq I think the lead image should depict the topic, not the parts of the topic (housing, transport, sanitation, etc.), and not the parts of the article. The lead image of car shows a car, not an engine, wheels, exhaust, etc. Human shows typical humans, not the aspects of humans. The lead image of city should be a picture of a city that shows the whole city--an aerial view, because of the size of a city--not a montage showing the parts of a city.
I'm ambivalent about whether it should be 1 lead image or a montage (of cities, not of parts of cities). I'm not sure that multiple images of cities really adds much beyond one image, though. I prefer the single image of car to the montage of town, for example, and fish is a good example of a bad montage, for comparison.
As for what stops an arbitrary editor from replacing the lead image, that's what some editors said about the lead images of Man and Woman, but the answer is consensus: have an RFC, pick a lead image, and--like at Man and Woman--once it has consensus, it'll stay stable for years (and it's ok if consensus changes).
If I absolutely had to pick from one of the options, it would be A (I agree with Castncoot's reasoning above as to why A is better than B), but that's a distant second choice to just having an image (or montage) of an aerial shot of a city; that's what will "give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page". Levivich (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
We got to these RFCs precisely because of arbitrary and unilateral changes to the collage and refusal to accept the previous consensus. Your principle is very noble but in this case it is "more honoured in the breach than in the observance". It has proved impossible to defend the consensus unless there are enough editors committed to doing so.
Almost every editor knows what a city looks like; the current image, a graph showing the rise of urban living far more effectively confirms to visitors that they have arrived at a useful article about cities in concept. I suggest it meets the test of MOS:LEADIMAGE far better pictures of skyscrapers or indeed of sewage running down the street. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 June4 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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 Template:U's reversion of your edit. Body content done, you can add it again. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
