Wikitravel talk:Huge city article template

Contents [hide]
Get around; Respect
Number of districts
What is the Huge City criteria
Huge Citys and Districts - Where do listings go?
[+]recommendations on when to (not) districtify a city
a notice on districts on top of huge city articles
District borders
LIST
Get out
Learn and Work proposal
Embassies and consulates
Get around; Respect[edit]
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 belo
ngs here as well. Notty
So, two things: you should probably read Wikitravel: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 t
alking about w/r/t Get around. --Evan 17:19, 8 Feb 2004 (EST)
I know how to sign posts, I just tend to forget to. I suggest you take the respe
ct 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 Notty 00:44, Feb 9, 2004 (EST)
Number of districts[edit]
I think we need some sort of guideline for how many districts a 'huge' city shou
ld have. Currently some places, like Rome and Berlin, which aren't actually "abs
olutely huge" on the scale of a Tokyo or New York City, are split into a very un
wieldy 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, Toky
o 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 Dh
aka into 18 districts if there isn't enough content to go around. Opinions? Jpat
okal 05:20, 8 Feb 2005 (EST)
The second method is definitely easiest as it's already implemented. If you clic
k "edit" and get the 32kb warning, you're looking at a huge city article. (= a h
uge article about a city, if not an article about a huge city.) -- 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 Wik
itravel 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. -Paul Richter 06:10, 8 Feb 2005 (EST)
What is the Huge City criteria[edit]
This question has been nagging me for some time. What is it that makes a city a
Huge City for Wikitravel 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 d
eciding 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 e
scapes 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 large
st land areas of any city in the world. Although the populations are only a mill
ion, 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 a
s a Huge City? -- Huttite 05:06, 18 Dec 2005 (EST)
I think the answer is none of the above, and Wikitravel:Article templates alread
y has the correct answer: for cities so big that they must be broken up into dis
tricts. 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 hu
ge city. Population doesn't necessarily translate into article template: Dhaka m
ay 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.
Jpatokal 10:00, 18 Dec 2005 (EST)
I agree that Greater Auckland sounds like a region, but that is really the Auckl
and Region. My dilemma is that Auckland refers to four adjacent cities, North Sh
ore, Waitakere, Auckland City and Manukau, which have no clearly definable bound
aries 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 f
orward. I can understand having a big article that you want to break down, but w
hat about lots of little city articles that go together as a metropolitan set an
d 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? -- 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 a
n island municipality within the municipality of Copenhagen. If you asked some f
riends in Greater Auckland to recommend some good restaurants in "Auckland" woul
d they give you restaurants in Auckland City or in Greater Auckland? --elgaard 1
0:39, 19 Dec 2005 (EST)
Huge Citys and Districts - Where do listings go?[edit]
Moved from Wikitravel:Travellers' pub 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 wer
e largely empty. Looking at other huge cities like Berlin and San Francisco ther
e doesn't seem to be a concensus on whether listings should stay on the main pag
e 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 empt
y and/or deleted?
All individual listings on BOTH the city page and districts pages? (removes poin
t of having districts)?
All individual listings on the districts pages and a random selection of listing
s on the city page?
The first option makes the most sense to me but that doesn't seem to be how dist
ricts are working at the moment. What does everyone else think? Thewayoftheduck
20:07, 20 July 2006 (EDT)
The first one. Maybe a little of the fourth. The second and third would be count
er-productive. The purpose of district articles is to take unwieldy See/Do/Buy/E
at/Sleep/Drink listings out of the main article and parcel them out to the distr

icts. 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 bu
llet-point items, which refer the reader to the district article for the full li
sting. See Wikitravel:Huge_city_article_template for a better description of thi
s than I can manage. -Todd VerBeek 21:09, 20 July 2006 (EDT)
San Francisco and Berlin aren't really our best examples of big city guide organ
ization yet. Perhaps look at Paris instead. -- Mark 03:43, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
Ah, perfect. Thanks both of you. Paris looks fantastic btw. Thewayoftheduck 07:0
0, 21 July 2006 (EDT)
recommendations on when to (not) districtify a city[edit]
I would propose the following recommendations for those considering to districti
fy a city / to create just another district article. I would vote to put it some
where like top of Wikitravel:Huge city article template (or probably as just ano
ther article in MoS)--not as a strict guideline, but as a recommendation to cons
ider and think of.
I have recently undertaken a nightmare of cleanup and duplication removal for Bu
dapest and its districts. I also explored city articles (and their district arti
cles) like Berlin, London, Athens, Rome and San Francisco--and found these recom
mendations 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 (tho
se experienced maintaining and cleaning up a districtified city heavily) ask bas
ically 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 conten
t 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 t
herefore questions "which district does this belong to?"; the more district arti
cles 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 mispla
cements.
but by any means, don't start separating content into districts until it will he
lp a reader.
Comments? --DenisYurkin 05:42, 11 February 2007 (EST)
Yeah, I think something like this is necessary. In particular, I think that a di
strict 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-stree
t level. I'd also like to see consensus from several city residents before distr
icting is allowed, because changing them afterwards is a huge pain. 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 sh
ould be considered an "owner" for that article. However, I do agree that distric
ts need to be clearly defined, preferably with a map or a talk page discussion t
hat 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 sti
ll constantly have to move cities that are placed in incorrect regions. -- 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 any
thing do with ownership, could you explain this please?
This point is intentionally made "ideally...", so it's unlikely to happen in man
y 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 li
sting item, or when you volunteer for a week as a temporary clean-uper (as I did
for Budapest for a while). --DenisYurkin 18:39, 11 February 2007 (EST)
I think my reservations are simply the idea that we would ever enshrine in polic
y even a recommendation that docents or anyone else should be given additional e
diting 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 di
strict or region are then anyone should be able to help keep an article organize
d. That approach seems more beneficial to me than (for example) saying "X is in
charge of keeping article A organized". -- Ryan 18:56, 11 February 2007 (EST)
Personally, I don't second your conclusion that "find someone [at least one pers
on] who will watch over the city article" is giving that volunteer any status di
fferent 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 o
rganization 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 a
nd two articles sharing really much identical content (compare Buda and [1] just
before the cleanup). In lived 1.5 years(!) without any serious cleanup, and noo
ne joined a several-day anti-duplication edit march I've volunteered. I don't mi
nd to have done this job alone, but I would like the community to learn some les
sons from this experience. This way or another, we do need to be responsible abo
ut splitting content between many pages. And asking a person willing to create j
ust another micro-district to take some responsibility for consequences of his a
ction (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 t
o keep content organized: 1) district borders or a map, 2) docent and 3) long-ti
me watcher. Different 2 may be used for different cities/ditricts, but any one o
f them is just not enough--let's have some redundancy here.
Thanks for reading till this point :-) --DenisYurkin 20:53, 11 February 2007 (ES
T)
Please keep in mind that (with literally a couple exceptions) we are all volunte
ers here. No one can ensure that anyone will "take responsibility" for the futur
e of an article. You know, I've split some countries and states into regions, bu
t 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 becau
se they are required to (which will not). - 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 prac
tice of docents--why can't we recommend to ensure there's someone to ask a quest
ion when in doubt, i.e. at least one docent? --DenisYurkin 22:48, 11 February 20
07 (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 edi
t are welcome. --DenisYurkin 17:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Comments down here. --Peter Talk 23:36, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
when to districtify: summary 1[edit]
OK, is there any objections on the list, if I remove "docent" and "dedicated wat
cher"?
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 conten
t 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 t
herefore questions "which district does this belong to?"; the more district arti
cles 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 h
ave 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 he
lp a reader.
Would this version gain a consensus? --DenisYurkin 17:54, 13 February 2007 (EST)
Sounds pretty good to me, although I think having a consensus on the districts a
nd a map should be definitely required. Jpatokal 23:32, 13 February 2007 (EST)
Assuming it will gain a consensus here in several days, where's it better to sti
ck? A new section in Wikitravel:Geographical hierarchy, with a short summary of
it and a link to it in Wikitravel:Huge city article template and Wikitravel:Dist
rict article template? Other proposals? --DenisYurkin 12:27, 14 February 2007 (E
ST)
Added respective sections in all the articles mentioned above. --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 dividi
ng up areas. Lastly, I changed the unclear neologism "districtify" into the more
standard "split into districts". --Evan 14:30, 20 February 2007 (EST)
Evan, would it be OK to leave the residents-section without residents, in the fo
llowing form?
> ensure consensus that these borders are close to district division existing in
a real world
--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? --DenisYurkin 16:
18, 20 February 2007 (EST)
Objections[edit]
Discussion moved from Wikitravel talk: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 Wikitravel:Plunge for
ward policy. As a matter of fact, it was this policy that dissuaded me from addi
ng 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 ne
ighborhood. Granted, Chicago is not a great example because it is clearly time f
or Chicago to have some districts (see existing discussion). I understand the co
ncern 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 ex
isting 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? --Pe
terfitzgerald 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 whateve
r to see if anyone has input on if and how to districtify. Beyond that, plunge f
orward! 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 Wikitravel, often ruining major desti

nations (eg. New York City, London, Barcelona). Plunging forward is precisely th
e wrong thing to do; districting after consensus is the right thing. Jpatokal 08
:28, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
This was discussed earlier in Wikitravel talk:Huge city article template#recomme
ndations on when to (not) districtify a city. I would recommend to move this dis
cussion there (or that discussion here), I believe it would make the process eas
ier for others. --DenisYurkin 09:40, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes lets move this discussion I should have looked at the Huge city article templa
te page to begin with. Jani, I don't think we disagree so much, I'm basically ar
guing 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 ther
e 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 f
orward. Although, I must say I also like the criteria that there must be clearly
defined district boundaries and a full hierarchy schematic before someone begin
s. I suppose that my main reason for disliking our current policy is that we som
ehow treat city districts as a special category of our Geographical Hierarchy po
licy, subject to special rules. I'm not convinced that is the way to go; any cit
y travel guide worth its salt will break large cities into small districts by ne
ighborhood. --Peterfitzgerald Talk 12:06, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
I think it's similar to national parks, airports and other stuff that is not wor
th a dedicated article yet until it has enough content for a separate article. A
nd the reason districts have special rules is simple: unlike cities or states, t
here's much higher chance that two people have different views on what districts
given city has, and where's a border between them. --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 res
t is irrelevant. Checking to see if the page is larger than 32kb? I think we'd a
ll 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, b
ut should it sit longer? 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 w
atching for changes in it) is started districtifying just because there's only e
ditor who believes it should reflect its administrative set of districts. Even B
udapest, which is far from being an unknown city, had such a story: districts ap
peared far before there was too much content.
We can rephrase criteria to something like "don't start until the page is overlo
aded", but I vote against complete removal of this guideline. --DenisYurkin 01:0
7, 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 be
tter.
cacahuate talk 01:22, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
In my opinion, districting an article is a last resort, and the guidelines shoul
d reflect this: they should lay down a minimum set of what needs to be done firs
t and require consensus before proceeding. I agree that just saying "32kb" is ra
ther silly, but having so much content that the article is unwieldy is, IMHO, a
key precondition. Multiple sections with over 10 attractions/restaurants/accommo
dations/... listed, for example? Jpatokal 01:32, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Two weeks waiting for consensus on districts and borders is OK with me. --DenisY
urkin 01:09, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
I object to waiting any period of time consensus happens when there's a consensu
s. A waiting period does not guarantee anything and consensus may change too, so
districtify when there's consensus. -- Sapphire
(Talk)
01:39, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
I would also object to having some sort of waiting requirement, but would not ob
ject 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 f
or, say, Chicago, that doesn't break the huge city into neighborhoods is a bad t
ravel guide. It really doesn't matter how much content we have written, a good c
ity guide should break a big city into manageable districts, just as a good coun
try guide should be broken into manageable regions, and there really isn't a rea
son why we should discourage anyone who wants to plunge forward on this rather l
arge 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 t
he first place) and should not be discouraged. I sure hope that other editors he
re 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 "d
istrictifications" 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. --Peterf
itzgerald Talk 01:56, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
Yep, I'll agree. I think a huge city is a huge city, regardless of how well writ
ten 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...
cacahuate talk 02:25, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
The question is "which cities should be considered huge?" Do we have any objecti
ve 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 voluntee
rs 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 w
ith?) 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. --DenisYurkin
17:19, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
I don't think an objective criterion is possible. If someone looks at a guide an
d thinks "this is getting too long", or if someone who knows the city thinks "th
is 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 si
ngle 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 nee
d 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 a
ll 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. - Todd VerB
eek 18:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes, well said. The two people suggestion might be good... 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 c
ame up with some reasonable agreement. At the same time, it was only 2 people wh
o decided to create Castle Hill district--a very questionable decision we decide
d to live with only because it takes too much effort to merge it back into a pro
per district.
What I learned from this experience is:
before an article is large enough, it is likely to have too few watchers/contrib
utors 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 dis
trict sections inside it, than to move things back and forth between several art
icles 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 b

adly splitted city (like it was with Budapest), and try to sort it out to distri
cts 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 wou
ld eat huge efforts we would better use for creating new content. --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 pe
rfect 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 le
ast 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 fro
m 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 figur
ing it out. LA is the 2nd biggest city in the US!!!! So if I can't get a group t
ogether to work out a consensus on that, then it seems pretty unrealistic to wri
te 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 thou
gh, where he drew a map to give people a visual thing to work off of while decid
ing 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...
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 a
d hoc, and ended up with overlapping districts of varying sizes with gaps betwee
n them. That's a substantial problem, and delaying the creation of districts onl
y 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 ef
fect today), but the fact that editors didn't understand how to use it. Well, sh
ort 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 th
at fact, how do we deal with it? Comments in the main articles telling people wh
ere 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 districti
ng be put off and delayed until that task becomes herculean. - Todd VerBeek 20:4
9, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
First of all, we definitely need to emphasize "reaching consensus on district bo
rders" (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 / d
ecide 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) w
hile district borders is being discussed and consensus is not reached yet? "Disc
ussion on splitting Cityname into districts is in progress. If you know city pre
tty well, please share your opinion." As long as we believe it will take a finit
e amount of time, and we need as much of locals as possible, it can help, doesn'
t it? --DenisYurkin 17:49, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
I agree with these comments and especially like the banner idea the majority of ou
r contributors are anonymous users who are unaware of ongoing discussions, but c

ould have a lot of useful input for districting. --Peterfitzgerald Talk 23:55, 2
9 May 2007 (EDT)
As for "how long should we recommend to wait for consensus": I like Talk:Rome#di
strict borders Peter's approach for Rome to wait for support from someone who kn
ows the city pretty well, ideally knows from traveler perspective or even as a l
ocal. Not sure whether it should be recommended to everyone, however--in the lig
ht of "don't make barriers to plunging forward" idea above. --DenisYurkin 20:45,
6 August 2008 (EDT)
Districts Discussion template[edit]
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! --Peterfitzgerald Talk 17:
24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
Did the banner help? Would you recommend to use it in future districtifying proj
ects? --DenisYurkin 02:57, 16 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, I kept it up for about 2 weeks, but no new contributors joined the discuss
ion, 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 futur
e districtification discussions, as a courtesy to those who might not look at th
e discussion. --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? --DenisYurkin 14:51, 9 September 2007
(EDT)
Here is the template link: Template:Districts discussion. I really should have p
osted this here earlier! Good luck with Barcelona, is that where you were on vac
ation? --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 the
m in Template talk:Districts discussion]]. Please let me know what you think. -DenisYurkin 14:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
a notice on districts on top of huge city articles[edit]
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) advi
sing to print district pages along with the main article of the city. The banner
should be aimed at occasional readers who come to Wikitravel only to print an a
rticle 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/print
able
where Budapest/printable may look like User: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 s
eparate district articles. Consider printing them also: Buda, Pest and Castle Hi
ll.
We need a notice like this for a non-expert user. Section like Budapest#District
s in printing doesn't give any idea that most of information he'll need on his t
rip is under the links that only appear once, under bullets which give, well, no
t 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 o
f sightseeing" notice first appears, the reader will hardly figure out that he a
ctually need to print much more for his trip to Budapest. Frequently, he can't p
rint missing pieces at that late moment.
Can we put a notice like this on top of Budapest? Does it make sense at this sta
ge to discuss a change to the Huge City template? --DenisYurkin 19:31, 10 Februa
ry 2007 (EST)
Opinions, please? ;-) --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 al

l of the district info onto one page to print... is that possible? Would it be a
ble to read the districts listed in the district section, or would they have to
be manually entered into a template for each city? - Cacahuate 06:52, 18 Februar
y 2007 (EST)
I've just created a draft template for this: Template:HasDistricts; its usage ca
n be seen in User:DenisYurkin/Budapest demo. Its text is maybe too long, and rig
ht now it works only for exactly 3 districts--not more, not less. I would apprec
iate any help on bringing it to live. --DenisYurkin 13:52, 18 February 2007 (EST
)
I think that might be confused with {{districtify}}... I think this should be ju
st 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
-orBudapest 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 t
han printing it should be just a gentle director to notice that section - Cacahu
ate 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 no
t 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 distric
consider printing them all: (list of districts)
t articles
Unfortunately, we can't provide a transclusion link at this point--see bottom of
User:Evan/Budapest for reasons. Before we have a transclusion, {{printable}} na
me 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 e
xpected to work for every city / article, which it is not about. --DenisYurkin 1
6:34, 18 February 2007 (EST)
Well, I don't know much about the software so I don't know if it's something som
eone 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 i
n the toolbox on the left navbar could detect the huge city template and automat
ically print the city with all of its districts... but maybe I'm just dreaming h
ere.
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" se
ction. I think if anything it should be alerting people to the fact that there i
s a districts section... then they'll be aware of it, and notice it in the futur
e anyway... until we can figure out the transclusion thing, I vote for keeping i
t 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 j
ust suggested something that I usually hate and just argued viciously against on
Wikitravel talk:Internal links - linking the word "district" to the district se
ction on the same page. But in this case, I think it helps with clarity in a goo
d way and helps to keep the text shorter - Cacahuate 17:02, 18 February 2007 (ES
T)
Then I would vote that this reference to districts list could be also readable i
n 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? --DenisYurkin 17:10, 18 February 2007 (EST)
I'm not sure what you mean about "readable in print" as I've never (gasp!) print

ed one before... would it not look right the way my last shorter version was? Bu
t 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 i
f 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 t
hem. I don't hate {{hasDistricts}} either. Before we go crazy on implementing th
is though I think maybe we should let this sit a few days to see if anyone else
has opinions on it - Cacahuate 17:21, 18 February 2007 (EST)
Personally, I like the printDistricts name. --DenisYurkin 17:30, 18 February 200
7 (EST)
I've edited the template according to Cachuate's prototype; it's now live at Bud
apest.
Can we also include it to the Huge city article template, or we'd better apply {
{printDistricts}} to several more concrete huge city articles? --DenisYurkin 16:
32, 19 February 2007 (EST)
I've added it to Los Angeles, which also has {{otheruses}}, an example of more t
han one template at the top of the page. - Cacahuate 20:06, 19 February 2007 (ES
T)
I've just added it to Huge city article template and to its quick version. Pleas
e let me know if there's anything wrong about it. --DenisYurkin 00:57, 20 Februa
ry 2007 (EST)
District borders[edit]
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 showi
ng borders is very useful to have next to this list, listing all the street bord
ers would take up too much space and would best be done on the individual distri
ct page IMO. I think the descriptions next to district titles on this list shoul
d be less than one sentence, ideally. --Peter Talk 18:52, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
cacahuate talk 23:16, 23 August 2007 (EDT)
Agree
Peter, I share your concern--but where should we place it then? --DenisYurkin 17
:50, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
I think the best place is either the intro or the understand section of each ind
ividual district. That's what I've been doing for Chicago and I think it has wor
ked 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. --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? --DenisYurkin 17:11, 12 September 2007 (EDT)
LIST[edit]
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,
Edmontonenthusiast 19:56, 28 October 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I am looking for a list of cities that use the huge city template. Anyone k
nows where I can find this? --globe-trotter 10:27, 14 July 2010 (EDT)
Since they use the template via substitution, there isn't really a way to look u
p a list of huge-city articles. The closest thing we have would be at Special:Wh
atlinkshere/Template:PrintDistricts, but that may not be comprehensive, as it ma
y not be added to some articles that may have been districted. Looks like it may
be a little over 50 articles? --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 missi
ng. I plan to add these only when at least some of the district articles have di
strictified content. (We have some cities with only one district article, and so

metimes with merge tag on it.). So in a few days, you should be able to use Spec
ial: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 cr
eated, unless someone adds the templates. --Bill in STL 13:15, 17 September 2010
(EDT)
Get out[edit]
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 secti
ons be either a subsection of Get Around or, at the very least, located immediat
ely following it. Having it buried at the very end of articles is extremely detr
imental in some cases, particularly in the third world where domestic travel opt
ions are more important. Took the liberty of moving the one at Kathmandu, but fe
el 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 t
emplate accordingly? MrZaius 06:26, 31 October 2008 (EDT)
I think Get out works best where it is now, seeing as it's meant to highlight ne
arby 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 aro
und, 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. PerryPlanet 12:02, 31 Octo
ber 2008 (EDT)
And I agree that it works well in its current state for certain articles, but fo
r articles like Kathmandu where the section is solely focused on intra-country t
ravel, 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 art
icles where the above applies? 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
cacahuate talk 21:13, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Learn and Work proposal[edit]
I've posted a proposal for the Learn and Work sections over in Wikitravel talk:B
ig city article template#Learn and Work. Seeing as the Huge city template has th
ese two sections as well, I thought I'd direct attention to it here. 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 fi
t 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, Edmontonenthusiast 12:47, 3
1 October 2008 (EDT)
Embassies and consulates[edit]
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. --Peter Talk
23:19, 22 September 2011 (EDT)
Including the list of embassies in the guide to a capital city of a large counti
es is not a good idea. For Washington and Beijing, there are far too many embass
ies. What are they doing there? Embassies serve the whole country, not the city.
If I need an embassy, then I am not likely to already be in Washington or Beiji
ng. What if I am in Nevada? I may need to go to a consulate, but where is the ne
arest consulate? Some will be in California and will be missed. For most countri
es no change is necessary as the capital is the only major city. For large count
ries, we should consider the traveller may be in real need of urgent consular as
sistance and unless they are already in the capital city, they will find the cur
rent system difficult. The other reason for change, is that the capital cities a
re mostly enormous cities already. These capital city articles do not need to be
made longer by having pages of embassy information added to them. Also what abo

ut embassy districts? Would we repeat all the information and make it difficult
to maintain? Let's make it easier to visit major capital cities.
The appropriate policy for large countries (with more than 100 embassies) is as
follows:
1. Put all the embassies and consulate details of one country on a single pag
e, and keep that page maintained.
2. Provide a link to that page, from the country page, the capital city page,
any city with consulates and any other page where a reader may look for consula
r assistance.
3. Provide only non-consular information about embassies on the capital city
and district pages. An embassy or an embassy district would be discussed as wort
h visiting for non-consular reasons, such as cultural centre or interesting arch
itecture.
Ideally, this template should be updated. Please make comments Travellers' pub#E
mbassy policy Lawe (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2015 (EST)
Beautiful banners are coming to every article and you can help!
Check out our guidelines and learn how to create your own!
Wikitravel:Huge city article template
Contents [hide]
Districts
Understand
[+]Get in
Get around
See
Do
Learn
Work
Buy
Eat
Drink
Sleep
Stay safe
Stay healthy
Contact
Cope
Get out
This is an informational template that describes the structure to use when creat
ing articles about absolutely huge cities. Editing this template will not create
a new article; for information on how to create new articles see Wikitravel:How
to start a new page.
If a city is so big or has so much information that we really can't keep all its
information in one page, we break it up into districts, each of which has its o
wn article -- see the district article template for starting those. In general,
we keep summary info on the page about the city, with links to the pages about e
ach district, and highlights from those pages.
To quickly insert a complete blank city template, copy the quick version into th
e edit box on page you are editing. You can also just add {{subst:hugecity}} to
the page, and a blank template will be included when you save.
Stuff in italics below is editorial comment, with suggestions for what should go
in each section, and not part of the eventual article. If you copy the text bel
ow, you should plan on ripping out everything in italics when you start your cit
y article.]
{{printDistricts}} --used to point out that listings are on separate district pa
ges (which should also be printed)
The first section of the city article does not have a heading. This is a where y
ou give a quick descriptive overview of the city. Be sure to include some contex
t so readers know where and what they are reading about. Links to the region and

country that the city is in can be useful here, too.

Also include any background information particular to the city (i.e. Geneva is a
French-speaking city, New Delhi can be more dangerous than other parts of India
, etc), but try not to duplicate too much information that already exists in the
country or region page.
Districts[edit]
Most of the meat of the information about a huge city is divided up into the ind
ividual district articles. You should list the districts here, as well as a shor
t blurb about the district that lets readers know what is most relevant about th
e district for travel, which areas constitute the district, etc. Every district
listed should have clearly defined borders to make it easy for other Wikitravell
ers to know where to stick new listings. See the District article template for t
he structure of district articles.
Before you plunge forward creating districts, read recommendations on when (not)
to districtify--following them will help the community with maintenance of the
articles for city and its districts in the future.
District 1 - overview of District 1
District 2 - overview of District 2
District 3 - overview of District 3
District 4 - overview of District 4
District 5 - overview of District 5
District 6 - overview of District 6
Understand[edit]
Give a deeper understanding of the city, such as its history, its culture, its m
ores, its politics, its relationship to other cities and the country it's in. Jo
kes and stereotypes about locals, etc.
Get in[edit]
Arrival details. Try and include as many options as you can think of -- land, ai
r, sea. Also include getting from transportation hubs (such as airports) to cent
ral areas or hotel/hostel districts.
Below are some sections for common ways to get to a city. Try to order the secti
ons from the most common and convenient to the rarest and most inconvenient. If
for some reason there's a common way to approach the city not listed below -- by
llama, by snowmobile, by bush helicopter -- just add another section. And leave
out sections that don't apply.
By plane[edit]
Name the airport or airports that serve this city. Name the air carriers that se
rve the city, and rough schedules ("once a week, once a day") for getting to thi
s city by air from other major nearby cities. Note transportation options for ge
tting 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 o
f plane charter companies, and give contact info. If there's just no plane servi
ce to this city, leave this section out.
By train[edit]
Give names of other nearby cities and rough schedules ("once a day, on the hour"
) for getting to this city by train. Note the location of the train station or s
tations and give directions for getting to central areas or hotel/hostel distric
ts. If there is no rail service to the city, just leave this section out.
By car[edit]
Driving details and directions for getting to this destination. Try to include t
he names of major highways, as well as directions from other nearby cities. If f
or some reason it would be exceptional to come to this city by car -- say, if it
's on an island not served by bridges or ferries, or if it's in a country where
personal travel by car is extremely rare -- just leave this section out.
By bus[edit]
Give names of other nearby cities and rough schedules ("once a day, on the hour"
) for getting to this city by bus. Contact info for bus companies is nice, too.

Note the location of the bus terminal or terminals and give directions for getti
ng to central areas or hotel/hostel districts. If there is no bus service to the
city, leave this section out.
By boat[edit]
Name any ferries, passenger boats, or other floating vessels for getting to this
destination. Give contact information for carriers, and the location of arrival
points with relation to the city centre, as well as transport options from the
dock or terminal. If it's a common way to arrive, note the marinas where you can
show up with a private vessel. If the city is landlocked or just not served by
passenger boat traffic, just leave this section out.
Get around[edit]
How to get around once you are there: bus, train, rickshaw, ferry, gondola, etc.
How much does local transport cost, where/how to buy tickets, and good discount
s (week or weekend passes, 1/2 price seniors or students, etc).
See[edit][add listing]
This is for a summary of attractions in the huge city. Don't give full details a
bout each attraction; you should have that in the article for the district. But
if there are some attractions that people are going to be expecting to find out
about in this city, like the Eiffel Tower in Paris, or just attractions that peo
ple really shouldn't miss, have them listed here.
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.
Do[edit][add listing]
This is for a summary of activities in the huge city, that is, things that trave
llers will do themselves. More active participation is needed for Do things than
for See things. For example, going to see a river goes under See; kayak trips d
own the river go under Do. Don't give full details about each activity; you shou
ld have that in the article for the district. But if there are some activities t
hat people are going to be expecting to find out about in this city, or just act
ivities that people really shouldn't miss, have them listed here. Not every acti
vity in the city needs to be mentioned -- just ones that are so important people
expect them to be on the main page for the city.
The fabulous Activity 1 in District 1 is a highlight of any visit to Huge City.
The adventurous may want to try Activity 2 in District 3.
Hop over to District 2 for Activity 3.
Learn[edit]
If there are opportunities for travellers to study in this city on a short term
basis -- from language to cooking classes -- add them here.
Work[edit]
What possibilities are there for travellers to earn money in this city? Note tha
t this is kind of long-range and probably won't be appropriate for most destinat
ions.
Buy[edit][add listing]
The travellers' dirty secret: we like souvenirs. What would be good to buy in th
is city? Local crafts? How about general shopping -- clothes, travel equipment,
other? Give general tips about what to buy and where to shop in the city, prefer
ably pointing to district pages for the full scoop.
Eat[edit][add listing]
For general points of where to eat out in the city. Mention any local specialtie
s or oddities here. Avoid specific restaurant info; leave that for each individu
al district page. Instead, try to name districts where restaurants are plentiful

or of a particular quality -- say, if there's a Little Italy or a Chinatown or

such.
If there are particular restaurants that are landmarks for the city, you can poi
nt to them here, mentioning in which district they are located and giving a reas
on why they're called out specifically. It's perfectly OK not to have any indivi
dual restaurants listed, though.
Stop by Restaurant 1 in District 3 for a quintessential Huge City dining experie
nce.
Drink[edit][add listing]
For general points about bars, clubs, and other nightlife in the city. Yes, many
people go out to clubs and don't drink; the name of the section is still Drink.
Mention any local specialities or oddities, and give a general idea of good are
as of the city to try. Avoid specific bar listings; instead, put these on the di
strict pages. Instead, give pointers to bar areas, nightclub districts, great st
reets to try.
If there are particular bars or clubs that should be listed, name them here, and
give a link to the district they're in. Note that it's much less likely that so
meone's going to expect a particular bar in the city than, say, an attraction fo
r See or an activity for Do. For a city big enough to use this template, there's
rarely a single bar that's a significant landmark. But it might happen, so add
its name and a link to the district it's in below.
The beats go on till the early morn at Nightclub 1 on Some Street in District 3.
Everybody knows your name at Bar 2 in District 6.
Sleep[edit][add listing]
This is for helping the traveller find a place to lay his/her weary head. Give a
general idea of good areas of the destination to try to find lodging. Avoid lis
ting specific hotels in the page for the city; instead, give those listings in t
he individual district pages. The point here is to tick off good places to look
for hotels, motels, and campgrounds, not to give contact details. If for some re
ason there's a landmark hotel, or just one people shouldn't miss, in the city -and what are the chances? -- list its name and a link to the district it's in.
Backpacker hostels abound near N street, in District Z.
Enjoy the luxury of Hotel 1 in District 4, famous for its ....
Everybody wants to stay at hip, happenin' Hotel 2 in District 6.
Stay safe[edit]
This is a section for general safety tips. If there are crime problems in the ci
ty, describe them here.
Stay healthy[edit]
This is a section for general health tips.
Contact[edit]
Information on communications -- phone, Internet, other. Give information on cel
lular phone coverage in the city. If there are free or paid Wi-Fi hotspots in th
e city, name them here. If there are a few convenient Internet cafes or other co
mputer rental stores, name them here, but leave the detailed listings to the dis
trict pages.
Cheap Internet available in Internet Cafe 1 in District 3.
Cope[edit]
This section is for all those little items that people need to know when they're
in a city. Where can you do laundry? Go to a gym? Get computers repaired? Anyth
ing that has to do with the practicalities of daily life should go here.
Also include embassy listings here, but only fill out the name, address, phone,
and url fields (to conserve space in long lists).
Don't put something here when it could fit in one of the other sections. If ther
e's nothing to put in this section, leave it out.

Get out[edit]
Information about nearby destinations that would serve as a good "next stop." Pr
ovide a brief description of other nearby destination suggestions, neighboring c
ities or day-trip ideas. Don't duplicate information that's up in "Get in."
Subscribe News & Features Topics Blogs Videos & Podcasts Education Citizen Scien
ce SA Magazine SA Mind Books SA en espaol
Energy & Sustainability Scientific American Volume 308, Issue 1 56 Email Print
Megastorms Could Drown Massive Portions of California
Huge flows of vapor in the atmosphere, dubbed "atmospheric rivers," have unleash
ed massive floods every 200 years, and climate change could bring more of them
By Michael D. Dettinger and B. Lynn Ingram
THIS IS A PREVIEW. Buy this digital issue or subscribe to access the full artic
le.
Already a subscriber or purchased this issue? Sign In
More on this Topic
Hurricane Sandy: An Unprecedented Disaster
Hurricane Sandy: An Unprecedented Disaster
The Future of Climate Change
Extreme Weather and Climate Change
California Megaflood: Lessons from a Forgotten Catastrophe
California Megaflood: Lessons from a Forgotten Catastrophe
Infographic
Related Image
Infographic
Related Image
Infographic
Related Image
The intense rainstorms sweeping in from the Pacific Ocean began to pound central
California on Christmas Eve in 1861 and continued virtually unabated for 43 day
s. The deluges quickly transformed rivers running down from the Sierra Nevada mo
untains along the state s eastern border into raging torrents that swept away enti
re communities and mining settlements. The rivers and rains poured into the stat
e s vast Central Valley, turning it into an inland sea 300 miles long and 20 miles
wide. Thousands of people died, and one quarter of the state s estimated 800,000
cattle drowned. Downtown Sacramento was submerged under 10 feet of brown water f
illed with debris from countless mudslides on the region s steep slopes. Californi
a s legislature, unable to function, moved to San Francisco until Sacramento dried
out six months later. By then, the state was bankrupt.
A comparable episode today would be incredibly more devastating. The Central Val
ley is home to more than six million people, 1.4 million of them in Sacramento.
The land produces about $20 billion in crops annually, including 70 percent of t
he world s almonds and portions of it have dropped 30 feet in elevation because of e
xtensive groundwater pumping, making those areas even more prone to flooding. Sc
ientists who recently modeled a similarly relentless storm that lasted only 23 d
ays concluded that this smaller visitation would cause $400 billion in property
damage and agricultural losses. Thousands of people could die unless preparation
s and evacuations worked very well indeed.
THIS IS A PREVIEW. Buy this digital issue or subscribe to access the full artic
le.
Already a subscriber or purchased this issue? Sign In
Scientific American Volume 308, Issue 1 Buy Digital Issue
$5.99

Add To Cart
Digital Issue + Subscription
$39.99
Subscribe
Rights & Permissions
Share this Article:
Comments
paulus November 30, 2012, 12:37 PM
I don't disbelieve the information given in the article. What I find confounding
, however, is the dearth of contemporaneous accounts of thousands of deaths in t
he 1861-2 flood year. Why is there so little information about the flood in Cali
fornia histories?
I find it utterly fascinating, especially as Mark Twain's quote ("Everybody talk
s about the weather, but nobody does anything about it,") is actually being stoo
d on its head by global warming. (Yes, Virginia, there is a phenomenon called th
at. 97% of the National Academy of Sciences--a 'conservative' group of professio
nals if there ever was one-- says so.)
Please be warned, however. Any attempt to exaggerate the numbers of dead in this
history will be used to attack part of your underlying contention, that global
warming may impact adversely the size of future storms.
I am sorry so many continue to question global warming, whose jibes we see attac
king this story. What do you think is causing the increase in warming if not gre
enhouse activity? Where do you think all the carbon dioxide magically disappears
to?
The level of ignorance in this society is extraordinary. Unless we educate our p
eople against the ignorance they hang on to, we leave our children and their chi
ldren's children a harsher planet on which to survive an uncertain future.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
julianpenrod November 30, 2012, 12:38 PM
"Atmospheric rivers" are described as only about a mile high and massive conveyo
rs of water vapor. And they were not realized even after all the decades of weat
her balloons, rockets and airborns observation? That is questionable to the poin
t of being non credible.
Interesting, and probably important, to note is that they described "atmospheric
rivers" are being "discovered" in 1998. 1997 was the year chemtrails were first
acknowledged being seen, by Art Bell. Interestingly enough, in California, the
area this article suggests may be particularly hardest hit. 1998 was also the wa
rmest year on record; the year of the largest year-to-year drop in Arctic sea ic
e coverage; and the beginning of the unnaturally massive spate of hurricane seas
ons which included the unprecedented 2005 season, which saw events such as Hurri
cane Katrina. It's often suggested that that was the year chemtrails began. In f
act, it appears chemtailing has been ongoing since the beginning of the age of j
ets, around 1950. 1997 seems to be the year chemtrail chemicals became so satura
ted in the atmosphere that new loads precipitated out to form chemtrail lines! T
he number of tornadoes in the U.S. also exploded in number from a fairly constan
t 180 per year, starting in about 1952 to about ten times as many today. 1952 is
also when the first new cloud species in a long time was announced, the cirrus
intortus. The next new cloud species, the undulatus aspiratus, was announced onl
y in the past few years, after chemtrail chemicals saturated the atmosphere.
In fact, climate change is occurring, but it's not the result of industrial poll
ution. It's being deliberately caused by chemtrail contamination of the air.
Supporters of lies cannot rely on their "point of view" to be able to argue from
it. As a result, defenders of untruth often rely on non argument techniques to
counter truths. Like non justified dismissiveness, contempt, arrogance, viciousn
ess, mockery, vulgarity. No New World Order favoring defenders of the "official
story" will address what I said with anything but non argument methods.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
alan6302 julianpenrod November 30, 2012, 12:53 PM
Absolutely correct.The spaying has been heavy over my head lately.

Report as Abuse | Link to This

alan6302 November 30, 2012, 12:58 PM
Was the flood related to the 1859 solar storm . Perhaps there was a solar backla
sh or whatever to the solar storm. That is what Nostradamus predicts.
1. A massive solar storm
2. massive floods
3. ice age of unspecified length.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Sisko November 30, 2012, 1:29 PM
The article is an exmple of why robust infrastructure should always be a high pr
iority when building or maintaining cities. The US does only a fair job, but man
y other counties do a terrible job.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Cramer November 30, 2012, 1:35 PM
Scienceproofreader,
Climate change is "shoehorned" into the study of "atmospherice rivers" because p
rudent people want to study the likelihood of occurance of more disasterous stor
ms in the future. It's called being prepared for the future -- a conservative va
lue, but a value lacked by people who call themselves conservatives. Are you sug
gesting that scientists not attempt to model this and merely rely on the histori
cal evidence that these megafloods occur only once every 100 to 200 years?
Here's an excerpt from the article:
"Will moister air or weaker winds win out? In six of the seven climate models, t
he average rain and snow delivered to California by future atmospheric rivers in
creases by an average of about 10 percent by the year 2100. Moister air trumps w
eaker winds.
All seven models project that the number of atmospheric rivers arriving at the C
alifornia coast each year will rise as well, from a historical average of about
nine to 11."
Report as Abuse | Link to This
HugoFerreira November 30, 2012, 1:39 PM
No shoehorning there 'Scienceproofreader', if you RTFA you will see that the sam
e meteorological event now observed, was predicted before in derivatives of the
computer models that model global warming.
How about you read the article and apply rational thinking as your name erroneou
sly suggests you do?
And the fact that something happened before does not invalidate the hypothesis t
hat both frequency and intensity are increased by shifting climate.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Trulahn November 30, 2012, 2:19 PM
When detractors citing certain specific year being warmer than present, or anoth
er year that had worse disasters than present as examples of how our weather con
ditions today is not unusual, they are showing their total lack of understanding
of weather "pattern." There will always be extraordinary data points when you p
lot the data of any natural phenomenon. There is such thing called random chance
that cause those events to occur almost inexplicably. However, when scientists
examine global warming or climate change, they are looking at overall trend and
the effects of and projections of those trends. As they get more and more data,
they can better model and predict the future of those trends. Early global warmi
ng predictions were off because we still didn't have enough understanding of wha
t's going on. But that's the difference between science and fantasy, science con
tinues to collect data and make improvements. Fantasy pretends that it knows eve
rything and ignores anything that it doesn't agrees with.
With more observation, what scientists have shown us is that the added heat ener
gy that got trapped by the green house gasses (CO2, methane, water vapor, etc) a
re not simply warming the Earth. Heat is energy and energy does work. Earth's we
ather is not just determined by the temperatures of the atmosphere but much more
so by the temperatures of the oceans as waters hold far more energy than gasses
. As the oceans and the atmosphere take in the added heat energy, all the regula
r engines that drive our weather systems are now getting an extra push like you

stepping on the gas peddle in your car. The weather system is now revving harder
and faster, creating wider swings and more erratic weather systems.
Google "ocean temperature change" data that NASA and NOAA had been collecting. T
hat's the true measure of warming. 1 degree Celcius change may not seem a lot to
you, but 1 Calorie (kilocalorie) is the energy to heat 1 kiloliter of water 1 d
egrees Celcius and there are 1.3 sextillion kiloliters of water. That's enough C
alories to feed all 7 billion people on this planet for 250 years.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
Acoyauh2 November 30, 2012, 2:45 PM
"The next megaflood could occur in Chile, Spain, Namibia or Western Australia".
HA! It *never* rains in Western Australia.
Dang, I just cannot find some recent study of geological evidence of megafloods
in Western Mexico states (Jalisco, Clima, Nayarit). A UNAM study (I think), but
boy is their DB arcane... just wanted to correlate the timeframes with this... f
at chance anyone here saw it, huh.
Report as Abuse | Link to This
M Tucker November 30, 2012, 3:29 PM
"Scientists do not program atmospheric rivers into weather and climate models; t
he rivers emerge as natural consequences of the way that the atmosphere and the
atmospheric water cycle work, when the models are let loose to simulate the past, p
resent or future. Thus, the rivers also appear in climate projection models used i
n Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessments.
A recent review by one of us (Dettinger) of seven different climate models from
around the world has indicated that atmospheric rivers will likely continue to a
rrive in California throughout the 21st century. In the projections, air tempera
tures get warmer by about four degrees Fahrenheit on average because of increasi
ng greenhouse gas concentrations. Because a warmer atmosphere holds more water v
apor, atmospheric rivers could carry more moisture."
For all of you scientifically challenged denier trolls that IS from this article
and they are talking about anthropogenic global warming. The warming we have al
ready experience has resulted in about 4 to 5% more water vapor in the atmospher
e. You need a wide angle photographic record of a storms development over many c
onsecutive days in order to observe and correctly identify the atmospheric river
effect and they have only recently become more frequent. Remember Nashville 201
0 and keep the boat handy!
Trolls, keep up the fascinating conspiracy theories, they make hilarious reading
!
Report as Abuse | Link to This
More Comments
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comm
ent.
More from Scientific American
ADVERTISEMENT
Follow Us:
Most Popular
How the Brain Purges Bad Memories
How to Make Graphene in Your Kitchen Blender
How to Get to the Fourth Dimension
Caution Urged over Editing DNA in Wildlife
Some STIs Are Beneficial, and May Have Boosted Evolutionary Promiscuity
Solve Innovation Challenges

Ideas to Impact: Recycling Liquid Petroleum Gas Cylinders Across Sub-Saharan Afr
icaDeadline: Sep 07 2015
Reward: $40,000 USD Access to safe, clean and reliable sources of energy has a s
ignificant impact on health, quality of life, education and economic product New
Concepts for Remote Fish DetectionDeadline: Aug 26 2015
Reward: $20,000 USD The ability to track individual or groups of fish is central
to efforts to recover threatened and endangered fish species, and to reduce
More Challenges
Powered By: Innocentive
ADVERTISEMENT
Latest from SA Blog Network
Physics Week in Review: August 8, 2015
Cocktail Party Physics|40 minutes ago
Ring-Tailed Lemurs Threatened by Illegal Pet Trade
Extinction Countdown|18 hours ago
A Year of War, 1915
Anecdotes from the Archive|19 hours ago
Jon Stewart's Top 10 Science Moments on The Daily Show [Video]
Observations|20 hours ago
Is it Time for Twitter to Verify Artists?
Symbiartic|21 hours ago
News From Our Partners
Reuters
EPA Team Spills Million Gallons of Waste Water into Colorado Rivers
Nature
Caution Urged over Editing DNA in Wildlife
TechMediaNetwork
The 6 Most Earth-like Alien Planets
Climatewire
Republican Candidates Avoid Climate Change in First Debate
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Science Jobs of the Week
Chemist / Biochemist / Nanotechnologist
Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Neurologico "Carlo Besta" (FINCB)
Postdoctoral Position in Redox Biology
Helmholtz Association
Bioinformatician - Enzyme Discovery and Data Mining
INVISTA Textiles (U.K.) Limited
More jobs from Naturejobs.com
risk free title graphic YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no
obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the
one-year subscription. cover image Subscribe Now
2015 Scientific American, a Division of Nature Am