Jump to content

Talk:Town hall

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Rathaus)

Merge

[edit]

Suggest Town Hall and Hôtel de Ville merged with this article and the result named City and town halls (plural) as presumably any one excludes the others...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Perhaps it is time to limit the number of images in the "gallery of city and town halls around the world" because there are now almost 200! It seems that this is more than adequate to "illustrate" this subject. This is just one thought from me — CZmarlin (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to create new pages for these images. The list is useful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Useful, yes. Appropriate here, probably not. This is the sort of thing that should be on the Commons, not here. Wikipedia's image use policy is quite clear -- galleries are discouraged, and there has to be good reason to have one in the article namespace instead of using a Commons link. I can thin of reasons why galleries might occasionally be appropriate on Wikipedia (e.g. a series of photographs showing a process of some kind from start to finish), but this instance is not one of them -- it's just an illustrative selection of town hall photos. It's a very nice montage, but this is the sort of thing that for which the Commons was intended. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Skeezix, images are great when their useful or illustrative but a gallery of various city halls doesn't really tell us much about the concept of city halls other than the fact that they are buildings which could pretty much be summed up with one sentence and one image. A city halls gallery on the Commons would be a good idea if there isn't one already. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done — There exists a Commons page for City hall, as well as a category (see: Town halls by country). These are at least more useful because they are organized by nation, and then the category is further subdivided into individual towns. This is in stark contrast to the random, but alphabetical, collection of images in the gallery on this WP article. It seems images are expanding in this article, but there is no context to them such as by size of town, architecture type, historic significance, etc. Other than adding lots of color to the article, the images in the gallery do not provide any value to the subject matter. According to WP guidelines, only a few should remain that help the reader understand the various city and town hall buildings in organized categories and each having a complete explanation as to their significance. At this point, there is no need for any of the images in the gallery. It will also make loading this article so much faster. Another link to the images in Commons category will provide the reader with plenty of pictures of city halls! — CZmarlin (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The gallery had gotten completely out of hand. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the New York City Hall image had been there for quite some time before being taken down by CZmarlin. I notice that the relatively small country of Britain is represented by London and a smaller town. Why shouldn't the United States likewise be represented by New York City Hall and one small town's city hall? That would make so much more sense and balance. Moreover, New York City Hall is the oldest continuously functioning city hall in the U.S. and therefore actually carries a great deal of functional significance, let alone its architectural significance and its status as the municipal seat of America's largest city. I haven't heard a logical explanation yet over two small town city halls to represent the United States. Why couldn't one of the other big cities (Toronto, Hamburg) be replaced by a small town from that country? Why does it have to be the United States with two small towns? Castncoot (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that there can be an unlimited number of legitimate reasons to include images of significant buildings based on an even greater number of rational screens, such as largest, longest, highest, newest, etc., etc. The main objective should be to keep the illustrative buildings to a minimum. Given the enthusiasm of contributors to include their favorite buildings, the article had over 200 pictures. Even that outrageous number was not sufficient for some editors who kept on insisting for adding even more. The reasons some images continue to be included in this article are not because of their location or a specific geographic location. Rather, they are included because their captions offer some additional information about them (such as the dual/triple use: post office, police, or fire station for the two "small town" examples, as well as something unique about the building itself: the location of the Nobel Banquet or its age/architecture/etc.) This provides for greater information to the reader, rather than a simple distribution by nations. For example, it will never be possible to please everyone to include just largest city and small town images from every continent! Thank you CZmarlin (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is well-taken - but do you see my point? Why not include New York City Hall, with the caption that it is the oldest continuously operating city hall in the United States [1] and utilize only one of the two (unremarkable) southeastern U.S. small town city halls? Is it really necessary to include two small town U.S. city halls (from any region of the U.S., for that matter)? Castncoot (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I clearly see your point Castncoot! That is exactly the problem that we will encounter with many more contributors that will also have legitimate reasons to include an image of their city hall. For example, Pelham, Massachusetts claims to having the oldest town hall in continuous use for town meetings. So will including New York's claim to the same feat then cause a never-ending edit war? I also think that typical seats of government in many places (especially small towns and cities in the U.S.) can be described as "unremarkable" and; thus, best illustrate the subject. It would be great to only show exemplary and unique buildings, but that is not the case in the U.S.! CZmarlin (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the functional significance between New York's City Hall and Pelham, Mass's wouldn't be easily confused. It really would be nice to demonstrate the extremes in the U.S., large vs small. Or, as an alternative - why don't we just remove the Lockhart, Alabama image and call it a day? Castncoot (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing this discussion, I propose adding the New York City Hall image (older, completed in 1812, and as architecturally significant as the Hamburg hall, which was completed in 1897); removing the Lockhart, Alabama image to eliminate duplication of small town images in the U.S.; and removing the Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines image (why is that in here anyway? - seems to have no notable features). I also disagree with your statement, "It would be great to only show exemplary and unique buildings, but that is not the case in the U.S.!" - an overbroad statement like that lacks credibility. Castncoot (talk) 13:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support that. I kind of like the Alabama and Florida images, showing the typically small town multi-use town hall, but agree that we don't need both of them. But we need not replace it with another image from the U.S. - we have 10,000 images on the Commons, and can surely find images of notable buildings representing a more global view. If oldest, functioning town hall is an important aspect to feature, we can undoubtedly locate a number of such buildings worldwide that are the oldest for their country or region. We don't need more than one image from the same country (and that applies as well to the image from Fordwich, which it shows the once common town hall/market hall combination, can probably be replaced by a similar image from elsewhere). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your "liking" something constitutes no valid basis for including it. Let's compromise here - remove Alabama, London, and Cagayan de Oro City. This way we'll have Hamburg, Toronto, Penang, Stockholm, Fordwich, and Florida - 4 big cities and 2 small towns. Castncoot (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't mischaracterize people's comments. My rationale for inclusion was that I liked the fact that the images showed small town, multi-purpose town halls, which is an important variation to show, not that I merely liked such town halls. And please do not delete images until there is consensus on replacements. I'd love to achieve a compromise (and I have no doubt that we will), but a compromise is something upon which people agree, not simply a word someone says while they implement a change that has not been discussed. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - there are a lot of images over at the Commons. For example, if we are looking at oldest town halls, this schepenhuis is apparently the oldest in the low countries and is part of a UNESCO world heritage site. Not that I am saying we should use it (it apparently is no longer used as the town hall), just that we have a lot of interesting images from which to choose. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has the right to edit here, and I hadn't seen a compromising tone until now. I've heard no logical explanation yet why the New York City Hall image, which had in fact, been there for quite some time, was actually actively removed in recent days. In other words, what make this image suddenly and newly less compelling to use than the Hamburg, Toronto, London, or the Cagayan images? The NYC Hall is in fact older than all of these, it has compelling architectural and historical value, it is the oldest in the USA, and it has been frequently been featured in television dramas and is a familiar icon for many. It is also the city hall of the largest city in the U.S., the country with by far the most city and town halls, and yes, this undeniably adds some value. It can also be referenced as to its historical value through a citation, which most of the others cannot. I support using this image and only one small town U.S. image. Some of the other images really seem superfluous - only one British image is needed (and it could be either), and the Cagayan pic doesn't have any special redeeming value. Castncoot (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you would say that hasn't been a "compromising tone" - everyone has been acting quite agreeable. Compromise doesn't mean getting your way. If people don't feel the NYC city hall is particularly compelling, and you don't like some of the existing photos, compromise means finding images that everyone can live with. In terms of NYC, there are older town and city halls throughout the world, and we didn't need yet another image from the U.S. Most of what you said (old, historical, on tv, etc.) is true of many other halls throughout the world. And I am not sure why it matters that the NYC city hall is older than some current examples, since this is not a list of the oldest city halls. We are trying to have a set of images that show a diverse cross-section. If I had to choose one from the U.S., I'd pick the image from Florida as it presents a different type of facility common in smaller centres, rather than yet another big city town hall. It doesn't mean I am right, or that you or CZ are right or wrong either. It just means there is no consensus for that NYC image. Having said that, the multi-use facility example doesn't need to be from the U.S. That's an interesting point you made, about the U.S. having the most town/city halls. I didn't know that. Where is that cited? Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no citation for that fact, Skeezix. It stems as an obvious inference from the fact that the United States has by far the largest population and the largest number of cities and towns in the developed world, of which the city/town hall is a hallmark. 9 times the population of your native Canada. The United States, on a sheer population basis alone, objectively deserves to have two image slots, while other countries with city/town halls, on an objective population basis, deserve up to one. All of the images need to express a redeeming point, even if the small town images may look "unremarkable." If the U.S. has two, one should go to a big city and another to a small town, I hope that is obvious; it looks absurd to have two small town halls from the same country. Please also explain, people have "lived with" the NYC Hall image for the past five months, even without the historical allusion in the caption. What makes including it suddenly "unlivable"? I strongly feel that NOT having this picture (which had been there for quite some time) does injustice to the article and appears to be a bad-faith omission. I also, unlike you, never said I don't "like" any of the photos, what I said is that some don't add any constructive value to the article. There's a very big difference between the two statements. Castncoot (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well, I am not sure that's true then, since there are countries with bigger populations and more settlements. Also not sure how any country "deserves" more images or why Canada's population (or any population) matters. The article survived for years without a photo of NYC city hall, so unclear how it is now an injustice. And, again, stop making such a fuss over the word "like" - it can used as short form to express support or lack thereof (people like political candidates, financial products, etc.) It's really hard having a constructive discussion with someone who keeps making pronouncements and picks pointless battles over innocuous word choice. We agree to disagree on the NYC photo. There is no consensus. That may change, but at the moment you are not doing your case any favours. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following this debate without feeling particularly inclined to join in. I think we can agree that we want a selection of roughly 9–12 images, showing a range of town/city halls, representing diversity in terms of size, geographical region, architecture, and function. Personally, I don't care whether NYC gets in or not. Personally, too, I quite liked both the Alabama and the Florida images, as while they both showed very small scale town halls, sharing premises with other community services, those services were different (Post Office and Police/Fire); but I agree it's unfortunate they're both from the same region of the same country. The one image I'd argue strongly for is Fordwich, England, as it represents an architectural type historically common to much of northern Europe, and illustrates the emergence of local government administrative buildings from buildings originally intended for other communal purposes (specifically market trading). I do, however, have some reservations about City Hall (London), as, although architecturally striking, it's slightly anomalous on two grounds: the Greater London Authority isn't a conventional local government authority (it's a regional strategic authority, with very limited powers in terms of the delivery of services, most of which are provided by the boroughs at the next tier down); and it's highly unusual for the UK in being named City Hall (which has been seen as an unnecessary Americanism, and as implying a non-existent connection with the City of London). So I'd have no objections to that one going. My only other comment is to say that if we stopped squabbling over images and put more effort into expanding the text (because there's certainly plenty more to say), we could justifiably include a larger number of images. GrindtXX (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm all for working together here if people edit in good faith. I agree with GrindtXX exactly on the points he is making about the UK images. The Fordwich one is a bellwether for Northern Europe, while the London image is really not a city hall in the sense that the others are; this article is about the seat of local government, rather than about regional strategic enterprises, and so this image does not belong in this particular article. Conversely, however, the New York City Hall should never have been deleted after being present for 5 months because A) it IS a bona fide city hall which directly affects and legally directs the lives of over 8 MILLION citizens of the largest city in the U.S. and therefore carries a great deal of FUNCTIONAL significance which cannot simply be ignored as if it does not exist, B) has HISTORICAL significance and age which can be and has been cited in a reliable source (isn't that what Wikipedia is all about?), and C) carries a great deal of architectural intricacy typical of that found in historical buildings. The Toronto image is acceptable for its architectural merit and its status as the seat of government of Canada's largest city. I think Alabama is duplicative of Florida and adds no constructive value and should go. (By the way, do people realize that the U.S. actually had THREE images intact for five months, before the only big city of the three was deleted, leaving behind two small town images, and both from the same region? As GrindtXX perhaps alluded, the City Hall concept really is an Americanism, virtually every single local municipality has one, and there are literally many THOUSANDS in the United States. Yes, due weight must be given in Wikipedia. One simply can't pretend that the United States should have the same number of City Hall images as Luxembourg, for example.) I really don't understand why the Cagayan image is there. There seems to be nothing functionally, historically, or architecturally significant about it. And I do agree that the article's text needs some work as well. Maybe we should take care of the current issues with the images first, however. Castncoot (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, GrindtXX, I agree with your suggestion of 9 to 12 images, that seems very reasonable, and that range should really solve the whole conflict here, good suggestion on your part; we just have to stick to that range. Since we appear to have reached at least a limited consensus between us, let me get started on some changes in accordance here that appear reasonable to both of us, given what we've discussed here. Others can obviously edit beyond that, but I hope they will do so in good faith. Castncoot (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is still no consensus to include an image of the NYC City Hall, for reasons discussed ad nauseum above. The other points, other than a city hall being an Americanism, sound good. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I just noticed you added the NYC image again. Besides you in support, two people support its removal, and one person does not care. That's not clear consensus. Consensus for that image might be achieved at some point for that image, and that's fine, but it doesn't exist today, so please stop adding the image. Your other changes were fine, and please feel free to suggest other images. Cheers. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, life is too short. You are fixated on this, so as long as the images are in alphabetical order by the name of the city (it's not clear to me why Hamburg was always first), I will support you adding the NYC city hall. Cheers, Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will re-insert it. As far as alphabetizing the list by city, that's just downright silly - there has never been a reason to do so. Castncoot (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then the alternative is to remove it. I've only agreed, so as to assist you in achieve consensus, and am happy to revert so that there is no longer consensus. I'm happy to compromise if you are. For the purpose of ending this discussion, I'll concur with your choice of image, but given the concerns I have with it, explained in detail above, it's not clear to me why it would be the most prominent image in the article. If there is another, objective manner in which to order the photos, that would satisfy both of our concerns, I am all ears. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying is known as blackmail. Just because something is pictured first doesn't make it the most prominent. I see you've alphabetized the list by city, which is silly, but I have no objection to it. Castncoot (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is called compromise. False "blackmail" accusations are not helpful. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City and town halls → Seat of local government — First the current name is plural and it should be singular. Second by only listing two types of these buildings, it is not a correctly named article for the scope of the article. By definition, the name of the article, and hence the categories that support it, excludes a broad class of buildings like, village halls, Rathaus, borough halls, council halls, Communal Palace and other similar buildings. Third it effectively is grouping only a portion of the broader class of buildings in an oddly named set of categories and lists to the exclusion of other similar structures. This prevents a category like Category:City and town halls from being parented in Category:Towns since not all of the contents are related to towns. If the goal is to not have an article on a city hall and a town hall, then this article needs some kind of a inclusive generic name. I am not stuck on the name proposed, but look at it as a way to start the discussion. While extreme, splitting this article into two articles could well be the easiest and cleanest solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are different types of halls strikes me as the whole point of the proposed move - in fact, the nominator specifically mentions borough halls up above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boroughs are a larger problem since they can be both municipal and submunicipal governments. That is something that is probably best left out of this discussion since the selected solution should by default cover it. Maybe by adding a subcategory, but maybe by doing nothing. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good choice - it is sufficiently generic, but still excludes, for example, the building that only houses the administrative offices of the water department. Good find. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK nomination modified to this proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seat is ambiguous

[edit]

Seat is ambiguous, it may indicate the place or the building where the government is seated --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a better name, please suggest it. While I would agree that "seat of government" could be ambiguous for upper levels of government, at the local level the term is widely understood to refer to the building, so any ambiguity is minimal. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shire office?

[edit]

So I think in Australia they are called shire offices or something, right? If so, should they be added to this article? --83.180.9.80 (talk) 07:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Management buzzword

[edit]

Anybody heard this phrase used as a buzzword from managers and/or corporate communication departments in large companies? I've just started working for a US multi-national and nobody here bats an eyelid when it's mentioned. I was curious to know if anyone else had come across it and, if so, where it originated. My guess is a book by a management-guru type person? 80.254.146.52 (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC) CubicleDweller[reply]

UPDATE: ok, i've done some more surfing and it seems a Virtual Town Hall is a teleconference with a few more tweaks. High-tech companies offer them and I found some more info here http://www.virtualtownhall.us I don't know if it's a trademarked name though, so I haven't started a new page away from Town Hall. 80.254.146.52 (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC) CubicleDweller[reply]

I don't think a new page is required at all, given that the issues seems covered in Teleconference and Videoconferencing and details about virtual town halls could be added there. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name, scope and potential merger

[edit]

Please see Talk:Ratusz. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 December 2019

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page. For the time being, moving the page to Town hall per the discussion below. Please feel free to initiate a new request as needed at any time. Dekimasuよ! 12:30, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seat of local government → ? – Multiple reasons

  1. meaning of "local government" does not really tally with current content: are we only taking about urban municipal government or are other local government areas like rural district councils also included?
  2. "Seat" is ambiguous; the county seat is not the same as the county hall (which doesn't redirect here — see point #1)
  3. Vegaswikian's 2010 move request rejected City and town halls in part because "By definition, the name of the article, and hence the categories that support it, excludes a broad class of buildings like, village halls, Rathaus, borough halls, council halls, Communal Palace and other similar buildings." I don't see the problem. Brooklyn Borough Hall is in Category:City and town halls on the National Register of Historic Places in New York (state) despite Brooklyn not being a city or town, and I doubt that bothers many users. Likewise Category:Seats of local government by country was renamed but none of its subcategories was, like Category:City and town halls in Germany (not Category:Rathäuser in Germany either) The nomenclature of different urban government areas (city, town, village, borough, etc) is very varied, especially in the United States; mostly there is no point in trying to break "urban foo" down into "city foo", "town foo", "borough foo", etc. because the words have differing meanings in each jurisdiction (and in non-anglophone jurisdictions may have no correspondences). Sadly, "Urban hall" doesn't work here as the umbrella term for foo = "hall". jnestorius(talk) 17:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)—Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 07:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible renames:-

I agree with all your reasoning, and that a rename is in order. I would vote for restricting the scope of this article to municipal government, and renaming as City or town hall (on grounds of WP:COMMONNAME: the vast majority of readers will search for either "city hall" or "town hall"). Seat of local government should become a dab page, offering as alternatives City or town hall, County hall and County seat. GrindtXX (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guildhall, although bolded in the first sentence, is also a separate article.
Using "headquarters" or "head office" defies WP:COMMONNAME: "headquarters" is used only once in the article, and "head office" not at all.
I dislike the suggestions including "or", which are essentially WP:AND.
My choice is between "City hall" and "Town hall", both being redirects to this article. Page views being inconclusive, the choice seems largely a matter of WP:ENGVAR, but internal evidence from spelling is weak ("endeavor" but "metre"). Since we have town meeting and town hall meeting covering the US, "town hall" seems to be the more worldwide term, so I support a move over Town hall. 94.21.10.204 (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image selection

[edit]

Hi CZmarlin, I notice you undid my edit swapping in an image of the Palazzo Vecchio for another town hall. As you said in your edit summary, it's true that the photos don't need to be of the most famous ones, but I think it's probably a good idea to have a photo of a very famous one, especially over to one that's not particularly famous, no? Ergo Sum 01:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Town_hall&oldid=1212320012"