Talk:Lima/Barranco

Subdivision of See section
I noticed that the uncategorised listings were moved from a subsection called More to the start of the See section without a subheading. I do not think this is a good idea. Having these listings at the end in a subsection called eg Other gives a much better overview. I notice that this is also how it is done eg for a star article like Chicago/Near South. I suggest we do the same here and elsewhere, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 08:45, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I rather strongly disagree. For one thing, the Chicago article has a non-standard organization divided into 3 clusters of attractions and has a couple that don't fit in, so its organization is a little different. That's fine. However, the vast majority of articles are divided by attraction type, if at all, and the attractions that don't easily fit into a category are often the most unique and interesting (hence the reason there aren't enough to warrant their own category in the first place). Lots of cities have a list of museums or parks or whatnot but the things they have that no other city has may be only one or two of a type. Standardizing them into an "other" section forces them to always come at the end and, in my view, somewhat marginalizes them. I'd rather see them at the top because they are, by default, a list of the things that are most unique in the city.(WT-en) texugo 09:10, 22 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I see your points. However, browsing through some of our star articles, I only found one article with a number of uncategorised attractions in the start of the see section, and found a few with an other section following categories by type of attraction.  I agree, that if a destination has one or two very important attractions that do not fit in any category they should be in the front, but often such attractions are important enough to take their own subheading.  But in the case of Barranco, I still find that having more than half of the attractions in the beginning of the article before the categories does not help the readers' understanding.  The way forward here might be to make more subsections like landmarks, buildings, areas or whatever would be relevant here, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 11:09, 22 May 2011 (EDT)