Talk:Lima/West

''This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.''

Comments
Listing subdivisions and order

Listing subdivisions and order and Avoid long lists. I feel dividing things by neighbourhood here is the way to go as its a large area and chances are people are going to visit one neighbourhood in a day not go running around all over the show. I think I'm keeping to wikivoyage style by dividing by neighbourhood. The wikivoyage style guide also says "whatever suits the location" and "invent your own as needed".--(WT-en) Harleyca 20:58, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
 * I'm sorry. You're going to have to build consensus here before you institute a non-standard breakdown. I don't find it appropriate to subdivide a district article into a million subsections by barrio. It doesn't make sense to organize the See section that way because people are going to choose sights based on their interests, not by what neighborhood it's in. Yes the list of museums is a bit long, but we are here at the lowest level of the hierarchy so it's ok, and it's a lot less unsightly than having museums in 12 different lists. Similarly, I can't find a reason not to divide the Eat or Sleep listings into our standard budget categories. (WT-en) texugo 21:22, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Oh, and by the way, that link you provided to justify subsections "to breed district content"-- please read that again. It says you can make district subsections in the main article to breed content, presumably before district articles have been created. We are not seeking to further divide this district into smaller ones, so this is not a valid justification.(WT-en) texugo 21:31, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Please read the avoid long lists section again and take note of this in particular "Create other suitable subdivisions: Further subdivisions within district and price categories can be invented as you go along, whatever suits the location: by neighborhood, which can be more fine-grained than districts". and perhaps this also; "Within each subdivision, when no other standard of ordering listings is used, alphabetical order should be the norm". Your removing a system that has some kind of order and replacing it with a system that has no order at all. So please, instead of just vandalising my work either improve it or leave it alone.--(WT-en) Harleyca 00:33, 15 May 2011 (EDT)
 * Excuse me? I have made tens of thousands of edits here since 2005 and every one of them has been with the intention of improving what we have. I do not at all appreciate being accused of vandalism. I do remain fully and completely unconvinced that this article, which is by no means full in the first place, benefits from chopping the content of each section up seven ways geographically. The neighborhood information is already given in the address after all. Yes, the policies do allow for unconventional organizational schemes sometimes, but I don't think that necessity has been at all demonstrated here, and I think we should build consensus before we go deviating from the standard. Putting the 21 Eat listings in our standard 3 budget categories is a lot more useful and easier on the eyes than making 7 categories of about 3 listings each. Dividing the See section like this makes even less sense. I'm not going to go choosing a sight to see because a certain museum is in one barrio and not another; I'm going to choose a museum because it's a museum I'm interested in, so I want to see them grouped by types. What is so special about this district that you think warrants an idiosyncratic organizational scheme? It may be a kind of large district, but probably not substantially more so than Rio de Janeiro/Zona Sul for example, which has lots more info than this and is organized in our standard way. (WT-en) texugo 04:22, 15 May 2011 (EDT)


 * I would like to give my thoughts on these issues, which hopefully can help making a compromise between you two great contributors:
 * See: I usually use a subdivision by attraction type as I believe travelers will be looking for say a museum rather for attractions in a specific neighbourhood. However, if the neighbourhoods are very large or if it is likely that they eventually will be split out in individual district articles, subdividing by neighbourhood could be justified.  In this case I would suggest to subdivide by attraction type and then further subdivide eg Museums by neighbourhood if that section is still too long.  As I remember it, our manual of style does not say that the see section have to be subdivided by attraction type
 * Eat and Sleep: Here I think it is important to split by price range (Budget, Mid-range, Splurge) as some travellers will only have interest in one of these ranges. Furthermore, it is stated in our manual of style that this is how it should be done.  If one of the ranges then have too many listings, that one can be split furhter by neighbourhood
 * Drink: Here I usually split by neighbourhood as I would expect travelers to look for bars in the area they are in rather than for a specific type of bar
 * I hope some of that can be of help, I am happy to hear any arguments against mine and happy to further elaborate if needed, --(WT-en) ClausHansen 06:03, 15 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Basically, I agree with User:(WT-en) ClausHansen. It often makes sense in the Drink section since nightlife is usually clustered on certain streets or areas of a few blocks, and part of the fun can often be bar-hopping, checking out more than one place. In the other cases, splitting it into neighborhoods is not the most useful organizational scheme. (WT-en) texugo 09:04, 15 May 2011 (EDT)


 * This page is quite new (5 days) and I am/was seeing how much info each neighbourhood received incase further subdividing was neccessary. I had considered that San Isidro or Pueblo Libre might deserve their own page (I think I mentioned this in the Main Lima discussion on sub-dividing) but I'm not convinced. So for me, I find it easier to work with small lists divided by neighbourhood. It doesn't mean it has to stay that way forever. I think Chorrillos needs to be moved to another district, where it fits I'm not really sure, but its south of Miraflores and Barranco, it doesn't really belong here, perhaps amalgamating Barranco and Chorrillos together (and possibly Miraflores as well) in to one page. --(WT-en) Harleyca 12:14, 15 May 2011 (EDT)