Talk:Tourism in Chicago/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gutting of peacock words and What Wikipedia Is Not

Despite the established permission to use content from the CCTB website, a lot of that information is useless for an encyclopedic article, as can be evidenced from the prior revisions. Chock full of peacock words and blatantly violating WP:NOTADVOCATE/WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I've largely gutted the article, and I'm hoping for a large-scale rewrite. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Page renaming and merge

The information in the list was placed in the tourism article, since there is no need to have a list that is part of the same subject, unless the list is so exhaustive as to makes the tourism article too long. Tourism articles generally contain lists of sites including museums and it improves the article. Thanks.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I take it you created this article by moving the article about the Convention and Tourism Bureau, an organization, and adding the list of Museums and Cultural Institutions to it. It seems, it would be better organized by creating an article on tourism (if that is what you want) and linking to separate organization article and separate the list. The organization has a separate existence, and the list is not just for tourists. Also, the proper procedures have not been followed leading to copyright and other problems as discussed at AN/I. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for sub articles and lists dealing with tourism. The tourism article is the best place to discuss attractions and convention and visitors bureau.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The consensus view at AN/I is against this. So, we need to work something out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to keep a separate list then we can post the list back. Why do you want a separate list? Isn't Tourism article is the best place for this information??Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

As I understand the topic of that list, it is not a matter that is confined under the topic tourism, it has to do with multiple facets of internal city life: culturally, economically, physically, historically, socially, organizationally, etc. So the topic, you have placed it under does not fit it. That topic is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive of other things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Have restored the list of museums and cultural institutions article, since you believe there is a need to keep a separate list.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, also it seems that an article on tourism would be good but would be based in structure and content on reliable sources focused on that subject. I truly am sorry, for having to have this disagreement after all your good faith work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Am in the process of improving the tourism article, thanks for the input.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You may also import portions of other pedia articles, with an edit summary of (text copied from Artcle X), which satisfies the copyvio issue by creating the paper trail back to the original author's licence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)