From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 13 January 2022

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: Moved as requested. Based on WP:Consistency arguments and the global categorization of similar articles under the Tourist Attraction mantra. Opposers provided no policy or guideline rationale, only speculative thoughts about the meaning and understanding of tourism. Mike Cline ( talk) 14:23, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply

– Per WP:NOTGUIDE, Wikipedia is not a travel guide, so the existence of these pages is questionable overall. However, if they're going to exist, we should try to define as well as possible what entries they should contain. "Sites of interest" is impossibly vague and subjective, whereas "tourist attractions" is at least characterized. It's more blunt and direct about what these places have in common. Therefore, I think it's a better title structure. Additionally, almost all similar pages for other cities, such as List of tourist attractions in Philadelphia and others in Category:Lists of tourist attractions by city, already use that structure, so this move could help us to standardize. Feel free to add any additional pages that I missed. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 22:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  Natg 19 ( talk) 00:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting.  BD2412 T 07:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Travel and Tourism. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 22:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. A "sight" or "site of interest" is not necessarily a mere tourist attraction. "Places of interest" may be better but I agree we need to come up with a working definition of what goes in them and, ideally, agree a common form of article title. Bermicourt ( talk) 13:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC) reply
    If standardizing is a goal (as it should be), it's worth noting just how much more prevalent the "list of tourist attractions" form is. Category:Lists of tourist attractions by city and its subcategories have about 100 articles, and these four were the only ones with the sites/sights form. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 04:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Support for consistency within Category:Lists of tourist attractions by city. The proposed form is also more understandable, straightforward and clear. Calling something a tourist attraction may somewhat trivialize the topic, but "sights" and "sites of interest" are both excessively vague and likely to cause confusion among readers and editors alike, and the allusion to "sightseeing" is also trivializing. We shouldn't call these something different just to obfuscate the fact of what they are. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 19:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose "Tourist attraction" is usually used in a derogatory sense - suggesting something is of no interest to natives, and solely exists to impress tourists. "Site of interest" implies something is of note to both residents and tourists alike. If anything, I think the other "tourist attraction" articles and category should be moved instead. Are we really going to suggest that the Boston Museum of Science or New England Aquarium are solely there for the benefit of tourists? ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 10:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Attracting tourists should not necessarily be considered mutually exclusive of having value for residents. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 19:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Would it help to simplify the titles to "List of attractions in [Place]", removing "tourist"? (To me "sites of interest" seems like a phrase no one would use and somewhat makes me think of construction sites.) —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 01:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
"List of attractions" sounds alright to me, although if we decide on that, we'd need to move the other 100 or so pages, which would be a pain. {{u| Sdkb}}  talk 01:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Support the proposed name is consistent with other, similar lists, and helps build a list without original research to determine what is a "site of interest". RS often use terms like "tourist attraction", and if it's attractive to tourists it does not exclude being attractive to residents also. ( t · c) buidhe 03:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Support – the consistency argument is strong given the large number of lists in Category:Lists of tourist attractions by city (and its subcategories) that use "tourist attractions" in their titles, and I agree that "sites of interest" (or variants) is too subjective to define the articles' scopes clearly. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 19:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - what on earth is a "tourist attraction"? I mean I know what it is, but that doesn't sound like encyclopaedic language at all. "Sites of interest" is a much better term, and as ZXCVBNM notes that enables it to cover more than just things outsiders might look at, but things for locals too and also things of scientific or cultural interest. The present title is much better, and other articles should probably follow suit.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 08:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:NATURALNESS. Rreagan007 ( talk) 16:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:List_of_tourist_attractions_in_Boston&oldid=1205776833"