Talk:Molokai

Convert to city article

Looking at the amount of listings (and the amount of redlinks) I think this article could be converted into a city article, couldn't it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree there doesn't seem to be a need to have child-destinations in this case. Using a city template is an option, although it's also acceptable to just treat the region article as the lowest level article for this place, removing the red links and leaving the listings. I have no preference. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We do not usually have listings in region articles. And regions without cities contained in them are also - to my knowledge - contrary to policy. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A side note, but re: regions without cities, or regions containing listings, being "contrary to policy", except for a few policies like WV:Copyleft, site policies are guidelines rather than rules, and exceptions should be made when it makes sense. Category:Empty regions contains a number of regions that don't have active city articles, and while some of those articles may be mis-categorized, many of them are best handled as bottom-level regions. It is more important for an article reflect the reality of the destination instead of trying to force an edge-case destination to dogmatically adhere to site policies. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but it is by now a more or less established precedent to treat some (mostly rural) non-cities or areas as city articles and I find that - absent it's own "island" category - this is a particularly apt approach for islands. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

If the Molokai article is covering a rural region I don't see the benefit of trying to call it a city when it clearly isn't one. If a region doesn't have subdivisions that doesn't automatically make it a city. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Precedents have been set for both solutions, actually. This has come up a number of times when discussing different rural areas, and while regions normally shouldn't have listings, the general opinion has usually been that we should use common sense and ttcf for those cases where our standard guidelines just don't work. For small regions, like this one, a city article could be the best solution. For huge but sparsely inhabited regions which are also clearly known as "regions", it has been considered weird (from a traveller's point of view) to use a city article just for our administrative preferences and when clearly the lowest level article, listings have also be used in such region articles. There have been several discussions and decisions on individual articles, but we've never formulated any overall policy for these cases. I'm also not sure we should. I think it was User:Pashley who once stated that our treatment of regions should probably be relatively flexible, leaving space for such organisational decisions to whoever knows the region and does the work. I always felt that was a sensible way to deal with it. JuliasTravels (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly a bottom-level destination in all but name. I vote yes. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)