Talk:San Juan

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search

Although San Juan in Puerto Rico is probably the most famous San Juan in the world, there are just too many for it to be granted an exception according to the Project:article naming conventions. I've tried to make this work right; comments welcome. --(WT-en) Evan 09:35, 9 Aug 2005 (EDT)

Restaurant Listings[edit]

The restaurant listings look to exclude any non-carribean ethnic cuisine. While I agree that people should sample the local cuisine, I think it serves the traveler to have all the options. I propose to classify the existing listings as "Caribbean" or "Puerto Rican/Creole" and add others such as Italian, French, American, etc. Awaiting comment from those who have authored so far. (WT-en) OldPine 23:15, 26 June 2006 (EDT)

San Juan[edit]

Why does San Juan redirect to San Juan (Puerto Rico) (this article)? Should we move this article to San Juan, which I think makes more sense, rather than redirecting a top level article name to an article with a disambiguator? -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 05:22, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Districts?[edit]

Districtification for the article is currently completely messed up. I'd suggest that...

  1. we move this article to "San Juan" without the disambig (there's a lotta San Juans in the world, but it's by far the biggest)
  2. we limit districts to Old San Juan, Condado, Isla Verde and "Downtown" (for lack of a better word)

Opinions? (WT-en) Jpatokal 18:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Even the top level name San Juan redirects to "San Juan (Puerto Rico)" which seems redundant. -- (WT-en) Sapphire(Talk) • 00:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
Bumpity-bump. Any other opinions before I plunge forward? (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:39, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
yeah, do it! by the way, this article, along with Puerto Rico, better be up to guide status incredibly soon or I'm gonna start thinking you guys were just on vacation during this so called "get together"  ;) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 03:44, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

This article seriously needs some attention[edit]

San Juan seems to be districtified yet has no district map. Moreover it's halfway districtified, and most of the district articles are red links, and the district tags were at the bottom of the article until five minutes ago. A whole lot of POIs are still here in the main article. And have a look at the dates in the thread above - if this district discussion would be a person, it would be attending first grade in school!

Anyone who's visited to San Juan? Any locals around? The last thread reveals that there has been a get together (some kind of Wiki meeting?) seven years back. BTW the article's content is probably not up to date either. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I would propose the radical solution: make tabula rasa with the districts by merging them all here and eliminating the subdivision into districts altogether, than redistrictrify if and when needed. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been there (yet ;)), but it seems to me that the city is actually not *that* huge. We have plenty of cities this size without districts, so Hobbitschuster's idea is a good option. As it is a rather touristic place, with many hotel listings etc, I could also imagine we bring the number of districts back to three or so. That way the useful info in e.g Old San Juan could stay, while we get rid of the empty districts. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I overlooked the older comment by User:Jpatokal, who suggested four districts. That seems fine too. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
There are plenty of far larger cities — Guangdong, Suzhou & Shenzhen are all well over 10 million, for example — that do not have separate district articles and I'm not sure they need them. There are also places like Delhi that I'd say really need districts & don't have them. I'm therefore wondering if San Juan really needs them.
I do not know the region. I'd be happy to support either User:Hobbitschuster's suggestion of going back to no districts or User:Jpatokal's earlier proposal of a simple four-district scheme, but inclined to oppose anything more complex. Pashley (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Is this still here? Heck, let's just put the content back in the main article and delete the districts. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Transit options[edit]

Hi, I'm new here and just did some editing on public transit options in San Juan based on my recent holiday there. Feel free to leave feedback on my talk page.

I was wondering, though, if the paragraph that mentions "guaguas" should be removed; it sounds like it fits more in the Puerto Rico article, or perhaps warrants a mention in the bus section saying that the buses do not extend outside the city.

Also, I don't know that I've seen a labeled section like "Useful Routes", but I was struggling with the presentation. As a visitor I felt it would have been useful to know, and this seemed to be the best.

Thanks! Bravemidwesterner (talk) 02:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Puerto Rico and thus can't comment much on content and whether a sub-section like "Useful routes" is really that useful, but since this isn't a particularly well-developed articles feel free to move or re-write anything that you think makes sense. For more well-developed articles like USA or Chicago it's tougher to make big changes since those articles have been edited and re-edited thousands of times already, but San Juan still seems to be in its infant stages. Remember to use edit summaries or leave messages on the talk page (like this one) when you think something might warrant further attention. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

San Juan (Puerto Rico)[edit]

Swept in from the pub

So I stumbled upon the article on San Juan (Puerto Rico) and it seems clear to me that this article needs work. A city of roughly 300 000 it has been "districtified", but there is no district map and half the "districts" are just redlinks. And this is just where problems begin. A debate on this was raised on the talk page about a year ago - but - as so often happens - went nowhere. What should be done? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Districts again[edit]

Hey @Ground Zero: I thank you for all your tireless work on copy editing and the likes, but I am not entirely sure moving stuff to district articles is a wise course of action on this article. It seems that several editors have leaned towards merging the districts into the main article, at the very least for the time being. If you have other suggestions, feel free to voice them. Best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Hobbitschuster: That's fine. If someone decides to merge the articles, then they can group the hotels by district under the Budget/Mid-range/Splurge categories more easily. And if no-one consolidates the articles, then the listings are in the right place and not duplicated (I am finding listings for the same hotels in the San Juan article and in the district articles.) The discussion has been under way for over two years now, so I don't think that change is imminent. Ground Zero (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I fear the discussion has gone the way so many discussions have: At some point it just.... stopped... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
That could happen either because no-one feels they know the subject well enough to undertake the project, or because no-one is interested in doing the work. I've never been to PR, and don't plan to go to the US for at least the next three years and nine months, so you could put me in both camps I guess. I'm not convinced that consolidation is needed, but I don't object to it either. Ground Zero (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge all districts here[edit]

I don't know much about this place, but what is there to say against merging all districts here? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Several of the district articles are well-developed. It think it would be better to move listings from this article to the district articles. Ground Zero (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
First of all the district list does not contain a map (which is extremely unhelpful to non-locals) and secondly it contains a bunch of redlinks. Even if the current districts were to be kept, we would have to do something about that. The district structure should always cover and include the whole city without overlap. If that is not possible, something is wrong. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I've posted a note in the pub seeking help. I agree that there are problems with the article, but I think that consolidating it would make it unwieldy. Ground Zero (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Per my comment from last year a few threads up this talk page, let's just merge the districts back into the main article. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The discussion had been open for a week without any new input, so I will defer to you guys. Go ahead and merge if you want to. Ground Zero (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ypsilon: @Ground Zero: should this be done then? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. No need for further discussion. Just do it. Ground Zero (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Do go ahead, then. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Um, no. You proposed the merger. I opposed it, but since you and one other editor were in favour, I acquiesced. Expecting another editor to do your bidding is quite frankly ridiculous. If you are not willing to do the work involved in merging articles, then maybe you shouldn't bother prosing them. None of us is getting paid for this. Ground Zero (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I'll start doing it now. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes Done ϒpsilon (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)