Talk:Dizengoff Street

Merge

Some rationale could be useful. It is a fairly significant square, and can be expanded greatly. Epson291 (talk) 02:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's more about Dizengoff Street than Dizengoff Square, but the name cannot be Dizengoff Square and also talk about the street, so I suggested the opposite merger. The article you linked to is exactly my point—this is pretty much as good as an article about the square can get, and it's definitely not good enough. The article on the street is even worse on HeWiki, and has a paragraph about the square. I don't really think these topics should be separate, as they deal with very similar things and it's not like either will/can be a featured article without being very similar to the article about the other. I suggest we merge first, and split later if it's really necessary (although I doubt that will happen anytime soon). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dizengoff Street is pretty notable too, big shopping street (List of leading shopping streets and districts by city), especially before the mall was built. I'll expand both the articles, but I think they're both important enough and distinct to be on their own (and not be merged by the misfortune of having a similar name). Epson291 (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that my merge proposal is facilitating article improvement :) please do your best. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, there was no consensus to remove the merge tags. I'm not too sure how many watch these pages (probably not many), so I think the tags should be left in place for about a month (standard time for RfCs) to get more opinions. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed your December 8th comment here, I didn't see it before because it was indented the same amount as the line above (and was written the same time as the one below). If you still think it should be merged please readd it, my apologies. Epson291 (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought so. Don't worry about it. Anyway, there are now three related articles: the street, the center, and the square. I am still doubting the necessity to have all three, but it appears that you feel strongly about it, so I won't pollute the article with tags. I just urge you to find more sources and write more content in all three. Personally, I still believe that the square and street should be merged. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

They're really only related in name, I can't really see them successfully merged together, or should they be, they are all significant, and independently notable. I improved Dizengoff Square again, you really got me to work. :) Epson291 (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Reads like a travel guide

I don't want to place an ugly tag on the article, which is entirely unneeded, but it appears that as it stands now, the article reads a lot like the article on Yahoo Travel, i.e. a lot like a travel guide. I think the information should be more encyclopedic, and the best way to do that is to find non-travel sources. If that's impossible, the prose could be altered a little to change the tone, but given the sources, it would still make it difficult to turn the tone into an encyclopedic one. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the information is correct, but it does read like a travel guide. I'll see what I can do. Epson291 (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I tried modifying the tone, and removing some of less encylopedic material. Epson291 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)