Talk:Dubai/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Record temperatures

Back in late July, 58.166.239.52 added the record high and low temperatures for Dubai. This editor did not provide a source for the data. The Dubai Meteorological Office (which is the official recorder of such data in Dubai) does not provide this data on its website. I found this site which has the averages and the records for each month. The DMC and the MyForcast data is very close, but they are different. I also found a list of all-time record high and low temperatures for cities around the world. The data added by 58.166.239.52 does not conform with these all-time records. I propose removing the records because no source is provided for the data and it is different from other third-party sources. Any alternative ideas or suggestions? Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 04:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the record temperatures since there was no opposition (or support). To reinstate the information please discuss it here first. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 20:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead rewording

I propose rewording the first paragraph of the lead. It currently seems to be too wordy and complex. I propose the following wording:

Dubai (in Arabic: دبيّ‎, transliteration: dubaīy) is one of the seven emirates of the United Arab Emirates and the largest city in the United Arab Emirates. It is located along the southern coast of the Persian Gulf on the Arabian Peninsula. The city of Dubai is sometimes called "Dubai city" to distinguish it from the emirate.

Any suggestions, comments or alternative options are welcome. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Reads well. I might tweak it just a bit to read:
Dubai (in Arabic: دبيّ‎, transliteration: dubaīy) is one of the seven emirates and largest city of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It is located along the southern coast of the Persian Gulf on the Arabian Peninsula. The city of Dubai is sometimes called "Dubai city" to distinguish it from the emirate.
Any thoughts on this? Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
That is better than my proposal. I cannot think of anything that should be changed/added/removed. I will replace the current lead with yours. Thanks for your input. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Multicultural Dubai

This is in response to Badger Drink's edit (and reasoning) for deleting the sentence introducing the Culture section of the article ("Dubai has a diverse and multicultural society"). User:Badger Drink's reasoning was that the sentence was poor in quality and that "comes across as bludgeoning the poor reader with a screechy insistence of Dubai's multicultural diversity".

I do not agree with this assessment. All the sentence is doing is introducing a section of an article. Given the fact that about 90% of Dubai is foreign-born, such a statement is imperative if we're going to be able to put the city's obvious multicultural footprint into perspective. I cannot buy the argument that this sentence, supported by a reliable citation, comes across as "condescending" or bludgeons the user with an insistence of Dubai's multicultural credentials. As the user has previously stated, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We should stick to stating facts, providing valid citations, and allowing users to draw their own conclusions. If we're saying that a sentence as simple as the one in question appears "condescending", then I'm afraid we aren't giving much credit to Wikipedia readers. On Wikipedia, we're expected to state facts, and not get into hypothetical scenarios of how a very diverse user population may react to text.

However, since User:Badger Drink believes the sentence to stylistically weak, I am willing to work out a compromise. If the user could draft a sentence (perhaps here or here) with more or less the same content as the sentence in question and in a tone that the user feels is more approprirate to readers, I'd be more than happy to work out a compromise and use that sentence, if there is consensus. Thoughts? AreJay (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Emirate or city?

I am confused if this article is about the city or the emirate. Abu Dhabi has seperate articles for the city and for the emirate. Just curious if I'm missing that there are already different pages for the city and the emirate and which one this is. Camelbinky (talk) 10:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is about both the emirate and the city. There is a big difference b/w the city of Abu Dhabi and the emirate of AD, which comprises several other major towns and cities. This isn't the case for Dubai...Dubai city makes up 97% of the entire emirate. AreJay (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you AreJay, that was a quick and kind response. Was that information in the article and I didnt see it? If its not someone should put it in, I hope I'm not the only one who thought of this question regarding the city/emirate.Camelbinky (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
No problem...I think the infobox has population figures for the city vs. emirate, but I don't think there's a detailed explanation of the issue anywhere in the article. I think it makes sense to add a couple of lines about the issue, and I'll look into adding it sometime within the next couple of days. Thanks AreJay (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanitation

I removed the "Sanitation" section because the article needs to conform to WP:SS. Having a section entirely on sanitation would therefore be WP:UNDUE. I would suggest that if this does need to be included, that a summary of the section be included in the Governance section of the article. Also, if there is enough material to construct an article on Sanitation in Dubai, I think it would be very helpful. Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the recent "Sanitation" edit, sanitation is not a top-level section in any featured article. It should therefore only be included as in summary style. I have taken the liberty of creating a separate Sanitation in Dubai article, and have linked to it in the main Dubai article. A summary of the sanitation issue is now also included in the Government section of the Dubai article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dubai bankrupt in mid Jan 2009

I added this to the main text and it was deleted. Unfortunately it seems that some real estate engaged people are here which try to keep the marketing value of this site up. Please discuss.

Dubai run out of money in mid Januar 2009 and had to sell the real estate giant Emaar and the Emirate Airline to Abu Dhabi. Mohammed al-Abbar council of the sheik told the international press in December 2008 that Emaar had credits of US$ 70 billions and the state of Dubai additional US$ 10 billions while holding estimated 350 billion in real estate assets.

Source: http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2008/11/24/60734.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.230.127.4 (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


Twin Cities

Since 2007, there 's a partnership between Lyon and Dubaï, why that I wrote has been deleted ? (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was uncited, and when I checked the UAE and Lyon sister-city pages neither had any mention of a twinning agreement between Dubai and Lyon. Where did you read about the twinning agreement between Lyon and Dubai? (I guess it's possible that the UAE and Lyon websites simply haven't been updated yet).
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is Burj Dubai?

It needs to be mentioned in the introduction. An image is necessary too.

Why? AreJay (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Because it slowly becomes an icon of Dubai.

antipodes

Hi, I added a sentence about the antipodes of Dubai, just wondering why it's been deleted ? Epileptic Mushroom (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it took the focus away from the introductory paragraph. When you introduce a subject, (esp. on a main-level article such as this one), its important to summarize important elements that make up the article, without confusing the reader. I didn't think the antipodes were relevant, in that context, in introducing Dubai. Thanks AreJay (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Islamic Law in the Holiday Heaven

This is also missing in this marketing page. The incident about the two british tourists who were kissing on the beach and send to jail for 2 years (reduced to 2 month) and a british guy who where doing pushup during a 6 hour airport break and sentenced to 5 years in prison for insulting the dubai soil.

Also a comment about the barbarian penalities for even the smalles amount of drugs and the total corruption of the law system should be added to warn all foreigners to not visit the state of Dubai if they have a feeling for any moral western values.

The drugs laws are certainly real and severe, but the British couple you were talking about were having sex on the beach, not just kissing, and an internet search returns nothing about "insulting Dubai soil". My intention isn't to defend Dubai: it's a dictatorship where human rights abuses, particularly for non-Western foreign workers run rampant, but it doesn't help the case to spread urban myths.86.1.196.156 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Workers as Slaves

There should be a section explaining the inhuman conditions for foreign workers from south (east) asia. Including the Thai-Moslem incident in 2007 where one thai person was stubbed.

There's a rich article on Dubai "dark side" with information on modern slaves : http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-dark-side-of-dubai-1664368.html

Yes, this article (The darker side of Dubai, Johann Hari, The Independent, Tuesday 7 April 2009) is an excellent description of Dubai. The article has now been linked to in the page twice; both times AreJay has removed the text, once without comment, the second time claiming that the text Dubai has been criticized for perpetuating a caste society, where migrant workers are in the lower castes [ref]. "doesn't even make sense." That sentence makes perfect sense,and its claim is wholly supported by the article, which makes the criticism. AreJay, is the English your only point of objection here? (changed subsection title to better reflect the content of this section). 64.103.25.233 (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Well first, the article in the Independent is an "op-ed" and can't be relied upon as a reliable resource on Wikipedia. Second, who came up with the phrase "lower caste"? Was it the author of the article? Or was it you? There are no castes in Middle Eastern society. There are castes in the Indian subcontinent, where most of the laborers are from, but then how does the author know they're from a "lower caste"? Would their plight be any different if they were from a "higher caste"? Do their masters know? Or care? And third, this is a main-level Wikipedia article and should be written in summary style. My objection to this is simple: we're belaboring the point here – there is a summary of human rights violations in the Dubai#Governance and politics section (see last two paragraphs), all of which has been sourced from reliable (encyclopedic/news) sources. I don't think there's any need for this opinion piece to be brought in to the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
First, it's not an op-ed, as it's based on research and travel. It's reporting-from-the-field researched journalism with interviews. On caste - the article mentions class a number of times, and lays out that the class is based on ethnic origin, with foreign workers at the bottom, and Emiratis at the top. This is separate from Indian castes - but class with ethnic origin leads to caste. Clear enough - but indicating class, rather than caste, would be clearer to you, and is indicated in the article, so would not be inferred. Mentioning this where foreign workers are discussed seems entirely reasonable. 64.103.25.233 (talk) 07:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This needs to be put back in unless AreJay is going to provide evidence the article is in error. 64.183.111.242 (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so. Regardless of how you want to paint it, this is an op-ed. No one is denying that laborers are mistreated in Dubai; having lived in the city myself, I am more than aware of their plight. However, there is nothing new mentioned in the article; it certainly isn't the first to expose this side of Dubai society. As I've previously stated, "Dubai" being a main-level Wikipedia article, any information needs to be in summary style. And since this topic has already been summarized in the Governance section, I see no need for a repetition. I would ask that you read up on WP:SS and WP:RS. Also, please do not move the discussion to the top of the page; it is Wikipedia convention to add new posts to the bottom of the talk page. Thanks AreJay (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
What's written in this article doesn't even come close to doing justice to what's going on in Dubai, it's almost completely whitewashed. Something needs to be changed, absolutely. At the end of the governance section it states that most of the prostitutes are there by choice without being coerced, whereas in the article for slavery it states that "Around 95% of the population of the Emirate of Dubai consists of slaves." It's outrageous that there isn't a special section for this, the world is horrified about it and this article is trying to brush it under a rug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.199.129 (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that slavery problems are swept under the carpet in this article. After all they affect most of the population of Dubai. I don't think they logically belong to the governance section. I also don't think that just one person should decide about including or not discussion of this issue. 24.84.40.102 (talk) 03:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
User:92.94.199.129 – What article for slavery? Who came up with the statistic that 95% of Dubai consists of slaves? Having lived there myself, I know this statistic is patently false and challenge you to produce a reliable source to support this ludicrous claim. AreJay (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
User:24.84.40.102 – it's not a question of one person deciding what gets included in the article. However, there are policies on how articles and content should be structured on Wikipedia and all I've done is to uphold those policies. The user above wanted some content included, which I thought (and clearly demonstrated) had a WP:POV and therefore didn't deserve to be included in the article. However, if the user or anyone else doesn't think so, they are welcome to bring it up on Talk:Dubai and address my concerns; no one seems to have done that thus far. AreJay (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Lest it sound that AreJay is a lone voice in the wilderness, I concur with everything he has said. I also doubt that the IP editors mentioned above will be willing enough to stand by their assertions to even register usernames, because their "contributions" are third-hand sensationalist rumor. — Hex (❝?!❞) 09:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is written from first hand knowledge - the reporter's visit to Dubai and interviews conducted with residents. Nothing in the guidelines for reliable sources says opinion pieces cannot be referenced as a reliable source, but because they are published as opinion, must be cited as such. To omit this critique of Dubai skirts very close to bias in contravention of Wikipedia's commitment to NPOV. And I have an account - but I use it to edit pages, and am not currently logged in 72.49.66.68 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read the op-ed and as someone who has lived in Dubai, can confirm that the content of the op-ed was written to shock and to disturb readers through sweeping generalizations and distortions of fact. You are right - there's nothing in Wikipedia that says that reliably sourced opinions can't be referenced. I would argue, given the vitriol in the op-ed that it hardly qualifies as a reliable source. You can tell by my past activity here that I do not see Dubai through the blinkered view conjured up by the city's marketing and tourism apparatus. Something that's more important to me is the validity and verifiability of content included in the article. That goes for users trying to build Dubai up as the center of the universe, as well as for those trying to paint it as the root of all evil. If you believe the op-ed to be credible and reliable, please make your case. AreJay (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Dubai

Hi,Arejay.....

well thanks for your help.I want to say that the section which i have added, Tourism.I dont think that it is irrevelant to the topic.Because i have seen this section in my articles of worlds famous cities like Karachi on wikipedia. I have made some edits in the section Transportation.... in which i have made some sub headings i dont know why you have reverted these sub headings.In my point of view it looks decent. I have seen these headings in the article of Bangkok. would you plz visit that article before taking further actions. I would sugest you that the section tourism is necessary for a city like Dubai, which is famous for its tourism. I am agreed with you that the section skyline is irrevelant to this topic so you can delete this section. one more thing is the image gallery which i have added to this article i dont think that it looks awful ! you can see alot of image galleries in many articles of cities on wikipedia. Nabil rais2008 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Nabil, and thanks for clarifying. As far as a Tourism section is concerned, such a section is not considered to be encyclopedic and therefore not added to quality Wikipedia articles. All articles on Wikipedia must try and emulate articles that have been deemed featured articles on Wikipedia. I will refer you to Australia, Vancouver and New York City, all of which are important travel destinations, but with no mention of tourism in their articles. It is for this same reason that image galleries are not included in quality Wikipedia articles - they are not encyclopedic and add little to the understanding of the city.
As far as subheadings, top-level articles in Wikipedia should be in summary style. While it is okay to occassionally have subheadings in an article (especially when there is enough to discuss), subheadings such as those in the Dubai article are in excess with many having not more than 1 or 2 sentences. This leads to very choppy text and should be relegated to more detailed articles (such as Transportation in Dubai, for e.g.).
Also, please do not make such sweeping changes to the article (including the many others that you have made) and build consensus on the talk page before making these changes. Once there is consensus, changes can be made, but not in the absence of any discussion. Thanks AreJay (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Some new stuff in the article

apart from all the disputes that we had in the above discussion, i am now giving my suggestions for the article.

  • In the heading Transportation i am removing the subheadings..


Airport
Railways
Ferries
Roads
Bus service

thus restoring it to its previous and adding to it the images of bus servive and railways. I can only hope that you will not have any issues over it.

  • In the heading of Demographics i have introduced following subheadings....


Ethnic groups
Languages
Religion

you should not have any objection over it because it convenient for reader to directly jump on the topic of his interest, whether its be laungaues in dubai or religion, rather than wondering in the mixed up stuff !

  • I have renamed the heading Culture as Culture and contemporary life, as it mainly covers dubai's existing life style, and i suggest a new subheading in it as Cuisine and Entertainment and performing arts, newyork's article have it ! so hopefully it will not offend any one.
  • I suggest introduction of Entertainment, Sports and Tourism as subheading of Culture and contemporary life. Hopefully you have no issues with it as your dearer article of Newyork also have it !.
  • Skyline, being the one of the most impresive things of Dubai, the article dont even mentioned about skyline !

Skyline should be introduced in the article, can you imagine article of Alexander the great with out his splended conquest ? I suggest a heading like Cityscape, as in Newyork's article or Architecture like that of hongkong. under the heading of cityscape subheadings like Architectures and parks can be introduced.

  • In the article of newyork, Media is subheading of Culture and contemporary life. In Dubai's article i will put media under Culture and contemporary life too. As its the tradition i guess ! after all Newyork's article is FA-Class.

All these were my suggestion to improve the article. sub-headings, if necessary to be made, dont really pose danger to article's status as good or A-Class article. like we have 15 main headings and 11 subheadings in newyorks's article. Obviously the more headings you have, (from heading i mean to say useful headings) the vast knowledge about the city your article will cover. Colossal (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

  • By the way its me User:Nabilrais.

Colossal (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I will reiterate the point that I've made a couple of times before. I am more than willing to discuss possible changes to the article, but making changes to the article and then hoping for consensus is not the way Wikipedia works. Please make the changes only when there is consensus and not before. This includes images as well. I will therefore restore the article to its original state, but will continue this discussion in good faith, with the hope that we can build consensus and incorporate changes, if any, to the article.
  • Transportation: I'm okay with the text; it may be slightly choppy, but we can deal with that later. I am not okay with four images in the transport section. This should be restricted to one or two only. I will let you decide which two to include, but given that the Dubai Metro isn't fully operational, I will not support an inclusion of this image in the article.
  • Demographics: Firstly, the heading ethnic groups is inaccurate. Pakistanis are not an ethnic group. Neither are Indians, or Emiratis. In addition, the languages sub-heading has one sentence; what is the point of such a subheading? I therefore oppose your changes to this section and feel that a summary style is required.
  • Culture: The contemporaneity of culture is implied; I don't think this needs to be changes. Ditto with the sub-headings. The text becomes incredibly choppy and should be relegated to sub-articles (e.g., Culture of Dubai)
  • Skyline: I'm open to adding this section, you can draft the text that you would like to include, and we can discuss. Completely oppose its current structure however; all it has is a bunch of random statistics on how tall some buildings are. Among other perplexing things about this section, is the inclusion of a "Climate" sub-section under the "Skyline" section. What is the connection?
  • Media: Nope; Media has nothing to do with Culture and should have its own subsection. I don't know why the authors of that article included it under Culture; I see them as being separate, per many of the other several WP:FA articles the sections separated.
As mentioned above, I'll be happy to continue this discussion, but please don't make changes before there is consensus. Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Transportation, i suggest the pic of air port and metro should be there. I disagree with your point regarding metro's pic. dubai metro, though not completed, but when completed will be the longest fully automated railway system in the world, how can you miss this heavy point ? It's simply a "super star" among the dubai transports. Its a mega project to reduce the congestion in dubai traffic, its good to have a pic of mega project other then displaying the common pic of ferries and busses !
Its status as a "mega project" notwithstanding, to the fact remains that the number of people currently using the metro is 0. There's a lot of fluff and marketing that goes into almost everything in Dubai, so its very important on Wikipedia to sift through the gimmickry to comply with WP:NPOV. However, the image is the least of my concerns. If you feel the metro is important, please go ahead and add the image, as long as only 2 images are added to this section. AreJay (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Demographics, its okay with me about present demographics summary style then.
  • Culture, i previously suggested the following heading under culture


Entertainment
Tourism
Media
sports

Though i personally felt that these headings have nothing to do with culture, but i suggested so, as it was like this in newyork's article. I will edits them too in Newyork.

Now isuggest the following seperate headings,

  • Entertainment
  • Tourism
  • Media
  • sports

, article of a city is incomplete woth out such important headings, almost all the article ofthe cities have such headings, more over all four headings are so different from each other that they cant be merge together to make a seperate sub-article rel;ated to Dubai.
, The material regarding these headings is ready, as soon as they got the concensus, i will add them.

The question isn't what "almost all" articles do, it's about what good articles do. I don't see any value in these subheadings at this point. AreJay (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Skyline

Material regarding skyline is ready, as for your comment for it being a bunch of random statistics of how tall some building is then, bro what do you want in skyline section ? you cant have a skyline section with out statistics regarding skyscrapers of the city, moreover they are not random, they have references tagged with them. I will try to improve it, and you can edits it as well once its in the article.

Well, as the person suggesting a "Skyline" section, isn't it up to you to suggest what should be included? How does asking me to tell you what should be included help? Moreover, Skyline is a vague term. Skyline where? On Sheikh Zayed road? Along the Deira Creek? In Business Bay? In the Marina? The skyline in each of these areas is different. AreJay (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • what i now suggest is some thing else, other then skyline, we can have a main heading called Architecture, and skyline and parks as its sub-headings. After all whats wrong with magnificent parks of dubai that they dont even have their name mentioned in Dubai's article. Their we have Jumeirah Beach Park, Creekside Park, Al Mamzar Park, Mushrif Park,

Safa Park , they attracts millions of tourist annually and thus should have coverage in the article under the headings Parks.


  • Waiting for your comments.

regards.

Colossal (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No, can't agree with that. Think of the problem this way: I'm a Wikipedia user and I've never heard of Dubai. I visit the Dubai article to get some information on the city. Do I want to be inundated with information on parks or do I want to see information about the history, geography, economy, etc. of the city? Will I be put off with an article that has several thousand sub-headings and disparate subjects? Wikipedia's guideline is that most articles should be approximately 35kb; during WP:FAC, people are generally okay if this exceeds to 45k. So the challenge is to be able to discuss a subject, providing accurate, NPOV information. That's why, when we craft articles, we try to follow guidelines outlined in WP:UKCITY or WP:INCITIES. Both these Wikipedia projects very clearly lay out areas of scope for cities, as well as the issue of sub-headings. I would strongly recommened reading through them to get a better idea of how we craft articles on cities/countries on Wikipedia. Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • lolzz.... by the way if you are a "rough" and jagged reader, so you cant help it, me and thousand other like me want a "one stop shop" thats is all info included. Whats attracks tourist ? parks or coffe shop ? obviously parks man, i cant figure out what you are thinking of wikipedia, it isn't any body's personal fourm, the moto is to provide authantic and valuable info, and that it. You better read W:OA. As for your comment on size of the article, then bro your FA-Class article of Newyork is 131 kb, go and delete its 100 kb and its 15 headings and 11 sub-heading.

I have already make it clear that "useful" heading dont really pose a threat to article, i think you will never gonna get my point, keep in mind bro stubbrons cant go with wikipedia, any day, sooner or later they got pissed off by some body. No offense. I strongly recommand a third opinion of any moderate User.

As for the heading that i suggested, they are completely in accordance with wikipedia. The following article have it.

, you should first go and delete these heading and their several thousand sub headings from above mentioned article before, commenting on my suggested heading of being incompetant with wikipedia style. As they say majority is authority. Its democrasy ist'nt it ?

  • Any ways i now seriously think that i have to call an administrator to solve the issue, because with every suggestion, you end up in a deadlock. So you decide, now, you gonna deleted the headings i suggested from the above mentioned articles, or should we simply add them too in Dubai's article ?. Pertsonally i dont like to claim any thing with out facts and figures, i had stuff to support my claim, do you have it ? 35 kb article is a dream in wikipedia now, even the current article of dubai isn't 35 kb !more over the the more famous the city is the more people try to know about it, You cant caompair Dubai or London with Mumbai or Dehli !, London's article is massive, london recieve the most number of tourist every year, while Dubai is the 8th most visited city in the world, vienna, moscow, bijing etc are far below from Dubai in rating of the most visted city, but their articles have even greater coverage then london !


to me its simply not fair to Keep dubai's article in present vurnerable form, yes vurnerable i would say. Because you cant get any info about city from it, a city's article isn't just about history and economy, History of Dubai ? is dubai a historic city ? it isn't. then from where will you give history section a vast coverage ???? What dubai is famous for ? its tourism man ! its skyline and its bustling shopping malls dude, where are you man ? Colossal (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what I did was to try and provide you with some direction as you're a new user on Wikipedia, and what you did was to respond with directionless banter directed not at my view, but at me. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia's policy of no personal attacks before you continue. When someone says something like "Is Dubai a historic city? It isn't" I start to question if they know anything at all about Dubai. Feel free to call whoever you want to break what you consider to be a "deadlock", but my thoughts are fairly clear as outlined to you above and on your talk page. AreJay (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I dont think there was any personal attack stuff in my earlier post, the thing is clear, the headings i suggested are their in the above mentioned articles, i didn't made them myself, and dont know why you have problem with those heading... instead of getting offending by some one's suggestion you better ponder upon the suggestion seriously.

As for being a new User, so it does not make any problem, as what i suggested is in accordance with wikipedia's articles..... and are not my self made illusions. As for your sentence I start to question if they know anything at all about Dubai, dude i live in Dubai, i study here and my family is here since a long time, or what do you think from where i took those images ? from Karachi ?

Colossal (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because someone lives in Dubai doesn't necessarily mean they are able to talk with authority about several aspects of the city. A case in point would be the fact that you didn't think Dubai was a historic city, despite living there. All you have to do is read through the History section of the article to understand that the city has a history dating at least 500 years. I'm from Dubai too and was brought up there. I know that a lot of the city is smoke-and-mirrors and that's why I think it is critically important to question and not just accept media items as fact. I don't disagree that Dubai is an important tourist destination, but so are the many other cities that I've talked about, with none of them having such a section in their articles. Moreover, a Tourism section will also be redundant, given that there are not one, but two links to Tourism in Dubai in the article. If anything needs to be changed wrt Tourism, I feel a link to WikiTravel Dubai will be beneficial.
  • Ya, its 500 years not 5000 years, so it dosn't make it really a histoic city when compair to other like cairo and london etc .

More over i am not a history guy to write about history, if you are interested feel free to expand it. I still wonder what make you think that my suggested headings are irrelevant ! when thousand other major cities have them, and thats a fact mostly those cities recieve the highest number of tourist which are in reality smoke and mirror, you will understand what i mean to say if you have ever been to London, the most visited city in the world. Thats what they call a deadlock, and here we badly need a third opinion. The option is simple man, whether deleted those heading from thousand other article on wikipedia or simply add them here as well. It don't really matters whether you like those headings or not, or what is your personal opinion regarding them, following the tradition, you ought to accept them as an essential part of any city's article. After all i got the idea of these heading from the articles that you gave me to check and learn, like the New york's one.

  • Please support your opinion with some existing facts of wikipedia, other wise do you really think people gonna accept them ?

regards and sorry if you felt offended by me, i am in good faith here trying to expand the article by covering the major things about dubai.. Colossal (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

How did you conclude that a city that's 500 years old has no history, whereas a city with 5000 years does? Is there a definition for how the word "historic" is defined or is your assessment arbitrary? Second, I don't care about these other thousands of articles that you suggest are in violation. And even if I did, I don't have the time to fix them. I care about Dubai and will work as I always have at maintaining a level a quality with this article. This isn't my personal opinion, as you suggest. It is very much Wikipedia policy (WP:SS); if these other articles are in violation of them, you are more than welcome to let their editors know about it if you so choose. However, User:This flag once was red has started arbitration, so I will be making any comments I have in the section started by that user below. Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"WP:3O" requested...

Hi

Colossal posted on my talk page requesting a third opinion. In the past I've provided genuine WP:3Os, so I've decided to treat Colossal's request exactly the same. I've deleted the original post, unread, and I'll approach the request neutrally.

I've been aware that there's some healthy discussion going on, but to be honest I've not really been following it. AreJay, let me know if you're happy for me to comment in a WP:3O capacity; if not I'll back away and suggest you both take it to WP:3O. In the meantime I'll try and catch up with the discussion.

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I'm quite busy in real life right now, so I can't promise an immediate comment. Sorry! Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Initial thoughts

OK, I've had a spare moment - enough time to realise it's not nearly enough time! I've read through the two threads above, and have a rough idea what you both want from the article. I've also looked at a few other cities' articles for context: Abu Dhabi, as an obvious "template" to work from; Muscat, as a city in neighbouring state; and London and Auckland as two major cities outside the region. (I should maybe explain that I come from Auckland, have lived in Muscat, and worked in London. I've been to both Abu Dhabi and Dubai, but only in transit on my way to Muscat).

  • There are very few sub-headings in the article, although Muscat has none. (I'd prefer to add a few sub-headings rather than add more headings, as it helps the reader "navigate" the article).
  • The headings seem logical. I do think that there should be a "History" section: Dubai may not be historic in the sense that London is, say, but it still has a history. Auckland, for example, is little over 100 years old but there's still a history section detailing what existed there before, etc.
  • I'd suggest that "Media" could maybe go under "Economy"? This seems a more logical place, although I'll note that London has "Parks and gardens" under "Economy", which seems very odd to me!
  • "Transport": Abu Dhabi, London and Auckland all have sub-headings for the various modes of transport; Muscat doesn't. Personally I'd prefer sub-headings, and I'd suggest that there could also be a sub-heading for future developments - which is where I'd suggest the Metro would go.
  • "Architecture": I'm not totally opposed to this. As noted above, London includes "Parks" within its "Economy" section, which I find very odd. I'd suggest that Dubai's architecture is notable - recent developments have brought Dubai a great deal of global attention - though I'm not totally convinced about having "Parks" within it. I guess it is notable that a city in the desert has parks, however.
  • General comment: try and keep the article as a "high level overview" - don't go in to too much detail. It would be better to have a section start with a link to a main article (for example, the current History section starts with a link to History of Dubai) - its better that readers aren't overwhelmed with information. We don't know what information a reader wants - if we keep it brief and let them click down to more detailed articles that's far better.

I suspect I've barely begun to address all the disputes! Let me know what you think of the above points, and also let me know - as briefly as possible, please! - what in particular you're disagreeing on.

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for your comments. And thank you for your past contributions to keeping spam and vandalism out of the article. Just to give you some background, I also maintain the Muscat page (where I felt the need to completely re-write the History section sometime last year) and have tried (but failed) to maintain the Abu Dhabi (for want of time).
Wrt your comment on trying to keep the article as high level as possible. This is something that I always try to do, being a strong believer in WP:SS. Unfortunately, there are not too many city/country based Wikiprojects on the Middle East/Arabian Peninsula that provide direction on the structure of such articles. As a result, this article, like many articles on cities in the ME becomes inundated with extraneous information, thousands of unrelated images, unnotable areas of scope, and very specific information that will unquestionaly overwhelm the reader. It was because of this that I set out to restructure the article (sometime in 2006, I think) to provide a "bird's eye view" of the city, by using guidelines provided by other city-based Wikiprojects (e.g., WP:UKCITY, WP:INCITIES). Both these projects have churned out several featured articles and hold up well (from a structure standpoint) during WP:FAC, so it made sense to use them. My reply to your comments are listed below:
  • Most WP:FA articles typically have Media as a section separate from Economy, which to me makes sense. That "mass media" is an industry shouldn't necessarily mean that it should fall under the economy section. This would be no different than creating a sub-section for "Mining" or "Agriculture" in an article.
  • I think the problem that we have with Dubai is with regard to WP:FUTURE. There are several projects which are subjected to media hype and may eventually not even materialize. In fact, even projects such as the Metro, that people thought (perhaps still think) are good to go, face uncertainities [1].
  • I am okay with *some* sub-headings, so long as there is enough information to warrant sub-sections. What invariably happens is that sub-headings lead to further sub-headings and eventually you're dealing with sub-headings with content no longer than 1 sentence (Abu Dhabi is a good example of this).
  • I'm not sure about an "Architecture" section since there isn't a common motif that defines "architecture" in Dubai. Nabil wanted to incorporate a "Skyline" section, which I assume he's still working on. Once he's done, and if there's consensus, I'm not opposed to including this in the article. Agree with you on the issue of parks.

Thanks AreJay (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, so it sounds like you're both OK with a new "Skyline" section, and I'm fine with that too - Dubai's Skyline is very striking, with a number of examples of the "tallest/second-tallest X in the world".
"Media" as a separate section makes sense - I guess people want to know immediately about newspapers etc, rather than drilling down through Economy.
Regarding future developments, Dubai seems somewhat unique in that it is globally known for current projects (I realise other cities have plans for the future, but Dubai seems to be an extreme case). Could I suggest a unique section for Dubai - "Future", or "Future developments"? This section could note the current circumstances, and that not all planned developments would come to fruition? It would avoid "polluting" Transport (say) with details of the Metro system in development (thinking about it, readers reading Transport probably want to know about current transport infrastructure, not planned systems).
Off topic: to my shame, I don't have Muscat watchlisted! I watchlisted Oman after Dubai (which I added due to vandalism, as you noticed!) I lived in Muscat during the 1980s, so don't have any recent knowledge.
It sounds like you're both happy with "Media" and "Skyline" - is that correct? How do you both feel about a "Future" section? What issues are outstanding?
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I think the issue with that is Wikipedia's policy of WP:FUTURE. I've looked at Dubai's strategic plan for the future and there are several large scale projects, which includes expansion towards the interior and the construction of a a tower that is larger than Burj Dubai, etc. However, Dubai's current financial crisis and reliance on Abu Dhabi means that AD holds a lot of cards wrt capital projects in Dubai, so there's a lot of uncertainity on whether these projects will ever materialize. From a Wiki standpoint, this will negatively impact article stability. It will be natural for readers to "add" every proposed project to the article, which will result in unnecessary clutter, several sub-headings, and unreferenced text. Developments in Dubai is a wonderful preview of what could happen with such a section in the main Dubai article.
Off-topic: I lived in Muscat too...very briefly, in the early 90s. Great city, great culture. Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Aha! I was unaware of Developments in Dubai. I'd say that "Future..." can be neatly wrapped up by either an entry in the "See Also" section, or, possibly, a section that simply points to the main article (with possibly some referenced commentary about the impact of the current financial crisis.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


hi,thanks for your opinion, here i want to recall you of few headings which you forget to disscuss about....

  • Entertainment
  • sports
  • Tourism



and moving towars the conclusion, whats your final opinion regarding addition of the section of Skyline and above mentioned sections ?



As for what Arejay said that adding thses headings might in future give birth to several sub-headings of singles sentences like in Abu Dhabi's article... then to me it seems just a layman excuse ! Will you kill a cat in your backyard just fearing that if you let her alive it will be 14 cats in your back yards by the end of the years ( cats will lay kittens lolzzz.... ), let not worry about future it can be handled with ease. no one gonna add sub-headings, we will not let some one for bulling around ...

i am currently working in the above mentioned sections and will be completed very soon............ As soon they will be ready i will give you there links and feel free if you want to make some edits in these sections and you can give me more suggetions about these them.

Colossal (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've not forgotten them - I just haven't got round to them yet!
Neither Abu Dhabi nor Muscat have anything like "Entertainment", "Sports" or "Tourism" at the heading (or even sub-heading level), but I'd argue that that's because they're maybe smaller cities than Dubai. Auckland and London do have similar sections: Auckland has a sub-heading "Sport" under "Lifestyle", and London has "Leisure and entertainment" and "Sport" under "Society and culture". AreJay, you don't seem keen on sub-headings, but if there was substantial content for "Entertainment" and "Sports" would you be happy with them existing as sub-headings under a heading of, say, "Lifestyle" (and I'm open to suggestions, here, for the section name - I selected "Lifestyle" purely at random).
"Tourism" is something I'm still thinking about - whether it should exist as a top-level heading, a sub-heading, or even if it should exist at all. Apologies for "passing the buck", but could I get both of you to briefly summarise what your positions are regarding tourism?
"Skyline" I thought I'd mentioned above - basically, my understanding is that AreJay is happy with including this, you want to include it, so I've very little to add! I'd suggest creating a new section below with your proposed content for the section, and we can all review it and edit it (if necessary) so it's perfect before it "goes live".
Sub-headings: I'm kind of in the middle with this. I believe that there should be sub-headings when there's substantial content for them: I want to avoid sub-headings when there's little text or no article to accompany them. I'd be happy with a sub-heading the only content is a link to an article, for example, even if there's no other text in the section.
I believe there are still things to discuss, but it's easier for me if we tackle things gradually - there's no hurry, and this way we can make a section perfect, move it to the article, then move on to another section.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, as far as Nabil's suggestion of including an Entertainment section, I'm completely against it...this is supposed to be an encyclopedia for crying out loud! Who's to say what is or isn't entertaining to people? Put it this way, if the section on Entertainment were included and this article nominated for WP:FAC, it would be rejected without hesitation. I've gone through a few WP:FACs as well as evaluated FAC articles, so I know it will not hold up. As far as "Sports", I'd be interested in seeing what content anyone can come up with that would warrant a sub-section. All that can be summarized in terms of sports has already been added. I may be open depending on the content.
My thoughts on "Tourism": My contention that this isn't an appropriate section for a Wikipedia article isn't based on an arbitrary opinion; it's Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTTRAVEL). That there are several (non-FAC) articles that continue to have Tourism sections is a reflection of the scale of edits on Wikipedia as well as the inability to monitor changes ob such as scale. It is therefore with good reason that mature Wikiprojects such as WP:UKCITY and WP:INCITIES that have produced several FACs do not include "Tourism" as a section in their templates. Again, from an FAC standpoint, such a section will be shot down pretty quick by reviewers. I'd like to clarify two things here: a) I think a one sentence summary of the impact of tourism on Dubai's economy (as a percentage of GDP) should be included in the Economy section, and b) A link to Wikitravel's Dubai page should be included in this article.
To go back to a question you had on your last edit (sorry for the tardy response, btw), I will no problems if Developments in Dubai were linked as an entry in the "See also" section. Thanks AreJay (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


      • Hi, well AreJay had some concerns regarding the headings of Tourism and entertainment ( i couldn't understand his stance towards sports section please make it clear )

His concerns were very much appealing to me and i did a little search on wikipedia FA-class articles. What i found was in complete opposition to Arejay's argument, and seem, at least to me, in complete accordance with my suggestions.

  • sports

adding this section will certainly not creat hurdle while applying this article to for wikipedia Fa-class articles, because, and this is a MASSIVE because, the following Fa-Class artilces have these sections.


As for some Arejays concerns regarding several sub-heading in future under this section, then its simple not a big issue, no one gonna add sub-headings, if the material regarding sports will become large, we can simply give this section a link to main article by the name sports in dubai.


, So whats the conclusion ? well, as far as adding sports will not be hurdle in making dubai's article a FA class article, so we can add sports section to it. Cheers now ........ !


  • Entertainmant

Now thats an other hot issue here which Arejay opposes and with it he have the same concern that it may be an obsticle in making this article a FA class article. so i did a search again and found following article with the section entertainment.




Here again we have the same conclusion, that as far as the heading of entertainment, or any other heading covering the material regarding entertainment will not be an obsticle in making dubai a FA class article, so we can have it. Yes there are many fa-class articles that dont have the section of entertainment etc ... but using a little bit of common sense we can get the point that for e.g city like Dhaka or Khoci dont have any mean of entertainment that will attract international attention, while cities like new york and dubai have it.


  • Tourism

Here again my friend user Arejay seems to oppose the section. His point is apprantly same, i.e the heading will be a hurdle in dubai's nomination in Fa-Class article.


So here is a list of some famous cities, that have the heading of Tourism and yes, obviously like the above mentioned article, they are Fa-Class article thus making Arejay's argument impotent.


Here it should be noted that only those cities ought to have tourism section who recieve impressive number of visitors annually. Here we cant compair dubai with mumbai or san fransisco and argue that tourism isn't appropriate for dubai in context for its nomination for Fa-class. Newyork and mysore recieve large number of tourist and thus have the section.
Here again the conclusion goes in favour of my suggestion. I hope Arejay will now agree with me, as his main concern regarding Fa-Class nomination had been solved......cheers again


  • Skyline or cityscape

As far as i can conclude from arejay's earlies post, he is not opposing the skiline or cityscape section. These sections are valuable for an article of a city like Dubai. more over it will not pose any threat for Dubai's article's nomination for Fa-class as new york, an FA-Class article, have this section with couple of sub-headings of arcitechture and parks.



I will compose the sections of entertainment, tourism, sports and cityscape in my sandbox and you guys can check it and can further improve it in grammer, style etc.



The matter, that which heading should be place where, whether entertainment should be place under culture or should be place any where else, i will left to Arejay and This flag was once red, you guys are more experienced and can decide better. One thing more, i support this flag was once red's suggestion regarding lifestyle heading.



So, i think its begining of the end of this dispute, as apprantly all the concerns of User:Arejay have been resolved. And i personally dont think that addition of these section should be oppose any longer, there is no point left to oppose it. i will anticipate comments of User:this flag was once red and User:Arejay.

Regards. Colossal (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick response to Nabil's comments above. No, my concerns have not been resolved. The decision wasn't something that I arbitrarily came up with. Wikipedia's statement on WP:NOTTRAVEL isn't a guideline, it is policy. There isn't any grey area there, it is black and white. Why the two articles above have Tourism sections, I don't know. Suffice to say that had I been involved in their WP:FACs, I would have raised the issue. That the user was able to find a Tourism section in 2 of more than 100 FAs is a reflection in itself of community consensus during WP:FAC. However, I think this exercise of scouring articles to find exceptions to the rule to justify the inclusion of such a section in this article is rather misplaced. If the user would like to challenge long standing official Wikipedia policy, Talk:Dubai is not the place to do it.
As far as a Sports section. My opposition wasn't to the inclusion of a Sports section in Wikipedia articles in general. In fact, a cursory glace at some of the other featured articles that I've written will show that I included a Sports section. I am opposed to including the section only in the Dubai article. My reason: there isn't enough information to construct a complete section on sports in Dubai (in WP:SS). Unfortunately, apart from hosting international games, and the presence of soccer/race courses/cricket stadiums/ski resorts in Dubai, there really isn't much to write about wrt sports in Dubai. Some of Dubai's soccer clubs do well in the UAE league, but aren't notable beyond the national league. The lesser said about the national cricket team, the better. The other cities that Nabil mentioned (Dhaka, San Fran, DC, etc.) not only have vibrant sports cultures,but also have produced players and teams that are nationally and internationally well known. Dubai's notability in sports doesn't go much beyond being a hosting venue. However, if Nabil is able compile enough information and draft a Sports section that can stand independent of the Culture section, I'd be happy to take a look at it, and promote it to an independent section in the article, if there's consensus.
I remain opposed to the Entertainment section. Entertainment has already been addressed in the present Culture section and all aspects of it, in summary style, have already been included in the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (or... "Tourism, Entertainment and Sport")

OK, I slacked off yesterday - apologies for that ;-) Catching up now.

  • "Tourism": I noted above that none of the 4 city articles I compared against (Abu Dhabi, Muscat, London and Auckland) have a tourism section, and I take on board AreJay's comments re: WP:NOTTRAVEL. Colossal, do you see the proposed Tourism section as complying with WP:NOTTRAVEL? For example, I can see an argument for a section (as a sub-section, perhaps, of "Economy") that discussed the importance of tourism to Dubai's economy. I can't, however, see an argument for violating WP:NOTTRAVEL (even if other articles do so, that's no excuse for us to repeat their error - see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists as a useful essay explaining why). Would you be OK with "Tourism" being a sub-heading under "Economy", or is that not what you had planned for the tourism section?
  • "Entertainment" (and "sport"): about half of the present "Culture" section is taken up by entertainment (2 paragraphs) and sport (1 paragraph) - is it worth having these paragraphs as "Entertainment and sport" as a sub-heading of "Culture"? (I'd actually prefer "Lifestyle" to "Entertainment and sport", if that helps?) AreJay, I understand what you're saying about sport in Dubai, but if I'm correct (and you both can fill gaps in my knowledge here) there are significant/notable leisure pursuits like camel racing, and I'd also suggest that hosting internationals is also significant. I'm not convinced this warrants a "Sports" section, but I do believe it needs to be highlighted more than at present.

Thoughts? Also, can I suggest that we tackle just tourism, entertainment and sport here, and any other issues we create a new seb-section below?

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the importance of tourism should be mentioned in the Economy section. I'm actually surprised that there's no mention of it at the moment. I'll take a look at it; I've been meaning to clean up the economy section for a while...there's a lot of "citation needed" tags there that need to be looked at. However, I don't think "tourism" warrants a separate sub-section. It's importance can be covered in 2-3 sentences within the Economy section in summary style.
Good point about camel racing, hadn't thought about that. This should be included in the article. Like I said before, I'm open to a "Sports" section, but there has to be enough content to warrant one. If most of the proposed section revolves around Dubai's status as a hosting venue, I wouldn't be in favor of it. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I remember reading about robotic jockeys being used to replace young boys; as a techy person I thought that was fascinating and I'm angling for that being mentioned at least in passing ;-) I'll try and dig out a reference. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a sports and entertainment section under the current Culture section. And the tourism section can be put in the current economy section. And also, there should be a Districts section in the Geography section. (MoHasanie (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)).

Recent changes

There have been a number of edits that appear to me to be related to this discussion - is it worth inviting the editor to participate here? (Normally, if I were involved, I'd go right ahead and invite them - but since I'm here in the role of neutral third-party I thought I'd run it by you two first). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Just invited the user to join the debate. AreJay (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep the subheadings and the new images.(195.229.236.216 (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Could you go into a wee bit more detail as to why you think they should be kept? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I also think their should be subheadings, as all the major cities have articles that are much more organised, better quiality and more easy to read. The London article is a perfect example of this. It is very easy to read and not too detailed. Without subheadings it looks quite unorganised. I also think that the new photos are quite good, except the one in the education section. However thats the best picture displaying a university in Dubai as the old one is now used in the montage. (MoHasanie (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)).


Hi, i also suggested the same headings and sub-headings.....


previously i had suggested the following:


  • Tourism ( as a sub-heading of section Economy)
  • Entertainment can be made as a sub-heading of the main section Lifestyle, replaced the previous heading Culture.
  • Sports can be made as main heading
  • Skyline as the sub-heading of Cityscape.


so, these are my suggestions to improve article and to expand the article.


Give your opinion about my suggestions. i have already disscuss this issue with user:Arejay and this flag was once red............ and if there is consensus then i am ready to put these sections in Dubai's article. The material regarding thses sections are ready ............

Colossal (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


I absolutely agree. Those are quite good new sections. And also i'm trying to upload a cityscape photo of the city. I was thinking in this new Cityscape section we could have the following subheadings:

  • Architecture
  • Districts
  • Monuments and landmarks
  • parks and gardens

Now i was thinking to make an entire new section called Infranstructure and put the transport section under that. Most North American cities have an infrastucture section. By making a new infrastucture section, it allows us to put in more information such as:

  • Health systems
  • Utilities

If we don't use make an Infrastructure section than how about we have the following subheadings in the transport section, because at the moment all the information is jumbled up.

  • Air
  • Water
  • Busses
  • Rapid Transit
  • Trams
  • Roads

And in the demography section we could have:

  • Ethnic Groups
  • Religon

I also agree that the culture section should should be renamed Society and culture or lifesyle, and have the following subheadings:

  • Leisure and entertainment
  • Sport - Sport should not have its own section as most cities use sport as a subheading under culture

I also think the education section should have these subheadings:

  • Primary and secondary education
  • Higher education
  • Universities


So these are what i think will make this article complete to match the high standards of other city articles. User:MoHasanie|MoHasanie]] (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)).

Guys, I think we're getting a little carried away here. We've already discussed the issue of additional sub-headings and I've pointed out the fact that this is a main-level article and needs to be based on the summary style format. All I see happening here incredibly is the introduction of more and more sub-headings. You're not going to make the article "complete" by adding more sub-headings, you're just going to succeed in turning away the casual reader. This is the basis for the summary style format, and while there seems to be great enthusiasm to introduce dozens of new sub-headings, no one appears to be capable of articulating how they plan on getting past summary style with the structure they had in mind. AreJay (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


You have a good point AreJay, but i'm mainly intrested in introducing subheadings to the Transport section, and the demographics section. I would also like to introduce a new sports subhading and create a new cityscape section.

Is this a good for the cityscape of the city.

Panoramic view over Downtown Dubai.

(MoHasanie (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

What text do you propose as content in the new sub-headings? I'm keen to avoid sub-headings without substantial content, or a link to an existing article. I don't feel that sub-headings with a sentence or two of text are useful as navigational aids.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, i agree that subheadings which contain only a few sentences aren't needed, however their are things in the article that can be divided as their is too much information on topic. (MoHasanie (talk) 11:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC))

I am absolutely agree with the user Mohasanie.............

as his idea of adding new headings and sub headings is same as mine ! i want to recall you that we can add Skyline in the main heading of Cityscape'.... so hows that ???

i think that by adding some new stuff in this articla will improve its quality. i have alreadyu disscuss the sub-headings of Demographics, i.e: Ethnic groups and languages , i have previously added these sections but then we came to a decesion not to put these sub-headings as Dubai dont have Ethnic groups according to user:Arejay comments on it. so if you still want to add it i am with you but we have to made disscusion on it with Arejay and this flag was once red..........

your idea of that panoramic view of Burj dubai downtown is splendid as this photo will rock in this article once it will be placed. I personally like this image. Previously i have added sub-headings in the main section Transport but Arejay was stick to his point , despite the fact that the city like London; and Bangkok have it. i was opposed to this point of view and i am still opposed to it...

after long disscussion with user:Arejay we have almost reached to the conclution, and have consensus to add new headings which are as follows.....

Entertainment Sports Skyline .....

but now i want to add some thing more.....


under the main heading of Lifestyle

we can add the follwoing sub-headings...

  • Leisure and entertainment
  • Sports
  • Cusine...(as the material is already present in the main seciton Culture.


i am agree with you to add these.

Under the main heading of

  • Cityscape

we can add .........


Architecture Skyline

and the one you will suggest of your choice. i think that we can not ignore the section skyline as Dubai is almost incomplete with out it. waht do you think about it ???

The material regarding Skyline is ready......


i am currently working on the following headings...


  • Sports
  • Skyline


The stuff required for the sub-headings

  • Entertainment
  • Cusine

is already present in the main section Culture.

the headings which you have suggested i think should be added, and i hope that you are working on them. regards

Colossal (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have already documented my opposition to the creation of most of the sub-headings suggested above (on account of WP:SS) and will not therefore involve myself in this iterative exercise. As far as the images are concerned, I am opposed to adding the image above, because a large section of this new Dubai downtown is still very much under construction. It is misleading to suggest that the project (and the Burj) are operational. In fact, given the current economic downturn, several of these projects are on hold. I would be more open to a panoramic image of either the buildings on Sheikh Zayed Road or the buildings in Deira along the creek. But you will need to convince me of its encyclopedic value before it's added. Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, i believe that the panorama is quite good because it only shows the bottom of Burj Dubai and Dubai Mall, which both look complate from the bottom, however we can specify that its underconstruction. AreJay i do agree with you, but its quite a good panorama, and was just taken a few weeks ago - so its quite up to date. (MoHasanie (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)).

Montage

Please can someone change the montage currently used, as there are much better images that can be used. In the montage there are 3 images which are not needed. They are the: Etisalat tower image, the AUD University image, and the mosque image. The etisalat tower and AUD university image are not needed in the main montage as they are not landmarks in the city, and a better image of a mosque can be used. Also the Jumeirah Beach towers image can be replaced by a better image. (MoHasanie (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)).

More headings

Wht about the headings which are to be added in this article ??? plz disscuss as soon as possible to reach the final conclusion.Because this disscusion is taking a long time. i will Hope that we will definately reach the final conclusion and that there will be consensus ...


Colossal (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm more interested in the content of proposed headings. It's all very well deciding we're going to add some new headings, but we can't simply add them without any content. I did make this point above, but so far there's not been any response.
For example, let's say that we - right now - add a heading for "Tourism", without any content. We've discussed concerns with having a section devoted to "tourist attractions", and how we'd be happy with a section devoted to the role tourism plays in Dubai's economy. I'm sure you can see that we need content right from the start - we can't simply add a heading without first discussing what we're having within it.
It's really difficult to move towards consensus without moving beyond simply talking about headings. We need to talk about the content, too.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


I'm a little confused...was some new information on headings introduced that addressed by previous concerns on the WP:SS violation? If not, I remain opposed to any such changes. Thanks AreJay (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


  • First of all user:arejay it will be very kind of you to just tell which of the proposed headings you are agree, so we can work first on the sections that are agreed upon. me and user:propaganda have common views regarding the sections and are almost agree on every thing. I will make a sandbox in my account and will add the material that i have, i will give a link to it here and you guys can copy edit it and add ur material in it. hopefully it will work.

no offenses but this time i will expect user:arejay to say it loud and clear that which of the proposed sections he agree, as in past his post were usually ambigious not clearly stating whether he agrees or not, obviously we cant reach concensus if users will delay the discussion by giving ambigious statements. even 100 years will be less for this purpose.


Colossal (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If this process has dragged on, it's hardly my fault. My responses have not been ambiguous. There certainly is an element of ambiguity in this discussion, but it isn't emanating from me. I have been consistently opposed to the addition of the sections that seem to be proposed with every passing edit. I have documented my opposition on account of WP:SS, not once, but several times, and I am yet to hear a single, credible articulation of how anyone who plans to introduce new headings/sub-headings is convinced that the above mentioned policy isn't violated in doing so. The fact that you and the other user are in agreement doesn't discount my objection; this is not a vote, it's consensus building. As far as I know, the only section that I have agreed to is "Cityscape", which I believe you are working on developing currently. Aside from that I have not agreed to anything (correct me if I'm wrong). I will say no more about any topic related to headings so long as my objection on the grounds of WP:SS remains unaddressed. AreJay (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Just so it's clear - I absolutely agree with AreJay re: WP:SS. I am prepared to tentatively agree with adding new section headings, but contingent on the content of the proposed sections. Assuming that I'm user "propaganda" I'm a wee bit concerned that my position may be being misrepresented.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 10:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


Ok , under the main heading of cityscape i will suggest the following sub-headings:

  • Skyline
  • Architecture
  • Parks


as the article of New york City have it, which is the FA-Rated article. But wht about the other headings :

  • Sports
  • Entertainment
  • Cusine

this has been previously decided by me and user this flag was once red that the material regarding these headings is already there in Culture so we can add them as sub-headings under the main heading Culture. Give your suggestions about it ! and if you want to add more headings then disscuss.

Colossal (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm concerned about the content - what will "Sports" contain, for example? There has been some discussion earlier about what the section should contain, and I'm concerned that its contents may vary from this. "Sports", for example, should focus on local sports teams in New York's case, as it has several notable local teams; I'm am not convinced that Dubai's "sports" section should mimic this, as sports in Dubai is very different. (I'm not opposed to there being a "sports" section, meerly noting that it will - of necessity - be very different to New York's "sports" section).
In general, I'm concerned about trying to decide headings and sub-headings first, and worrying about the content later. That approach is fine if one person is writing, but isn't suitable for a collaborative approach, as it opens the article up to either having empty sections, or having sections that don't conform with policy. AreJay has mentioned a number of policies that are relevant here, and I'm keen that we ensure that new sections - and their contents - comply with policy from the start.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Here i want to share something with you........................... Dubai has alot of sports e.g: Rugby, Horse race, . and the sports event which Dubai host are Cricket, Tennis championship, Golf is am important sport in Dubai. So if we dont have such stuff in the article of Dubai so how can the reader will be able to know that whcih sport venues Dubai host ???

The heading Sports doesnt mean only that a city should have its own local sport !!! Under the heading of sports in the article of New York City, there also mentioned sport venues which new york hosts,so wht about this ! plz again read the whole section before further disscussion. I will be thankful to you if you read the venues which new york hosts ....Apart from new york there are other cities which have sports section and there also mentioned the sport venues they hosts....... Plz also disscuss about the other remaining headings and sub-headings, as i had mentioned previously.


Colossal (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of all this - what I'm trying to get at is we need to get this kind of content sorted out. You'll recall earlier I said that if there was to be a sports section we should focus on hosting major events, and also local events (like camel racing). What I want to get clear at this point is what the content will be - and that applies to the other proposed sections as well as sport: I used sport as an example because I was more familiar with the possible content, as we'd discussed it earlier. I remain concerned that if we simply say yes to a sport section, without deciding on the content, other editors will "fill in the gaps", and we'll end up with non-encyclopaedic content, and the article will be harder to get to featured-article quality.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
On board with you...what's important here is the content of the headings, not just the headings themselves. If we don't focus on content now, we'll end up with a laundry list of several thousand headings like the the Abu Dhabi article. It astonishes me that there's a section in there for "Education", which consists of two sentences, both of which equally vague and uninformative. Also, as far as the "Cityscape" subheadings mentioned by Colossal above, I'm opposed to it. You're free to include content related to these areas in your draft of course, but please keep WP:SS in mind while doing so. AreJay (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


No problem with the content, i will make a sandbox in which we all can do our work regarding the headings and sub-headings. Arejay if you are against the sub-headings of cityscape then you tell wht will be the content regarding this heading ? one image and two three lines ??? in the article of new york which is a featured article , it have three sub-headings, so persuade them to remove those sub-headings. then i will not add them here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in whcih we can give as much as information for the respective subject.But there is a limit which is WP:SS......... the headings which i have suggested doesnt seems to cross these limits, and by adding so it will not impose any threat to its nomination for the featured article.There is a long list of cities of cities which i have previously mentioned here ....

now give me final conclusion that which headings are to be added ..

Colossal (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

As I've said several times before, the content need not be dramatically different b/w the version with subheadings vs. the one without headings. What you choose to cover in the main heading "Cityscape" is up to you. My concern is that additional subheadings will not only make the text appear choppy, it will also invariably morph into an unmanageable beast (like some sections in the Abu Dhabi and Developments in Dubai articles), replete with garish, irrelevant photos and sentences that have nothing to do with the next. Perhaps if you came up with an initial draft, it would be easier for me and other users to comment and make more specific suggestions. In the absence of this, I can't unfortunately be too specific, because I don't know what you're envisioning this new section to look like. AreJay (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


ok agree with you, we will give our suggestions in draft. I suggest the following stuff to be added in the cityscape heading.

  • There will be a brief introduction of Dubai's skyline
  • Some informative stuff about architecture

if you have any idea to add more then disscuss. I also want to recall of ramaining headings which you forget to diccusss.

  • Entertainmnet
  • Tourism
  • Cusine

The above headings can be merged into a single heading under the name Culture and lifetsyle, in my point of view there should be 3 sub-headings of it. As the material is already present in Culture heading of Dubai. So above headings will have much stuff to make 3 sub-headings , rather two lines as in the article of Abu Dhabi. Give your suggestions here.

Colossal (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry i've gone for so long, i've been doing alot of work on the Emirates Airline article.

Ok, so we cannot ad a Cityscape section if we don't actually have an image as the image i had got was not good enough. As for the sport section, Dubai doesn't actually have any sports in particular except Horse riding and a little bit of football. Everything else it just hosts, but it doesn't actually have its own team. (MoHasanie (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)).


I have a good image of Dubai panorama, i will share it with you soon. so now we can add cityscape section ,and i have a content regarding cityscape.The section sports doesnt only mean for the local teams of the particular city, we can also add the sports, which dubai hosts, see New york city article, in this article there is a content of its local teams but , there also have the sport venues which new york hosts.I will say here that as the Dubai sports city is near to its completion , so now it is going to be necessary to add sport section in this article.And there are chances that Dubai may bid for 2015 Olympics.......

Wht about the sub-headings of the section Culture.... earlier i have suggested the following:

  • Entertainment
  • Cusine

Wht do you think ???

Colossal (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats good that you've good the cityscape section ready. And for the sports section i guess there is alot of info - cricket, football, horse racing, golf, Camel-Racing, Camel-breeding, Endurance Riding, Track-Racing, Marine sport, Traditional boat-racing, Modern racing, Powerboat-racing, Jet skiing, tennis, motor sports - i think thats all they have.

I would actually like to have an entertainment and cuisine section, however what would we put in the cuisine section? Dubai is a mix of so many different nationalities it offers a variety of different cuisines. We could mention that it has a broad spectrum of international cuisines, and then list all of them.

And we could also mention some very famous restaurants in the city, and the famous chefs such as Gordon Ramsay's restaurant at the Hilton. (MoHasanie (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)).

In terms of sport, I'm keen to see the things that readers will find notable - camel racing, for example, and the hosting of major events (traditional boat racing I'm not familiar with, but that sounds like the ideal thing to put in).
In terms of entertainment and cuisine, I'm less familiar with Dubai so I'll hold off until you guys have got some content more settled.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


As far as the content regarding the sub-heading Cuisine so there is the content , which is already present under the main heading Culture so here it is :



In the entertainment heading the content is also already present in the section Culture which is :


Some content regarding the sports section is here (which is also present in the main heading Culture here it is:


We can add more content in this section....

so there is nothing left to disscuss any more...


Colossal (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I remain opposed to subheadings in the culture section. I am, however, open to a separate "Sport" section if enough content can be accumulated. My suggestion for those proposing an elaboration of the Culture section in this article is to create a separate "Culture of Dubai" article, and link it back to this article with the {{Main}} tag. AreJay (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm OK with subheadings in the culture section if there's sufficient content, which I don't feel there is based on the text Colossal mentioned. To be honest, I think there's probably insufficient content for a "Culture of Dubai" article, too, but I'd certainly be open to such an article, and I'd prefer a link to it rather than adding new sub-sections here.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 23:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone think we need a districts section, like they have in the London artiicle. We could just mention the main districts. I found this map as well with the districts mentioned at the bottom.

(MoHasanie (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).

Colossal has been blocked indefinetly for copyright violations, and since he was the main person doing the diting and creating the new sports section, and culture, i guess no one will be doing anything anymore. (MoHasanie (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)).

Thanks for the update, User:MoHasanie. As far as your question on the AD article, I think there are bigger issues that need to be looked at wrt that article, and unfortunately, I do not have the time to look into it at the moment. I'll be happy to assit as necessary though, if you're willing to take the lead and work on that article. WRT your question above, Dubai doesn't have any "districts" per se, communities in Dubai come and go, so I don't think there needs to be a detailed listing in the article. I created the two images you refer to above, and I think they need to revisited for accuracy, because I'm sure newer communities have come up since I created the map and the index a couple of years ago. Thanks AreJay (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


I am, back wht about the headings to be added !


Colossal (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a few points above (after your previous post) - basically, I'm concerned that the proposed content is insufficient to justify a separate section (this is in respect of culture's sub-headings, by the way). AreJay also seems concerned for the same reason. You mentioned earlier you were going to create a sandbox page - that might be a good idea, since we could all then add to it.
Welcome back!
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We are nearly agree to add cityscape section (hope you will be agree too), beacause the content regarding cityscape, is almost ready and i will soon add the materila in my sandbox. My only concern is about Sports section, there are alot of sports , Mohasine have mentioned above, In almost all cities they have sport section so why Dubai doesnt have it ??

Colossal (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll hold off on "cityscape" until I've seen the content. I support adding a "sports" section, but note that it'll likely be quite different to other cities' sports sections: Dubai's should, I believe, focus on local sports (e.g. camel racing) and hosting internationals. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


Hello all. I've been trying to follow this exhaustingly long discussion, and if you allow me to chime in, I'd like to add my thoughts:

First of all, I'm not a fan of subheadings, but I think they should be introduced when necessary, as they can help navigate the article (without hurting it's FA fortunes), something along the lines of the New York City article. Which I see as comprehensive without being too long, too fragmented or too condensed.

So, in the case of a Lifestyle and Culture section, I think it's ok if we have 3-4 subheadings as this is an expansive subject that has many aspects. For example: "entertainment", "cuisine" and "sport". However, and this is important, It's not a good idea to add the subheadings instantly, I think it's better to add sufficient content first, and then simply insert the subhead when the time is right. I also think this is better than a sandbox, because other editors get to work on it too.

As for the Cityscape section, I think it's essential to any city article. This should include the layout of the city, its topography, bodies of water, nature of built areas (high rise, low rise, apartment buildings, suburbs), the architecture, the city centre/commercial/cultural/historic centre, the old neighborhoods, the new neighborhoods, the ethnic neighborhoods (Chinatown, French Quarter etc. if any), the souqs, malls, beaches, parks, landmarks, monuments, and of course communities and districts.

In this case, I wouldn't add a "communities" list or section, because, as AreJay noted, the communities here change frequently. There is also a large number of them, so we could mention the most important ones (e.g. Deira, Bur Dubai, Karama, Jumeirah etc.) in the Cityscape section. I'm in the favor of adding an "Architecture" and maybe "Beaches and Parks" subheads at a later stage. But for now, I say at least we start the Cityscape section with 100-200 words (I can write it) and then work to expand it, the old wiki way.

I hope you find my thoughts of value. Orionist (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back Colossal, i was actually just about to contest your block to the administrators that blocked you. Anyways, i beleive we should work on each section one by one, and not tackle 3 or 4 new sections all at once. This article needs a sports and Cityscape section, although i'm not too sure about the cuisne section. Also if we make an "entertainment" section, there really isn't much material, or maybe i'm wrong. --MoHasanie (talk) 19:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


I am absolutely agree to user Orionist, i am also in favour of adding the main section Cityscape, under this heading we can add sub-headings which are:

  • Architecture
  • Parks
  • Skyline

whereas we can split the section of culture in the following sub-headings:

  • Cusine
  • Entertainment

and we can rename this section as Lifestyle and Culture. i had previously suggested to split the section transportation into following sub-headings:

  • Airports
  • Railway
  • Taxis
  • Furries

as we can see in most of the articles , they have these headings, but user Arejay was opposed to it. we will work one by one on each section.

Colossal (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually AreJay has a point. I don't think the "Transportation" section needs any subheads. Adding them will overwhelm the article. Instead we can work on the Transportation in Dubai which needs updating and new images and is lacking in many ways (e.g. there's no lead, Bus section, Taxi section, Water Travel section is very short and needs Abra, Water Bus, Ferries updates).
The "Skyline" subhead is inherently covered by "Architecture" which is inclusive of all types of buildings, not only the tall ones. Moreover, Dubai has several possible skylines: Deira, Trade Centre and DIFC, Downtown Burj Dubai and Business Bay, Marina, JLT, TECOM, Festival City, so what is it going to be?
Now, the most important thing is to add sufficient content first, and then insert the subheads later, when they are needed. Orionist (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah i agree, but nobody really edits that article, which is very poorly maintained, and has alot of false information as well as outdated information. (MoHasanie (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

I will oppoise to you for your point "Dubai has several possible skylines: Deira, Trade Centre and DIFC, Downtown Burj Dubai and Business Bay, Marina, JLT, TECOM, Festival City, so what is it going to be? " The skyline of every city in the world is clustered in two or one parts, as the skyline of new york is not clustered at only one side of the city, rather it is lcustered in two portions, Manhattan, and the other side is of Empire state building, similarly hong kong as well as two portions of skyline i.e: Kowloon island and the other is the island on which ICC is located. Over all the skyline of Dubai is dominating by two major clusters, Skeikh zayad road, and Dubai marina(as well as Jumeirah lake towers). .ok fine we will add only Architecture sub-heading under Cityscape. Wht about Tourism, as Dubai is known all over the world for its Tourism... Tourism section is present in almost all famous cities of the world so why Dubai doesnt have it .

  • Headings To be added

Cityscape

i think that we all are agree on Cityscape, and sub-headings Architecture, and parks.

Colossal (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Colossal, you may find some information on the new culture section in Culture of the United Arab Emirates article. Although its badly written, the Cuisine section might help you. (MoHasanie (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)).

No, Colossal, we don't all agree that there needs to be a subheading for the Cityscape section. The only reason I haven't been commenting off late is because I had previously stated that until someone demonstrated that WP:SS was not being violated by adding these additional subheadings, my opposition would remain, and I would have nothing else to say about the issue. BTW, when can we expect to see a draft of the "Cityscape" section? Thanks AreJay (talk)


Ok so what do you think, what should be added in Cityscape section.

Colossal (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was rather hoping that you would be able to provide this information, seeing as how it was you that suggested creating the Cityscape section. AreJay (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I now agree with AreJay, that this article doesn't need sub headings. They really complicate things, and will make the article seem longer. And besides, why put a subheading just for a few sentences or a paragraph. Our aim isn't to make the article longer, but to make it match the quality of other artciles. --MoHasanie (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Too many subheadings do complicate things, but so do too many headings. The best solution is a reasonable mixture of both. Our aim isn't to make the article longer, but we shouldn't refrain from expanding it (as necessary) and improving it because of that. Orionist (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

AreJay, I hope you lighten up a bit. I appreciate the persistent work you're doing here and I'm sure the other participants in this discussion do too. But you are being a bit overzealous regarding this subheadings issue. Subheadings don't violate WP:SS, headings don't either, because they only - and I'm copying from WP:HEAD - "provide an overview in the table of contents and allow readers to navigate through the text more easily." That doesn't mean the more the better, but it means that we have to find the right configuration for easy navigation, and that includes grouping headings into sections when necessary, thus making them subheadings.

Articles of cities and countries are naturally very long, because they cover a wide range of subjects. WP:SS does not say how many sections or subsections an article should contain, it only states that these sections or subsections should be (ideally) spun off as independent articles, provided they meet the notability guidelines.

We have some city guidelines of varying quality: WP:UKCITIES, WP:USCITY, WP:INCITIES and WP:WikiProject Canadian communities. We also have a number of featured city articles that we can use as a guideline. And we can stress again on adding sufficient content before any split (Please refer to my two posts above) to avoid stub sections or subsections. Let's agree now on the subjects that need to be worked on, hopefully ending this stalemate. Regards, Orionist (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The points you've raised above are essentially the same as those raised by me when this discussion started. The subject matter of a Wikipedia article isn't part of the WP:SS jurisdiction, which is why I seek guidance on article structure from some of the Wikiprojects mentioned above that have sevaral WP:FAs. Having written a city-based WP:FA myself, and having voted on city-based WP:FAC candidates, I am in tune with issues that are frequently raised on article structure during the FAC process. However, all I've seen so far in this discussion are several laundry lists of new headings, sub-headings, and sub-sub-headings. Based on previous trends (please see Developments in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, etc.), it is almost inevitable that the quality of this article will head south, should some of these suggestions be incorporated. Despite repeated requests, I am yet to see a single draft version incorporating the headings and sub-headings being debated. In the absence of any draft content that can be reviewed and the incessant introduction of new headings/sub-headings, should my reservation come as any surprise? AreJay (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I came into this effectively as a third opinion, and I'm open to the addition of some headings or sub-headings. My concern at this point is that whenever the topic of content comes up, everything seems to go silent and then a bit later someone says "now, about these headings..." I'd like to see some content suggestion for headings, if only so I know what the heading means (take "sport" as an example - if we agree to use "sport" as a heading will the content be about Dubai's sports teams, or about Dubai hosting international events?) I appreciate that this sounds a bit like a chicken-and-egg situation (don't want to create content unless the heading is agreed; can't agree on a heading until there's content), but I'm certainly not looking for completed, perfect text - just some to indicate what we'd be putting under the heading, to gauge whether the heading is justified.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone seen this photo. Maybe this can be used as the photo for the cityscape section.--MoHasanie (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
A panoramic view of Jumeirah Beach Residence

Culture

I made a few edits to explain the contrasts between Dubai's outside image and internal restrictions. Perhaps someone may wish to expand on the dual-image of Dubai - progressive on the outside, but restrictive Muslim on the inside still, but not nearly as extreme as other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielGlazer (talk • contribs) 05:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about this. The statement that Dubai diverges from other Arab societies because it is multicultural is incorrect; there are several Peninsular Arab countries that are very diverse – Oman, Bahrain and Qatar to name three. Also, I don't know if there is a correlation between being "progressive" and censorship (your edit seems to indicate that this is the case). Singapore, for eg, is progressive, but does censor mass media. Thoughts? AreJay (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Change to Intro

I've added some extra stuff to the intro:

Dubai is a global city,[1] It is the country's financial capital and a major business center. Dubai is ranked 27th by Foreign Policy's 2008 Global Cities Index.[2] It is also the second most expensive city in the region, and 20th most expensive city in the world.[3]

I added it, as many important cities mention info similar to that in there intro. --MoHasanie  Talk  19:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I made changes to it, the basic point of the text you included was that Dubai is a "global city"...I've incorporated that into the final paragraph of the lead. Feel free to reinsert the information on the cost of living in the Demographics/Economy/Culture section; this would, however, be too detailed to be included in the lead. Thanks AreJay (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok i will. Where should i put the info about the foreign policy? --MoHasanie  Talk  09:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean the part about Dubai being on Foreign Policy's Global City index? Didn't I add that part to the lead? I don't think there's any need to mention both Foreign Policy and GaWC..the point being made is essentially the same. AreJay (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ "GaWC - The World According to GaWC 2008". Globalization and World Cities Research Network. Retrieved 2009-03-01.
  2. ^ "The 2008 Global Cities Index". Retrieved 2008-10-01.
  3. ^ "Cost of living — The world's most expensive cities". City Mayors.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dubai/Archive_4&oldid=1136680582"