Talk:George Town, Penang

message: Plenty of poorly written, unsubstantiated, non-NPOV content. Will start working on it soon. 42.61.51.66 (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs a serious rewrite

message: Does it really need so many images? Almost every major building / monument / street furniture / event seems to be covered, let alone the multiple panorama shots, near-dupliacte maps, etc. I mean, the article is surely sightly (!) over-detailed in any case, but cf. WP:NOTGALLERY, I'd question how many of these actually . WP:IG re. 'shoe-horning' is probably relevant too. Cheers,  — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , Thanks for your feedback. I have reduced the number of images in this article and made sure to include only the relevant ones. Hopefully this should suffice. Vnonymous 00:09, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there are just far too many images, particularly in the "Economy" section - on a 1920 x 1080 display, they force the text into the middle of the screen as they are spaced too close together. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Image cruft?

message: Can User:Vnonymous explain why this revert was necessary? Is there anything wrong with adding a former street name that was relevant to the landmark that the thumbnail displays, especially for a street which name has been completely recontextualized? - 210.195.51.173 (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You failed to back your claims with any sort of reference. Was it necessary then to accept unverified claims? Vnonymous 09:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of edit 

message: Can this user  justify the addition of the Hokkien name of George Town into this article's infobox? The articles on other Malaysian cities, such as Kuala Lumpur, Kuching, Ipoh, Johor Bahru, etc., only have one entry for Chinese transliterations. Thus, this particular edit could potentially go against WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONS.
According to WP:CONSISTENCY, alternative names may be used in article text when context dictates that they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.
Note that the Hokkien term Pho-té means downtown, so it is a rather generic term that could have been used in any other city such as Kuala Lumpur to refer to the city centre.
Going by his logic that the Hokkien name of George Town should be added into the infobox by virtue of it being spoken in George Town, then why do the articles for other cities where the Hokkiens formed a substantial part of the population, such as Taipei, Xiamen, Fuzhou or Singapore, not feature a Hokkien transliteration in their infoboxes? Similarly, why is there not a Cantonese transliteration in the infoboxes of Cantonese-majority cities like Kuala Lumpur? I believe this is a point worth considering, as there should be a consistency in the way a city article is written. Vnonymous (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Hokkien transliteration into infobox 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Per a consensus from the discussion at WT:GAN#Penang and George Town, Penang was promoted to GA via deceptive sockpuppetry, the GA review by Semi-auto, a sockpuppet of nominator Vnonymous, has been voided, and the GA status revoked. Since there is no way of directly reflecting this in Article history, I have noted it as a GA reassessment resulting in a delisting, as the closest approximation of what was done, and linking to this section so there is a trail that can be followed explaining what happened and why the action was taken.
The article can always be nominated in future to be a GA using the normal process. For now, however, its GA status is revoked. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's an FA now, in the top 0.09 percent. 750h+ 13:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article status voided due to sockpuppetry 

message: Given that there are quite the handful of places named Georgetown or George Town, I think we should add the "other uses" template linking to Georgetown. Just a suggestion. HelloTHERE123456 (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "other uses" template?