Talk:El Campello

Comments re article style and structure
Since at least one editor appears to have a distinct preference for a particular version of this article, which I have attempted to clean up a little, it seems appropriate to extend discussion on its improvement here, and hopefully some consensus can be reached. In response to some points left by this editor on my talk page: IMO the first steps towards improving this article would include recognising that wikipedia articles have (or ought to have) a consistency in style and layout, such as not leading off with a large image above the actual text- see the Manual of Style. Take a look at the es.wiki or ca.wiki equivalent articles and you'll see what I mean. Without wishing to be involved in any edit-warring, I'll continue to make such changes as seem necessary, and invite anyone else interested to comment, and/or do likewise.--cjllw | TALK  01:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that some of the good folk of El Campello use en.wiki to brush up on their English skills- glad to hear it. However, in the version of that article you seem to prefer, they would not be helped in their English comprehension by expressions such as "It has got 23.640 inhabitants", a highly irregular use of the verb 'to get' which would not be recognised as idiomatic by any native English speaker. Apart from its other grammatical problems, I really don't see how wikifying common words like white and coast would help any prospective student of English- they would be better off using a dictionary. It is actually not the general wiki idea to do things that way- see Only make links that are relevant to the context.
 * Also, this is wikipedia and not a travel guide, so phrases such as "this town is well worth a visit" and "resplendent with magnificent costumes" are not appropriate for this encyclopaedia. If you really want to publicise the attractions of this locality, you can do so somewhere like Wikitravel, and not here.
 * And yes, I have read the Spanish wiki article equivalent- in layout, content and style it is far, far superior to the version on en.wiki you seem to be keen on maintaining. My edits were intended as steps towards improving the english version in that direction; I'd be happy to discuss any specific points on the wording you or anyone else might care to raise on this talk page, but I don't see why I or anyone else should be dissuaded from editing this article, which is not after all the sole preserve of any one party or indeed supposed to be written for any particular audience, whether native english speakers or not.