Place entries too generalized?

Has anyone had place entries that focused on a more specific detail or history of a place and then had it edited into a more general one?

I’ve only had one case but I have noticed other entries that I think could be examples of this. For me, it was the Fábrica La Aurora entry, which I wrote focusing specifically on the industrial heritage of the mall:

This was a conscious decision since looking at San Miguel de Allende on Tripadvisor, Fábrica La Aurora is in the top 3 “things to do”, with the second-most votes. Making my entry about the industrial machinery and installations, the intention was to make it more Obscura-y, although the editing team then focused it on the mall as a whole (in the title).

I can’t be sure but I suspect that the following entries were written similarly, to then be edited into more general places (at least in their place names/titles). The CN Tower one would seem to have been intended to showcase its metal staircase only (although to be fair, without a picture of the actual staircase to go with it), Mount Eden is almost all about the observation platform and the elephant that helped build it. Sydney Botanical Garden’s text is on the flying foxes, and the Machu Picchu one I think might have been focused on the stonework at some point (this can even be seen in the url for the page).

I have a feeling that this is what leads to a much higher “been here” than “want to go” ratio for many of the places in the link below (ordered by highest number of “been here”):

EDIT: I suspect this one was originally highlighting only the petroglyphs at the site:


yea, I’ve had it a few times that a long place got cut down or even turned into a stub. It’s been a while though.


Hey @linkogecko, thanks for raising this question. I’ve taken a look at the entries you’ve linked here, and I hope I can clarify a few things!

I’m not sure what title you had originally used for Fábrica La Aurora, but sometimes we change the titles of Place entries so they match the most current or commonly used name. While the entry itself might focus on a particular element (an obscure history, an architectural detail, etc.), having the general name as the title can make it easier to recognize—though we do try to make sure details like that are highlighted in the subtitle.

There are instances some when we use a detail in the title, typically when the more general place is very large or well-known. For example, we don’t have an entry for the Eiffel Tower, but we do have one for its hidden apartment. We don’t have an entry for the Met, but we do have entries for a few specific items inside the museum.

That said, our approach to editing Places has evolved over time, and there are definitely entries that would look different if they were added today. That includes some of the ones you mentioned here, thank you for bringing them up! I’ve already updated the CN Tower entry and will be taking a close look at the others.

Hope that all makes sense. Happy to talk more about this if you have thoughts or questions!


I have heard alot about Machu Pichu, it is still in my bucket list, but not sure when will i get chance to explore the lost city.