A very persistent user has been fairly aggressive in removing information that is in any way negative from this article, and has refused to discuss these changes. As long as he/she continues to edit war the changes will be reverted since Wikitravel:Be fair is clear that articles should give an accurate view of a place, and Wikitravel:Tone encourages lively writing. However, it would be great if someone who knows this city could actually review the article and clean up anything that is overly negative. Alternately, if the user making these changes could try to gain some consensus for the changes then that would be great, also. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)
Reading the article, I can see why someone would delete it. While the intro to the city is intriguing, the "See" section seems to be written by someone who doesn't really like the city. Too many listings are accompanied by cheeky/sarcastic remarks that seem to imply none of it is really worth seeing/doing. Most likely the shopping and futuristic attractions will need to be expanded upon if those are what make the city worthwhile... ChubbyWimbus 00:02, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
Since that user appears to be up to at least fourdifferentsockpuppetaccounts with a hankering for petty vandalism and deliberately misleading edit summaries , I'm personally not seeing any evidence of honest intentions.... though I do wonder if there's some misreading going on as well, since they're persistently deleting the portion of the introduction that specifically mentions that there is more to Chiba than its reputation suggests. – D. Guillaime 01:01, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
We mentioned what happen on a public source and we believe a few users did support booksmart2's position by creating additional accounts. WikiTravel has been praised in the past for having up to date information. However, we understand the writer wrote the piece well over a decade ago. It is also clear that the writer is a current admin. We are not sure this should affect the outcome.
--Booksmart2 21:44, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
I'm not sure how trustworthy the user in question might be, but as a clarification the spate of vandalism was apparently retaliation against me for reverting edits - most of the vandalized articles were places linked from my user page. That's obviously a very poor way to handle having edits reverted, but the fact remains that the Chiba article could probably use some cleanup. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:31, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
I agree. Even something as simple as placing the Kaihin-Makuhari section at the top of the "See" section would at least draw attention to what is most worthwhile. Currently, the article begins with the tower, which has a descriptive, yet very sarcastic description. None of the first three attractions really seem worth seeing from our descriptions. I wouldn't doubt however, that the tower is not the best, and for those who appreciate authenticity and attempts at historical accuracy, the castle doesn't seem so great either . The average visitor probably wouldn't care though. ChubbyWimbus 01:54, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
Moving up the Kaihin-Makuhari section would also segue more neatly from the Neuromancer stuff in 'Understand'. Gorilla Jones 11:17, 17 July 2010 (EDT)