Star nomination - work needed
[edit]
1) Set the first image to display at one and a half times larger than either a) the default size for a thumbnail image if viewed by either an unregistered user or a registered user that has not bothered to log on
2) Left the map size specified as 350 pixels wide (which will be a bit small for some users with large screens) rather than specifying it to display at 1.7 times larger than default. (Those users who know the trick can click in the thumb's lower right corner to have the page replaced by an enlargement.
3) Removed the fixed display width for all other images (which will be too large for some users with slow connections or small screens and too small for broadband users with big screens) so that, instead, they display at the default width or that specifically chosen by the viewer in their "Preferences".
These edits are made with the background that normally, images should be specified as thumbnails and should not have a size set - this way they will default to the size set in the registered user's preferences.
If you do have an exceptionally good reason to override the defaults set by the user or not to use thumbnails, then to set the
- exact image width in pixels: [[File:filename of image|sizepx|description of image for a caption]]
- exact thumbnail width in pixels: [[File:filename of image|thumb|sizepx|description of image for a caption]]
You must add the letters "px" after the image size. Recommended maximum sizes are:
- 400px for the article's lead picture
- 500px for maps containing small detail
You do not need to specify the height of the image, as the size will automatically scale to match the width you have entered.
You can also set thumbnail image sizes to be a factor of the default selected by the registered user. Specify the size component as "upright=factor". (This only works if "thumb" is also specified - see the English Wikipedia documentation for details.) Just specifying "upright", without the factor argument, uses a default value of 0.75, which is a sensible default for images in portrait (as opposed to landscape orientation).
4) Begun to make some additions to the Listings in line with the most recent advice at Wikivoyage:Accommodation listings and elsewhere: "If you don't know some information, just leave that field empty, then somebody else can add those details later. Please do not delete any unused listing fields, change the name of the fields or add any extra ones. Doing so may create display irregularities and will certainly frustrate future edits and the addition of extra information to the listing." -- Alice✉ 23:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Mmmm, User:Peterfitzgerald may have ownership problems with this article. I'd certainly welcome his comments regarding points 1) to 4) above to shed some light on why he thinks he can continually abuse his admin's revert tools ("Administrators may use the rollback tool to quickly undo all changes to an article made by the most recent editor. Currently, it is not possible to leave an explanation of a revert in the edit summary, so this tool is usually reserved only for obvious cases of graffiti, vandalism, or spam)... -- Alice✉ 00:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- As you are well aware, your policy prescription is not supported by consensus → Wikivoyage talk:Image policy#Image sized as factor of default. As your involvement with this article is almost exclusively for the purpose of harassing me personally, a revert seems fair. --Peter Talk 18:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I second Peter here. Prescriptive edits to bring about rule changes which have not gained consensus are a no-no. Repeating such efforts is surely grounds for reversion.Texugo (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- As you are well aware, your policy prescription is not supported by consensus → Wikivoyage talk:Image policy#Image sized as factor of default. As your involvement with this article is almost exclusively for the purpose of harassing me personally, a revert seems fair. --Peter Talk 18:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Mmmm, User:Peterfitzgerald may have ownership problems with this article. I'd certainly welcome his comments regarding points 1) to 4) above to shed some light on why he thinks he can continually abuse his admin's revert tools ("Administrators may use the rollback tool to quickly undo all changes to an article made by the most recent editor. Currently, it is not possible to leave an explanation of a revert in the edit summary, so this tool is usually reserved only for obvious cases of graffiti, vandalism, or spam)... -- Alice✉ 00:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Right from the very start of our project a decade ago we have had a concern (wv:56k) for people reading our guide on low bandwidth connections. It is an undeniable fact that, as a WMF hosted project, we now have improved technical means to ensure that both registered (and logged on) users and those not logged on can have different sizes of images displayed to them depending on the preferences they have set or their screen resolution (respectively). Ignorant editors are just as much in breach of long-standing policy if they insist on forcing viewers with large screens and high bandwidth connections to view (what will appear to them as) tiny thumbnails by setting fixed widths in thumbnails as they will annoy users on expensive or slow connections waiting to view (what will appear to them as) huge images. Our primary polciy is that the the traveller comes first and this attitude of invincible ignorance does not assist that goal.
I also note that the abusive revert also flouted our policy on Listings hinted at in (4) above. -- Alice✉ 20:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the image thing, you may very well have a point, and you may sway established practice via consensus on the appropriate talk page, but at this moment in time, it doesn't matter. You are going against established practice and interpretation of policy, and you can't just go around enforcing your view before there is consensus to change it.Texugo (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Where and when was this "policy" to force image widths in thumbs established that you think I'm flouting? Some people need to get up to date and realise that we are not still runmning on ancient versions of the software hosted by a technically challenged host like Internet Brands! -- Alice✉ 20:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage:How to add an image#Sizing. Texugo (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you examine the history of both the page you refer to and its associated discussion page, there was never any knowledgeable debate as to the technical means to implement what many users there desired - to have images display in different sizes appropriate to the traveller and their circumstances. How you can imply that there is some important tradition to flout travellers' wishes and needs that needs to be protected and honoured is beyond me. The only debate that I can trace was about printing requirements and the fact that many, if not most, readers did not know that they could click to enlarge thumbnails. As long as we set a sensible default size for thumbnails in registered users' preferences (currently set at a reasonable 220px, I believe) this is not really about tradition versus technical modernity but rather about whether we really mean it when we say this is a wiki that puts the needs of the traveller (rather than the egotism of some of its long term editors) first. -- Alice✉ 22:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- My understanding is that you have to create an account in order to set this preference? We're trying to make our guides appealing and visible to those who don't necessarily create an account.
- Setting preferences for image sizes has been possible as long as I can remember, even from the early days of Wikitravel on ancient versions of Mediawiki. These are issues that have been considered in the best interest of the traveller. You're not the sole or only source of what the traveller needs or wants.
- You continuing ad-hominem (egotism of some of its long term editors) rather than addressing the issue is unhelpful. Many images here are simply too small to be meaningful at the default wiki setting. --Inas (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- My own personal inclination is to have larger and more images. However, that preference should not over-ride our clear policy to consider the needs of our readers who may have slow or expensive connections. Exceptions can always be made within that policy for individual articles and images but a rationale should be advanced for any exception(s) that mandate a fixed image width in thumbs.
- My understanding of the text at the English Wikipedia documentation of
- If you examine the history of both the page you refer to and its associated discussion page, there was never any knowledgeable debate as to the technical means to implement what many users there desired - to have images display in different sizes appropriate to the traveller and their circumstances. How you can imply that there is some important tradition to flout travellers' wishes and needs that needs to be protected and honoured is beyond me. The only debate that I can trace was about printing requirements and the fact that many, if not most, readers did not know that they could click to enlarge thumbnails. As long as we set a sensible default size for thumbnails in registered users' preferences (currently set at a reasonable 220px, I believe) this is not really about tradition versus technical modernity but rather about whether we really mean it when we say this is a wiki that puts the needs of the traveller (rather than the egotism of some of its long term editors) first. -- Alice✉ 22:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage:How to add an image#Sizing. Texugo (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Where and when was this "policy" to force image widths in thumbs established that you think I'm flouting? Some people need to get up to date and realise that we are not still runmning on ancient versions of the software hosted by a technically challenged host like Internet Brands! -- Alice✉ 20:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- (nothing specified)
- For thumbnails, use the size specified in preferences for logged in users, and use a size determined by resolution for anonymous users. For non-thumbnails, use the native size of the image.
- is that our namespace works in exactly the same way as there; ie that even if one has not bothered to create an account or log in to that account an appropriate size of thumb will still be displayed as long as a fixed width has not been mandated by ignorant editors.
- Please note that we're only talking about thumbs here - but then there is the corollary advice to always use thumbs unless you have a very good reason (and I would add, an explained reason) not to use thumbs. -- Alice✉ 22:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are missing the point, Alice, which is you're doing it wrong. It is an established policy, with long-established practice, in evidence on the majority of pages we have. This means you need to get consensus for a change first. You may have some valid points, but you are going about it exactly backwards in trying to choose battleground pages to fight for the way you think it should be. You are wasting your breath here giving all these reasons on a page like this instead of the appropriate policy talk page. Changes to individual pages come after a policy change, not before. Texugo (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it is wrong to remove specific widths from thumbnails since I have never been able to find a policy to specify widths in thumbnails in the first place! I do take your point about the better place to educate our editors as to the technical possibilities in the mediawiki image formatting parameters and the reasons not to specify widths in thumbs unless there are exceptional - and clearly stated - reasons. -- Alice✉ 00:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I just showed you the page where it explicitly says it is ok to specify width in pixels, and says absolutely nothing about the method you are trying to implement. I think it would be best if you left this and other article pages alone for now in this respect, and if it is so important to you, concentrate on building consensus on the appropriate talk page for this. It would be a major change which would require manual correction of many thousands of pages, so it isn't terribly surprising that people don't want to let it just slide in without discussion. Also, it's more than a little arrogant, insulting in fact, to assume that Alice knows best and is involved in a fight against "invincible ignorance" of other editors who need to be "educated". Texugo (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've never proposed (and nor should anyone else, in my opinion, even if it could be done by a bot, since some knowledgeable editors may have have had perfectly sound reasons for specifying fixed image widths for specific thumbnails) manual correction of many thousands of pages.
- However, when folks are copy editing or inserting new images I do think that people should adopt best practice. And especially for a Star article nomination. Why exactly do you think the needs of our readers are radically different from the readers of Wikipedia? I would have thought that, if anything, we are more likely rather than less to have a higher proportion of readers with a slow speed or expensive/data-metered connection?
- Lastly, I note again that you still have not commented upon the abusive revert that also flouted our policy on Listings hinted at in (4) above. Do you think that advice is wrong too? -- Alice✉ 01:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I just showed you the page where it explicitly says it is ok to specify width in pixels, and says absolutely nothing about the method you are trying to implement. I think it would be best if you left this and other article pages alone for now in this respect, and if it is so important to you, concentrate on building consensus on the appropriate talk page for this. It would be a major change which would require manual correction of many thousands of pages, so it isn't terribly surprising that people don't want to let it just slide in without discussion. Also, it's more than a little arrogant, insulting in fact, to assume that Alice knows best and is involved in a fight against "invincible ignorance" of other editors who need to be "educated". Texugo (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think it is wrong to remove specific widths from thumbnails since I have never been able to find a policy to specify widths in thumbnails in the first place! I do take your point about the better place to educate our editors as to the technical possibilities in the mediawiki image formatting parameters and the reasons not to specify widths in thumbs unless there are exceptional - and clearly stated - reasons. -- Alice✉ 00:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are missing the point, Alice, which is you're doing it wrong. It is an established policy, with long-established practice, in evidence on the majority of pages we have. This means you need to get consensus for a change first. You may have some valid points, but you are going about it exactly backwards in trying to choose battleground pages to fight for the way you think it should be. You are wasting your breath here giving all these reasons on a page like this instead of the appropriate policy talk page. Changes to individual pages come after a policy change, not before. Texugo (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Starnom discussion
[edit]I might be going out on a limb with this nomination, as there are no hours or phone numbers for the restaurant listings. But that reflects the fact that a) they do not keep regular hours, and the best way to see if they're open is to walk a block and check, and b) that they do not have telephone numbers. I suppose I could have asked for owners' cell phones, but calling them about the restaurant would only confuse them. In other words, I don't see room for improvement on this front.
It's a really fascinating destination, and one where I had a ton of downtime to talk to people, gather information, and write it all down. I humbly submit that it might be a fun read too. What do you think? --Peter Talk 18:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support Nice and friendly prose style and lots of useful background information (but needs a link or more explanation when "the red season" is first mentioned.) Being picky, someone might want to template the hotel information to make maintenance by casual editors easier (and put the phone numbers into international format).. -- Alice✉ 19:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
- Dialing Colombian phone numbers is extremely complicated, and I'm honestly not sure how to best deal with that. Putting them in international format would obscure how to make local calls, which is probably a more likely scenario. --Peter Talk 00:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Close(now support, see below) Here's a list of suggestions for improvement and items to clean up before this reaches star:- First, the comment about complications when dialing phone numbers. Star articles must match the MoS exactly. If there is a major issue with using something other than the international format, then you should propose an exemption to add a Colombia-specific section to Wikivoyage:Phone numbers (talk). Colombia/Contact/By phone isn't complete and should probably be fully explained/expanded to go with this star nomination. This is important with the hotels lacking websites, how else can someone book a room before arrival?
- Prepare should probably be moved to become the first section of "Get in", which has arrival info. That said, it's not clear where a section of such information should go. Where you can stick it and the Small city article template don't really offer any clue as to where appropriate clothing should go. Malaria meds could go in a "stay healthy" section. Comment about sunscreen & insect repellant can go in stay healthy too and/or in See/Serranía de la Macarena. Since the length of the stay concerns the timing of flights, maybe that can be mentioned in Get in/By plane.
- Climate only discusses river...can you find any climate info? Should mention temps & discuss rainy season.
- Red links don't look good & should at least be started as a stub.
- Get around: where can you find a guide? Any warnings? Is there an official system set up recognizing guides (so Pablo I meet outside the hotel and offers his service as a guide is ok to take me into the park, not from FARC looking to take me through the jungle around army checkpoints)? Do some speak English?
- Is there any official information for the park? Like an office with phone number & address. An official website of any kind...maybe there's a national park department with a page about Serranía de la Macarena. Entry fees (so guides don't overstate them and rip off tourists)?
- Note regarding no ATM in Villavicencio airport should also be mentioned in the Get in/By plane section. Also, since that section relies, in part, on traveling through Villavicencio airport and booking onward travel here as well as the suggestion of taking the bus there from Bogata then flying, the Villavicencio should have some content in the Get in section.
- Stay safe/healthy: along with the above suggestion, info about malaria, sunburn, & heat exhaustion should be included in a stay healthy section. Are there any medical facilities or pharmacies/chemists if a visitor gets ill? If no, do you have to get a flight back to Villavicencio? Stay safe should include info on contacting the police/military if one gets in trouble (police station? Army office/HQ? Phone numbers?). Any dangerous animals to be wary of when going about the park? I'm particularly paranoid of snakes, so the first thing that comes to mind with wading through water in the Colombian jungles would be anacondas and any poisonous snakes in the jungle (fer de lance?). Poisonous frogs? Anything like ants or other insects with painful bites someone walking through the jungle needs to be careful of? Jaguars?
- I've gone ahead and added ecotourism inter-wiki link, but are there any other appropriate travel topics that could be linked to within the prose on this page?
- Only one WP link shows up in the sidebar, but there's a WP sidebar template at the bottom for both "La Macarena, Meta" and "Caño Cristales". I switched the order, so the one displayed in the sidebar links to La Macarena, Meta...you should figure out how to add a second WP sidebar link. Wikivoyage:Related articles only discusses using Template:Related.
That's quite a few suggestions, but then again, this is a star nomination and a star article should be reasonably complete with only the need to update listings. AHeneen (talk) 02:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- I hopefully have addressed the phone number concerns that both commenters above have raised.
- Any hotels listed without websites do not have websites. Booking before arrival is quite unusual in this area for an independent traveler.
- I think the prepare section is too critical—it also contains no get in information, aside from the number of days to spend here (it's not a standard section, anyway, so a certain amount of discretion seems normal).
- Climate info is only important in so far as it relates to travel (since we're not writing an encyclopedia), and there's no reason whatsoever to travel here other than to see the river. The temperature is always the same; the rainy and dry seasons happen when when the article tells you not to come.
- I'm happy to start the stubs, and will (but for posterity's sake, that's not actually related to star requirements).
- The article states that guides are lined up at the airport tourist desk (there are no other guides). There is no address, website, nor office for the national park (nor entry fees). Villavicencio is not a necessary stop (just a stop for cheapskates like me), but I'm not exactly sure what you mean in this bit.
- Splitting stay safe and stay healthy might make sense, although that's not something we often do for small city articles. But getting help from police in this sort of place (it's a very small town) just isn't any sort of issue—just tell anyone what the problem is and they'll help, or just cross the street to talk to some bored looking guy in a uniform.
- There are no organisms other than the malaria parasite to be worried about (that crazy penis-eating fish is much further south). If you had the fabulous fate of being attacked by a jaguar, any ecotourist would honestly be jealous ;)
- The WP link is a long-standing problem that we hopefully will have resolved soon here, along with the nearly identical problem regarding breadcrumbs. With both, it would be best if we could display more than one, but we don't have the functionality to do so yet. --Peter Talk 08:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at this again, I think I better understand your comment about the prepare section. I have moved the first paragraph to get in, while keeping the non-transport logistics at Understand#Prepare. --Peter Talk 18:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Query: I'm puzzled by your edit summary of "rv - utter nonsense, stop wasting peoples time" to this edit.
- How and why exactly do you think the advice of Travellers may be using Wikivoyage from networks with very low bandwidth. In some countries, an internet café with ten computers connected to a single 56k modem is still fairly common. and Please use thumbnails unless you have a good reason not to. (thumbnails) will expand to full size if clicked on (given at Wikivoyage:Image policy and Wikivoyage:How_to_add_an_image#Thumbnails) should be changed (or, alternatively, does not apply to Star article nominations), please? -- Alice✉ 01:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is no policy (and should be no policy) mandating certain sizes for images, and perusing existing star articles will confirm that. --Peter Talk 02:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- So which is it then? You think the request to Please use thumbnails is wrong, or you have a good reason not to? Alice✉ 06:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I would appreciate either a response to my question above or a timescale for a response. Thanks in anticipation. -- Alice✉ 10:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't think your point worth responding to. The article already uses thumbnails, so your question/point is nonsensical. --Peter Talk 20:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would appreciate either a response to my question above or a timescale for a response. Thanks in anticipation. -- Alice✉ 10:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- So which is it then? You think the request to Please use thumbnails is wrong, or you have a good reason not to? Alice✉ 06:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- There is no policy (and should be no policy) mandating certain sizes for images, and perusing existing star articles will confirm that. --Peter Talk 02:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Both at the time I made my original edit (reverted with your edit summary of "rv - utter nonsense, stop wasting peoples time") and at the time of my "nonsensical" comments above, and today your "thumbnails" designated fixed image widths (mostly of 280px width) for display and this negated then (and now) the important advice that normally, images should be specified as thumbnails and should not have a size set - this way they will default to the size set in the registered user's preferences - unless you do have an exceptionally good reason to override the defaults set by the user. Hence my persistent questioning.
- So, is your "exceptionally good reason" to override the defaults, your belief that nobody with a slow connection is ever going to read your La Macarena article or that no registered users with thumbnail defaults set at 120px or 150px or 180px or 200px or 220px or 250px or 300px (registered users are currently limited to just that choice of seven to set in their preferences) or something else entirely that I'm missing here? Sorry to be so abstruse...
- Now unless you start to address editors' concerns here timeously and with a degree of seriousness, I'm going to have to strike my "Support" above and change to an "Oppose" on the grounds that you have advanced no rationale for an exception to our image policy. -- Alice✉ 21:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's a policy you are making up, and is contradicted by every single star article. --Peter Talk 21:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would prefer if policy dictated Star status and not the other way around. -- Alice✉ 21:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- FYI, I noticed that you just altered the policy page that you are citing to support your case. I have reverted that as obviously inappropriate. --Peter Talk 21:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong on both counts, Peter. The Policy page at Wikivoyage:Image_policy#Minimal use of images, subsection #Image_sizes hasn't been changed since your sidekick Globe-trotter removed the useful 56k shortcut on 1 February 2013. I do agree that the policy of "Please use thumbnails unless you have a good reason not to. That way, the display size of images can be enlarged if the reader clicks on the lower right corner. If you have a good reason to change the default display size of the image, see Wikivoyage:How to add an image#Sizing for details." was in need of clarification - which is why I regard your revert here in support of your Star nomination as an abuse of your administrator tools. Relevant policy is here and states: Administrators may use the rollback tool to quickly undo all changes to an article made by the most recent editor. Currently, it is not possible to leave an explanation of a revert in the edit summary, so this tool is usually reserved only for obvious cases of graffiti, vandalism, or spam. There is pertinent discussion of my edits here in the section Sizing_of_images. -- Alice✉ 21:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have hijacked this star nomination to pursue your inane policy agenda. I can only hope that a productive contributor will come along and rescue it with a normal assessment of the article. --Peter Talk 22:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop trying to divert attention away from the original issue: forcing (large) image sizes on all readers of the Star nominated article - as opposed to following what was (until you changed it) a very clear policy with a very clear rationale: allow thumbnails to default to a globally set width for unregistered/not logged in readers, and to display at the specified width that registered readers have chosen in their preferences. Your choices seem very clear to me, either remove the unnecessary width specifications or provide a rationale for making an exception to our image policies. Either will do.
- What is not acceptable is name calling and demanding that you have your very own set of policies convenient to yourself. -- Alice✉ 23:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have hijacked this star nomination to pursue your inane policy agenda. I can only hope that a productive contributor will come along and rescue it with a normal assessment of the article. --Peter Talk 22:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong on both counts, Peter. The Policy page at Wikivoyage:Image_policy#Minimal use of images, subsection #Image_sizes hasn't been changed since your sidekick Globe-trotter removed the useful 56k shortcut on 1 February 2013. I do agree that the policy of "Please use thumbnails unless you have a good reason not to. That way, the display size of images can be enlarged if the reader clicks on the lower right corner. If you have a good reason to change the default display size of the image, see Wikivoyage:How to add an image#Sizing for details." was in need of clarification - which is why I regard your revert here in support of your Star nomination as an abuse of your administrator tools. Relevant policy is here and states: Administrators may use the rollback tool to quickly undo all changes to an article made by the most recent editor. Currently, it is not possible to leave an explanation of a revert in the edit summary, so this tool is usually reserved only for obvious cases of graffiti, vandalism, or spam. There is pertinent discussion of my edits here in the section Sizing_of_images. -- Alice✉ 21:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- FYI, I noticed that you just altered the policy page that you are citing to support your case. I have reverted that as obviously inappropriate. --Peter Talk 21:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would prefer if policy dictated Star status and not the other way around. -- Alice✉ 21:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's a policy you are making up, and is contradicted by every single star article. --Peter Talk 21:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
[unindent] No image is larger than 350px. But please argue about this somewhere else, like Wikivoyage talk:How to add an image. Please carry on with the star discussion, everyone. Thank you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Very nicely written with a good range of useful photographs. The content is formatted well and the article is very easy to use. --Nick (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support - You know South America has made it when they get their first Olympics, their first pope, and their first Wikivoyage star article. ;) PerryPlanet (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Nicely written, I like the style, especially for place like this :-) Just a few suggestions and questions:
- Exactly because it's so remote and unknown, I'd put the country in the opening sentence (or at least in the first few lines). I had to click on the link to the Meta region to find out where in the world it is ;-)
- Perhaps it would also be handy to put all the info about arranging, finding and paying a (mandatory) guide somewhere together in one paragraph, early in the article. It says somewhere you can book a guide at the airport, but can you only do it at the spot or is there a way to do it in advance? Is the tourist desk at the airport the only place in town that arranges them? Is there ever a problem of not enough guides being available? Are there any guided tours you can join, or do you have to find other visitors yourself if you want to share costs? Is there any kind of discount for multiple day tours (as you recommend at least 2 days)?
- As I mentioned in the pub, I think the Go Next section should have some more ideas. As planning is always a good part of travelling, any suggestions for next destinations are good information. When nothing is close by, travellers will be looking for places somewhat further away. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- The breadcrumb trail just under the title tracks it all the way back to South America.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, of course. Still though, if I as a regular overlook that, many random visitors surely will too. The breadcrumb in my mind isn't really part of the article, when reading. It's a detail, however. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think the breadcrumb trail is insufficient to indicate where the destination fits in geographically? My own opinion is that it does no harm to have the first paragraph of the lead include the basic geographical background to the article. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's better for clarity to have at least the country in the intro. Not that it would keep me from supporting this article as a star though. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Breadcrumb navigation doesn't display on mobile version and probably doesn't on most phone apps. I agree that it's best to place the country in the opening section for clarity.AHeneen (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's better for clarity to have at least the country in the intro. Not that it would keep me from supporting this article as a star though. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Do you think the breadcrumb trail is insufficient to indicate where the destination fits in geographically? My own opinion is that it does no harm to have the first paragraph of the lead include the basic geographical background to the article. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, of course. Still though, if I as a regular overlook that, many random visitors surely will too. The breadcrumb in my mind isn't really part of the article, when reading. It's a detail, however. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- The breadcrumb trail just under the title tracks it all the way back to South America.• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support I provided quite a bit of criticism above, but on second thought it looks ok for a star guide. I still think that more climate info is needed and perhaps some links to relevant travel topics. A map that also shows the region (where exactly the waterfalls are and so forth) would be very useful, but isn't necessary for promotion to star. AHeneen (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- I also would like to get a map of the trails up, and have most of what I need to do it. I'll need to get a semi-decent public domain satellite image of this area [1], though, and my WorldWind install hasn't been working properly. I'll see what I can do. Re: climate info, there really isn't any more available information to add (beyond the rough year averages I just added). Adding average rainfall or a monthly chart of highs and lows would be interesting trivia, but I can't find this information in any database. It's a very remote, small place in a part of the world that has extremely high geographic variation in climate. --Peter Talk 14:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Nomination to remove Star status
[edit]Number of See points of interest have no directions or location information. Number of Eat and both Drink listings are old entries that cannot be confirm as still in existence. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to remove the listings without information and keep the rest of the article at star status? Or would make the article less useful? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:25, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Removing See listing that do exist, just not exact details, sounds wrong to me. But removing restaurants and hotels that cannot prove still in business is probably a good idea. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it probably varies by case. There's a listing for "Madrevieja del Carmen", which is apparently a riverbed with some significance. But I can't find it on Google Maps, and therefore I'm not sure how we can be expected to get any information about the location of the place? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- The article says "located in a farm that is embraced in agroecological experiments, restoration of native forest and aimed to educate peasants in new forms of production [...] 17km from downtown [...] By contacting Jardín Botánico it is possible to book a night [...]". An experimental and educational facility probably is described in research papers and the like, and the Jardín Botánico has a working web page. It should not be too complicated to simply ask. --LPfi (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't quite understand. Ask who? Do you mean that we should contact Jardín Botánico? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Why not? --LPfi (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- If you can fluently speak Spanish, go ahead. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- One of the contact telephone numbers is in Belgium, so you might not even need that. --LPfi (talk) 08:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- If you can fluently speak Spanish, go ahead. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes. Why not? --LPfi (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't quite understand. Ask who? Do you mean that we should contact Jardín Botánico? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- The article says "located in a farm that is embraced in agroecological experiments, restoration of native forest and aimed to educate peasants in new forms of production [...] 17km from downtown [...] By contacting Jardín Botánico it is possible to book a night [...]". An experimental and educational facility probably is described in research papers and the like, and the Jardín Botánico has a working web page. It should not be too complicated to simply ask. --LPfi (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, it probably varies by case. There's a listing for "Madrevieja del Carmen", which is apparently a riverbed with some significance. But I can't find it on Google Maps, and therefore I'm not sure how we can be expected to get any information about the location of the place? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:43, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- Removing See listing that do exist, just not exact details, sounds wrong to me. But removing restaurants and hotels that cannot prove still in business is probably a good idea. --Traveler100 (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)