Recent major change to status box text
[edit]
- Yeah, I'm not too sure about this change. The argument that "the type of article doesn't matter to the reader" would have merit if our readers weren't also our contributors. It's not as though there's a strong line of distinction between Wikivoyagers who read the guide and Wikivoyagers who write the guide, so having things as fundamental as our hierarchy remain "behind the scenes" seems contrary to the type of website we are.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed with Powers and especially with ThunderingTyphoons!. Readers who aren't also contributors may not particularly care about internal Wikivoyage jargon, but there's also no pressing reason to prevent readers from coming into contact with it, especially since the status box is not placed very prominently on the page to start with. As for those readers who are also contributors, we already have enough trouble getting contributors to recognize policy differences vis-à-vis different types of articles when editing. Eliminating the type of guide from the box makes it correspondingly harder both for editors to figure out what the guidelines are for the particular article they're editing and for more senior editors to justify themselves when a newbie objects to being reverted. And I also agree consensus is not discussing fundamental sitewide changes on obscure template talk pages at the tail end of longwinded discussions that were originally about another topic entirely. Before implementing the change, the discussion should have been, at the bare minimum, spun off under another section header that accurately summarized the nature of the proposal under discussion, and ideally moved to a more prominent page such as the pub where more editors could see and participate in building a true consensus. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly about the change, and I don't mind if anyone reverts it. I'd appreciate it, though, if those who oppose it could offer their thoughts on how to solve the problem it was meant to address: the perennial confusion caused when articles about rural areas are labeled as "city travel guides" at the bottom of each page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:48, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I can see both sides of this discussion. I understand the concern that naming remote islands, villages and rural areas "cities" isn't right, but at the same time including no explanation at all isn't improving matters. Perhaps we could create a separate template for rural areas and/or even small villages. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Having "city" articles for built-up areas of any size, from metropolitan cities down to villages, works for me within the current framework (of "small city" "big city", and "huge city"). Even if the terminology doesn't thrill me, I can live with it. How many new contributors are actually confused or put off by our use of the word "city" in a broader sense than its everyday meaning?
- I am open to the creation of rural area articles which don't just cover one municipality like our city pages do, but which rather may encompass a larger area of mixed countryside and scattered settlements. Structurally, they'd probably still be quite similar to city articles, though 'Get around' would be more important, and they'd need a section similar to a district list, only without subarticles.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- We do have "city" articles for rural areas like that, such as Rural Montgomery County. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- The confusion causes an issue where people will change the template in these articles about rural areas from "city" to "region", leading to mistakes in categories and misunderstandings about how to structure the article. In the discussion linked above, I brought up the idea of changing the status box templates to give editors the option to display "rural area" instead of "city", where appropriate. If I understand correctly, this might be what SelfieCity is suggesting too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would support that new kind of article status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, what I care about here is not confusing people. "City" templates are used for articles about entirely rural islands. If we want to keep a template name on the page, it should say "This island article is". Ditto for articles that use city templates and are about a collection of villages "This rural article" or whatever. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- We may be able to pass a parameter to Template:Guidecity (&c.) to override the default noun. We're agreed categorization should remain as-is, though, right? Powers (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I like where Granger is going in his (her?) most recent comment, but I think we also ought to explore options along the lines of what ThunderingTyphoons! mentions above about how, when it comes to the way we handle coverage, articles like Rural Montgomery County have different needs and priorities than traditional city articles. Rather than trying to create a "big tent" category of articles that covers multiple different types of bottom-level destinations and then debating whether we should call them "city" articles or by some other name, it seems simpler to separate off Rural Montgomery County-type articles into a different category entirely: still the bottom level of the hierarchy, but with a name that specifies exactly what type of place it is, and perhaps a slightly different article skeleton template that incorporates e.g the need for a more prominent "Get around" section and an "Orientation" section where the individual rural villages are name-checked. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- And island articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Functionally no different from Rural Montgomery County-style articles, except surrounded by water. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- My point being that the status bar on such an article should say "This island article...", not "This city article..." Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- There's definitely a difference between an island and a rural area. Rural areas are surrounded by, adjacent to, or not far from urban or suburban areas in many cases, and are connected to those other places by land. While there are islands that can easily be accessed from large cities, islands such as St. Helena or Guadalupe Island are hundreds to thousands of miles from any other populated place and, therefore, getting to those islands is difficult or in some cases extremely difficult. Comparing remote islands with rural areas is like comparing apples and oranges. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Some islands are urban or dotted with towns, too. I'm not sure what the breakdown of those is in the hierarchy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- A good example is Kauai. It's not exactly a remote island, as it has a significant population and tourist attraction, but there are no articles (well, technically one, but it was created more recently by someone who wasn't familiar with the region hierarchy) for places on the island — all listings are included in the article about the island. Would that region become an "island" article or a "rural area"? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Some islands are urban or dotted with towns, too. I'm not sure what the breakdown of those is in the hierarchy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- There's definitely a difference between an island and a rural area. Rural areas are surrounded by, adjacent to, or not far from urban or suburban areas in many cases, and are connected to those other places by land. While there are islands that can easily be accessed from large cities, islands such as St. Helena or Guadalupe Island are hundreds to thousands of miles from any other populated place and, therefore, getting to those islands is difficult or in some cases extremely difficult. Comparing remote islands with rural areas is like comparing apples and oranges. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- My point being that the status bar on such an article should say "This island article...", not "This city article..." Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Functionally no different from Rural Montgomery County-style articles, except surrounded by water. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- And island articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I like where Granger is going in his (her?) most recent comment, but I think we also ought to explore options along the lines of what ThunderingTyphoons! mentions above about how, when it comes to the way we handle coverage, articles like Rural Montgomery County have different needs and priorities than traditional city articles. Rather than trying to create a "big tent" category of articles that covers multiple different types of bottom-level destinations and then debating whether we should call them "city" articles or by some other name, it seems simpler to separate off Rural Montgomery County-type articles into a different category entirely: still the bottom level of the hierarchy, but with a name that specifies exactly what type of place it is, and perhaps a slightly different article skeleton template that incorporates e.g the need for a more prominent "Get around" section and an "Orientation" section where the individual rural villages are name-checked. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- We may be able to pass a parameter to Template:Guidecity (&c.) to override the default noun. We're agreed categorization should remain as-is, though, right? Powers (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, what I care about here is not confusing people. "City" templates are used for articles about entirely rural islands. If we want to keep a template name on the page, it should say "This island article is". Ditto for articles that use city templates and are about a collection of villages "This rural article" or whatever. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
- I would support that new kind of article status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I take SelfieCity's points. Ikan Kekek, if we're talking about two new categories of articles with two new skeleton templates, presumably that also means we're talking about two new status bar templates as well, which would each specify the type of article. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- LtPowers mentioned earlier that we could use a template parameter to distinguish between cities and rural areas, so perhaps that could be considered as an alternative to an entirely new article status and templates. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. That still won't address the confusion people feel when a village has a "city article", but since we don't want to be in the business of defining the difference between a village, town and city, that's too the way it's gonna be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- SelfieCity - yeah, but switching a template parameter and keeping everything else the same isn't going to address what ThunderingTyphoons! was talking about re: rural area articles needing more prominent Get around sections, an Orientation section, and presumably other structural differences from city articles. The simplest way to do that is to create a new article skeleton template, and if you're going to do that plus monkey around with the wording of the status template, you may as well just create a new category of articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- True. In that case another page we will have to update is Wikivoyage:Article status stats. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't fully see what the necessary structural differences are between a city article and a rural area article. ("Get around" is important for large cities too, and many city articles have an "Orientation" subsection with a list of neighborhoods.) But creating a new skeleton template seems fine to me. We already have "Small city", "Big city", and "Huge city"—we might as well add "Rural area" too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- The status box change looks like an example of the Law of Unintended Consequences, don't let's make another. Creating additional page categories seems a recipe for trouble. However carefully defined, these would create uncertainties, misunderstandings and anomalies worse than status quo. The borderline examples would be feuded over with time and energy far beyond that granted to improving the page contents. One underlying problem is that WV policymaking is opaque to anyone not party to an earlier discussion. It might help if relevant statements were formatted:
- i) With links (visible when you hover) to definitions of any term used in a specific or non-intuitive sense, eg “city page” when applied to rural districts;
- ii) With links to the discussion that established a policy;
- iii) And a date stamp of the last change or re-affirmation. Grahamsands (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Such links are useful to seasoned editors but confusing for readers. I think those who need them can fins the talk page of the template, which would be the place to search for them and therefore to document the changes. Perhaps the template documentation could also be used. But the "city" issue is a problem for readers and new editors, and should be handled in an intuitive way. The easiest is to avoid jargon. I am starting to lean towards using a template parameter to describe the "city": rural area, island, whatnot, as long as it is not region, park or any other word we use for the other guide types. The Get around, Orientation etc. can be handled by adding advice to the descriptive text in the "full" templates and related documentation. --LPfi (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly support the creation of a rural area type of article. It will make things clearer, more accurate, and less confusing than the status quo. The fact that it doesn't exist may be contributing to our poor coverage of rural areas in the first place. New editors will less likely to plunge forward and create a rural area when it is not explicitly specified as a type of destination article that can exist here. Using links and saying that cities = rural areas will make things more confusing. We should use plain English whenever possible, not Wikivoyage jargon. Gizza (roam) 13:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is an excellent opportunity to add new articles to Wikivoyage and perhaps correct the status for some as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not just that. If you look at Category:Articles needing style fixes and Category:Move listings to cities, many of the articles are region articles like states and counties full of listings which are too far and spread out to be placed in the nearest city. A "rural area" type of article would be very helpful in clearing maintenance categories and improving region article mroe generally. Gizza (roam) 13:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I was recently moving listings from Florida Panhandle to "city" articles and found that city articles weren't always the best fit, especially for places like Marianna and Chipley. With rural area articles, it would become easier to categorize these articles.
- Many of our contributors are based in cities, which is excellent for our city travel guides, but as a result I think it's possible for us to somewhat forget what rural areas are like, and what their needs are in a travel guide article. I lived in a rural area for several years and this would definitely be an improvement for many underrepresented regions of our travel guides while also, as you said, clearing maintenance categories. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Not just that. If you look at Category:Articles needing style fixes and Category:Move listings to cities, many of the articles are region articles like states and counties full of listings which are too far and spread out to be placed in the nearest city. A "rural area" type of article would be very helpful in clearing maintenance categories and improving region article mroe generally. Gizza (roam) 13:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is an excellent opportunity to add new articles to Wikivoyage and perhaps correct the status for some as well. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly support the creation of a rural area type of article. It will make things clearer, more accurate, and less confusing than the status quo. The fact that it doesn't exist may be contributing to our poor coverage of rural areas in the first place. New editors will less likely to plunge forward and create a rural area when it is not explicitly specified as a type of destination article that can exist here. Using links and saying that cities = rural areas will make things more confusing. We should use plain English whenever possible, not Wikivoyage jargon. Gizza (roam) 13:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Such links are useful to seasoned editors but confusing for readers. I think those who need them can fins the talk page of the template, which would be the place to search for them and therefore to document the changes. Perhaps the template documentation could also be used. But the "city" issue is a problem for readers and new editors, and should be handled in an intuitive way. The easiest is to avoid jargon. I am starting to lean towards using a template parameter to describe the "city": rural area, island, whatnot, as long as it is not region, park or any other word we use for the other guide types. The Get around, Orientation etc. can be handled by adding advice to the descriptive text in the "full" templates and related documentation. --LPfi (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- I don't fully see what the necessary structural differences are between a city article and a rural area article. ("Get around" is important for large cities too, and many city articles have an "Orientation" subsection with a list of neighborhoods.) But creating a new skeleton template seems fine to me. We already have "Small city", "Big city", and "Huge city"—we might as well add "Rural area" too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- True. In that case another page we will have to update is Wikivoyage:Article status stats. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- SelfieCity - yeah, but switching a template parameter and keeping everything else the same isn't going to address what ThunderingTyphoons! was talking about re: rural area articles needing more prominent Get around sections, an Orientation section, and presumably other structural differences from city articles. The simplest way to do that is to create a new article skeleton template, and if you're going to do that plus monkey around with the wording of the status template, you may as well just create a new category of articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. That still won't address the confusion people feel when a village has a "city article", but since we don't want to be in the business of defining the difference between a village, town and city, that's too the way it's gonna be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
[outdent] I think the rural area template would be good, but only if well designed. There are many different kinds of "rural areas" – islands and archipelagos are two needing their own considerations, but also whether there is one or more cities or their suburbs intermingled with the rural area, whether or not there is a clear centre and so on will affect how the guide should be laid out. This, we should have a lengthy discussion with examples of different areas, and some prototyping, before we go ahead and introduce the template. I will be off for some time. --LPfi (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I have created User:SelfieCity/Rural area article template; feel free to improve if you have any ideas. I've combined "See and do" into one section because, in many rural areas with parks and reserves, these two overlap significantly. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- It mostly looks good. You might want to add a "By boat" section under "Get around" to account for rural islands. There are probably some Pacific island nations where you have to have your own boat. The dog2 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Definitely. Perhaps it could be moved to draft space to make it more straightforward for others to edit. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Done See Wikivoyage:Rural area article skeleton template. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 16:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Definitely. Perhaps it could be moved to draft space to make it more straightforward for others to edit. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- It mostly looks good. You might want to add a "By boat" section under "Get around" to account for rural islands. There are probably some Pacific island nations where you have to have your own boat. The dog2 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- I like the idea of a separate template. We should be clear that any of the sub-sections are optional (no "By boat" in most cases), and in larger rural areas it may be more sensible to divide listings by location rather than by type. It might be better to have a combined "Eat and drink" in places where there isn't much in the evening entertainment sense of drink. AlasdairW (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Personally, I think our policy should make clear that a traditional geographic breakdown where bottom-level destinations = individual cities is generally preferred, with rural-area articles reserved for a limited range of situations in which it's genuinely true that no individual town in a given area can sustain an article on its own. Personally, I think if we've got a rural-area article in which subdividing POIs by location is viable, we've got a rural-area article that should be broken up into multiple small-city articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Mostly, I agree. But in some cases dividing into city articles would create several outline articles without a chance to reach a higher status. In those cases I believe a rural area article is preferable, though a policy on the matter could help to clarify. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- For the Archipelago Sea I think having individual articles for small islands (Jurmo, Utö, Örö) makes sense, as the boat leaves you on one specific island, but for areas where the attractions mostly are away from where you find restaurants (Kittilä, Savukoski) splitting the area would not solve the "rural area" problem, you'd just have tiny villages instead of cities, with attractions midway between several of them (or with the same business arranging tours in all of them – which is a case where regional level listings make sense). Still, you'd want to do your shopping in some of the nearest ones. --LPfi (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- But aren't you talking about a bottom-level region with no city articles linked from it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps. I think these are areas where the "rural area" template should make sense. The linked articles (except the sea region) are now all city articles. Savukoski and Kittilä would be "rural areas" if that option existed, while the islands have been split out of larger "rural areas" like AndreCarrotflower suggests; Korpo and Kimitoön are about the main islands instead of also handling the islands farther out. --LPfi (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Some islands definitely function like rural areas. But the problem is how you distinguish those from next-to-impossible destinations such as Guadalupe Island, which are more remote than simply "rural." --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Perhaps. I think these are areas where the "rural area" template should make sense. The linked articles (except the sea region) are now all city articles. Savukoski and Kittilä would be "rural areas" if that option existed, while the islands have been split out of larger "rural areas" like AndreCarrotflower suggests; Korpo and Kimitoön are about the main islands instead of also handling the islands farther out. --LPfi (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- But aren't you talking about a bottom-level region with no city articles linked from it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- For the Archipelago Sea I think having individual articles for small islands (Jurmo, Utö, Örö) makes sense, as the boat leaves you on one specific island, but for areas where the attractions mostly are away from where you find restaurants (Kittilä, Savukoski) splitting the area would not solve the "rural area" problem, you'd just have tiny villages instead of cities, with attractions midway between several of them (or with the same business arranging tours in all of them – which is a case where regional level listings make sense). Still, you'd want to do your shopping in some of the nearest ones. --LPfi (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
- Mostly, I agree. But in some cases dividing into city articles would create several outline articles without a chance to reach a higher status. In those cases I believe a rural area article is preferable, though a policy on the matter could help to clarify. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- Personally, I think our policy should make clear that a traditional geographic breakdown where bottom-level destinations = individual cities is generally preferred, with rural-area articles reserved for a limited range of situations in which it's genuinely true that no individual town in a given area can sustain an article on its own. Personally, I think if we've got a rural-area article in which subdividing POIs by location is viable, we've got a rural-area article that should be broken up into multiple small-city articles. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I've added Wikivoyage:Rural area article template. This would be equivalent to Wikivoyage:Small city article template. At some point I can work on writing some of it, but I don't have the time currently. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
- Does anyone know how to create templates similar to Template:Outlinecity, etc. for rural areas? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Buying fuel
[edit]In sparsely populated areas, it may be worth listing filling stations. I am not sure whether this should go in "Get around - By car", or "Buy". In some cases the fuel is sold at a shop which would be worth listing in buy, but in others it is a standalone, possibly unmanned, pump. AlasdairW (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- "Get around - By car" seems best imho. A convenience store could be listed in "buy" if there are no alternatives per boring. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that "Get around" makes more sense, and I've plunged forward accordingly. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Suriname
[edit]People have mentioned Rural Montgomery County, but the regions of Suriname are also good examples of rural areas made up of several small communities being handled in one article. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- True. I would agree that these regions should be rural area articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
"More subjective"
[edit]From the current language for "Understand":
This is a more subjective description of the rural area
More subjective than what? By contrast, look at Wikivoyage:Big city article template#Understand:
Give a deeper understanding of the city, such as its history, its culture, its mores, its politics, its relationship to other cities and the country it's in. Jokes and stereotypes about locals, etc.
Unless someone objects, I'd strongly advocate using clearer, less informal language that's closer to what I quote immediately above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- Here's my best effort at an edit. Please feel free to tweak it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
"Good areas of the destination to try"
[edit]I hate this language - it's so awkward! - and I will be changing it everywhere I see it. I think all the articles about article templates will need copy editing and updating. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Islands
[edit]Islands aren't necessarily rural. Should we have a different template for island articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, since islands are greatly varied and definitely not all are rural. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Depends on the island, I think rural articles could work well for the islands with no big places. --Ypsilon (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- I added some details specific to islands, as that was my understanding of the pub discussion. A separate island template is probably better, but this one could work for sparsely populated islands. I am thinking of Berneray or Chatham Islands as examples of islands which have been OFBP in the past, where this template could work. If an island template is agreed, then we can remove the island specic details and let this template go into service before creating an island one. AlasdairW (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Depends on the island, I think rural articles could work well for the islands with no big places. --Ypsilon (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- As an important note, as it stands categories for the rural area articles are still not working, so we need to figure those out before we start creating more article templates and status types. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- What do you mean by categories not working? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- This category should show the (currently short) list of rural area articles. If someone knows how to solve that problem that would be excellent. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- What do you mean by categories not working? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Hiking and cycling
[edit]I added a bit about biking and hiking as those are reasonably popular and common modes of getting around in some rural areas (at least for holidaymakers) think of the Appalachian Trail on one extreme and the Fünf Seidla Steig on another. Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think we could clarify when hiking or biking is "get around" and when it is "do". AlasdairW (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Remove "experimental" template
[edit]Are we ready to remove this template yet? I've added the rural area status to 14 articles, so it can still easily be removed from all the articles within the status, if necessary. But hopefully consensus can be established here on whether or not to use this article type. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Headings
[edit]I changed On foot to By foot according to Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates/Sections. Better keep to the standard. What about By public transit? In most cases that would be By bus, I suppose, and in other cases a By cable car or whatever could be used. Is there any special reason for the current heading? --LPfi (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well in countries that didn't appoint an axe to head their railway or are otherwise infected with the privatization or the "let's destroy railways and build asphalt paths on them" virus, there are rail lines with service in rural areas... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- But not often. This video describes the future of Amtrak. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'd agree with SC that getting around by train in rural areas is not that common. There might be a station or two, but seldom a comprehensive network. I usually cover those by pointing to Get in – like I do with the coach line along a single main road. Were there is local rail it can very well be described in By train. By public transport is useful when trains and buses (and perhaps other modes of transport) are well integrated, but that too is hardly common in the countryside. --LPfi (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to change "By public transit" to "By Bus", which also avoids the issue that transit is mainly a US term. We have "By Boat" which is one form of public transport (assuming it is scheduled ferry). If "By train" is likely to be a means of getting around rather than in, then we can have that too, but I think that it is unlikely unless there is a tourist steam train or the like. AlasdairW (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- Well, presumably those subheadings are optional depending on the circumstances, but perhaps that needs to be said. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to change "By public transit" to "By Bus", which also avoids the issue that transit is mainly a US term. We have "By Boat" which is one form of public transport (assuming it is scheduled ferry). If "By train" is likely to be a means of getting around rather than in, then we can have that too, but I think that it is unlikely unless there is a tourist steam train or the like. AlasdairW (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'd agree with SC that getting around by train in rural areas is not that common. There might be a station or two, but seldom a comprehensive network. I usually cover those by pointing to Get in – like I do with the coach line along a single main road. Were there is local rail it can very well be described in By train. By public transport is useful when trains and buses (and perhaps other modes of transport) are well integrated, but that too is hardly common in the countryside. --LPfi (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
- But not often. This video describes the future of Amtrak. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Skeletons
[edit]I am unable to find a skeleton template for counties (not countries). I am currently working on a userspace draft for one (see User:Prahlad balaji/userspace drafts/Maricopa County, Arizona). Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks --Prahlad balaji (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- When we have articles for counties, they usually follow the Wikivoyage:Region article template. Sometimes they might follow the Wikivoyage:Rural area article template. But often counties aren't that important for travellers, so most of them don't have their own articles. Would a Maricopa County article be useful for travellers? If so, it might be best as an extraregion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Mx. Granger, thank you for the advice. It looks like an extraregion to me! Prahlad balaji (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm quite unconvinced that it's useful unless a consensus decides to make it one of the regions listed at Arizona#Regions, and that would require a discussion at Talk:Arizona. But if you're convinced it would be useful as an extra-region and wouldn't overlap too much with Greater Phoenix (or vice versa), please use the name Maricopa County, without Arizona in the name of the article. See Wikivoyage:Naming conventions. We do things a bit differently from Wikipedia here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Since Greater Phoenix consists of Maricopa and Pinal counties, and that article doesn't have much content, I think it would be better to add any Maricopa County content to Greater Phoenix to build that article up. If, at some point, there is too much content in Greater Phoenix, it might make sense to split it, but I think it is premature now. Ground Zero (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Ground ZeroThank you for the advice. I have created a redirect. Prahlad balaji (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- Since Greater Phoenix consists of Maricopa and Pinal counties, and that article doesn't have much content, I think it would be better to add any Maricopa County content to Greater Phoenix to build that article up. If, at some point, there is too much content in Greater Phoenix, it might make sense to split it, but I think it is premature now. Ground Zero (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
- I'm quite unconvinced that it's useful unless a consensus decides to make it one of the regions listed at Arizona#Regions, and that would require a discussion at Talk:Arizona. But if you're convinced it would be useful as an extra-region and wouldn't overlap too much with Greater Phoenix (or vice versa), please use the name Maricopa County, without Arizona in the name of the article. See Wikivoyage:Naming conventions. We do things a bit differently from Wikipedia here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Integration with other pages
[edit]Pages like Wikivoyage:Usable articles provide no guidance for and make no mention of rural areas, and there is no Wikivoyage:Rural area article status page. Ground Zero (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage:Rural area article template would be a good starting point for an article status page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- I thought the criteria was the same as for city. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ibthink that should be explained on Wikivoyage:Usable articles and similar pages if we're not creating separate criteria. Ground Zero (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Eat sections for Rural areas
[edit]Should the eat section of rural areas be divided by cost or location. Some featured rural areas like Norfolk Island divide by cost while others like Jost Van Dyke divide by location. I am rewriting the article on the fairly large Boso Peninsula and think it would help the traveller more to have it divided by location though I know that division by cost is the norm for city articles. Tai123.123 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that it is more useful to divide thee listings in rural articles by location. And if the policy doesn't permit this, we should change the policy. Ground Zero (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- If the rural area has distinct "parts" (small villages separated by a long trek, or separate islands) then I think we should bow to geography. Otherwise, when there is no clear geographical demarcation, I don't mind following the usual pattern of splitting by cost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think policy does permit this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've been working on User:SHB2000/Sunshine Coast for almost a month now, and I divided it up based on price, but that is because the Sunshine Coast is a very strange settlement, as it's not a city but mostly urban at the same time (it took me a while to understand how that settlement works and it's why South East Queensland is very messy). I think how listings should be organized is a case-by-case basis. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Can someone update wikivoyage:Rural_area_article_template#Eat with this as nothing is stated on dividing eat and other sections Tai123.123 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the article templates are the best places to add such advice. Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates/Sections#Eat already says "Restaurant listings should be divided, if necessary, by price, by location or by cuisine." There are similar sentences for the other relevant sections. Wikivoyage:Listings#Avoid long lists also mentions dividing the sections by location. I added a short section to Wikivoyage:Section headers, with links to these. –LPfi (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I forgot that also people who don't know our help and guideline pages get the advice in the templates. I added a sentence. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think it also depends on the size of the rural area. Larger areas encompassing multiple villages, for example islands, can do it by location to clearly identify POIs by region. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 10:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- The typical "rural area" has its small population distributed over several villages, and transport is often at least a bit challenging, so I think location is more important than price in most such articles. –LPfi (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think it also depends on the size of the rural area. Larger areas encompassing multiple villages, for example islands, can do it by location to clearly identify POIs by region. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 10:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- I forgot that also people who don't know our help and guideline pages get the advice in the templates. I added a sentence. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the article templates are the best places to add such advice. Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates/Sections#Eat already says "Restaurant listings should be divided, if necessary, by price, by location or by cuisine." There are similar sentences for the other relevant sections. Wikivoyage:Listings#Avoid long lists also mentions dividing the sections by location. I added a short section to Wikivoyage:Section headers, with links to these. –LPfi (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Can someone update wikivoyage:Rural_area_article_template#Eat with this as nothing is stated on dividing eat and other sections Tai123.123 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've been working on User:SHB2000/Sunshine Coast for almost a month now, and I divided it up based on price, but that is because the Sunshine Coast is a very strange settlement, as it's not a city but mostly urban at the same time (it took me a while to understand how that settlement works and it's why South East Queensland is very messy). I think how listings should be organized is a case-by-case basis. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think policy does permit this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- If the rural area has distinct "parts" (small villages separated by a long trek, or separate islands) then I think we should bow to geography. Otherwise, when there is no clear geographical demarcation, I don't mind following the usual pattern of splitting by cost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
A question on using this template in a region structure
[edit]I'll start with an example: Region A has four subregions: B, C, D and E. Subregions B, C, and D each cover several cities and town that have Wikivoyage article. Subregion E, on the other hand, has no cities or towns with Wikivoyage articles. Is it acceptable to convert Subregion E into a rural area article, even though it sits in the hierarchy alongside subregions? Ground Zero (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why it wouldn't. The first examples of this I can think of is Kangaroo Island which is a rural area article directly categorized under South Australia, and Interior (Iceland) under Iceland. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 12:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have thought that it's disallowed, but I don't find any guideline forbidding it. It is unusual and may be confusing, so one should be very clear about a city, park or rural area not belonging to any of the regions. Perhaps E should be listed as a region even if turned into a rural area. –LPfi (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't that what we already do with the examples above? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Seems so. However, the template says that the Region section should list the subregions. Having rural areas, parks or cities there is not explicitly allowed. I assume this should be discussed with a note in the Pub. Oddly enough, Wikivoyage:Region article status does not require a valid subregion structure even for star regions. –LPfi (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I see where you're coming from. Yes, that is definitely a problem and would support your suggestion. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- In the examples above, it would not make sense to force Kangaroo Island or Interior (Iceland) to be regions. If we don't have enough content for them to be subdivided, them they should remain as rural areas. I think we have to accept that a region can be divided into (a) sub-regions and (b) rural areas. Category:Empty_regions shows 84 region pages with no cities under them. I think these should be converted to rural area articles to reflect their actual state. (Some of the pages are listed because the cities under them have not been properly breadcrumb. I'm working on that.) Ground Zero (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not only rural areas. There may be a city or a national park on an island or otherwise separated so that it cannot usefully be breadcrumbed to any of the subregions (other than one of its own, if we are to force that). –LPfi (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Something like Sable Island National Park as an example (if it were under its own region)? SHB2000 (t | c | m) 22:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not only rural areas. There may be a city or a national park on an island or otherwise separated so that it cannot usefully be breadcrumbed to any of the subregions (other than one of its own, if we are to force that). –LPfi (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- In the examples above, it would not make sense to force Kangaroo Island or Interior (Iceland) to be regions. If we don't have enough content for them to be subdivided, them they should remain as rural areas. I think we have to accept that a region can be divided into (a) sub-regions and (b) rural areas. Category:Empty_regions shows 84 region pages with no cities under them. I think these should be converted to rural area articles to reflect their actual state. (Some of the pages are listed because the cities under them have not been properly breadcrumb. I'm working on that.) Ground Zero (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I see where you're coming from. Yes, that is definitely a problem and would support your suggestion. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Seems so. However, the template says that the Region section should list the subregions. Having rural areas, parks or cities there is not explicitly allowed. I assume this should be discussed with a note in the Pub. Oddly enough, Wikivoyage:Region article status does not require a valid subregion structure even for star regions. –LPfi (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't that what we already do with the examples above? --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have thought that it's disallowed, but I don't find any guideline forbidding it. It is unusual and may be confusing, so one should be very clear about a city, park or rural area not belonging to any of the regions. Perhaps E should be listed as a region even if turned into a rural area. –LPfi (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)