 |
This article was the Collaboration of the month for November 2018. |
Star districts
[edit]
- I believe so, but you might want to raise this at Wikivoyage talk:Star nominations instead. LtPowers (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you definitely can. Similarly, a town article could be a star, despite its region article being an outline. We have numerous examples of that. --Peter Talk 18:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Star articles with no custom banner
[edit]- Swept in from the pub
Only two lonely star articles have no custom banner:
Anyone game? Texugo (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm still mulling over options for the Disney articles; Walt Disney World needs an improved one. Though Downtown Disney is an interesting challenge, especially since it'll be Disney Springs by this time next year. Powers (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Okay so I was close. 18 days off. Powers (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
End requirement for static maps.
[edit]I think it's time to end the requirement of a static map for star-level city and district articles. Dynamic maps stay up to date far easier, and show all of an article's listings, as long as the lat and long fields are filled in correctly. Region and country articles would, in my view, continue to be served best by static maps, so the requirement for those to be star articles shouldn't change. Thoughts? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- We've had this discussion several times before and always end up hopelessly deadlocked, but for what it's worth, my opinion is the same as ever: in agreement with the above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Any statement that a star article must have a static map isn't quite true. There's nothing on this page making that requirement, and on the status for the individual article types the policy varies:
- A star city or park "has a tourist-style map in Wikivoyage style with modifiable vector source". That's the closest we come to outright requiring a static map for a star article, which makes little sense as city, district, park are the lowest-level articles in the hierarchy and therefore the most adaptable to dynamic maps.
- A star region or country "has a tourist-style map showing" (for regions: "...all the 5 to 9 listed...") "linked cities, subregions, and other destinations (all guide status or better) and routes between them". The 5-9 item limit doesn't make sense for an Adirondack-size bottom-level region in a sparsely-populated area (there are more than nine villages in the park, but most of them are tiny) but for anything more complex than a bottom-level region, dynamic maps are not as good as a carefully-made static map.
- For the rest, at the moment any map style will do. A star itinerary "has a map showing the route of the itinerary, identifying landmarks (such as cities) along the way". A star travel topic, "if practical (such as for a niche activity) has a map identifying relevant destinations". A star phrasebook "has a map identifying places where this language is officially recognized and/or commonly spoken." We could safely leave this much well enough alone.
- I'd be tempted to allow any map style (so "a map with point-of-interest markers" instead of "a tourist-style map in Wikivoyage style with modifiable vector source") for city and park articles, remove "the 5 to 9 listed" village limit for bottom-level regions and leave the rest as-is. Admittedly, "has a tourist-style map" for regions is ambiguous, but that seems harmless enough. K7L (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Drawing up static maps for city/district level articles is a waste of time since POIs tend to change rapidly on that level (businesses opening/closing etc.). Every star needs a map, but for city/district articles that should be dynamic map instead of a static one. ArticCynda (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Any statement that a star article must have a static map isn't quite true. There's nothing on this page making that requirement, and on the status for the individual article types the policy varies:
Putting the static maps requirement for huge cities to an end
[edit]I know this might piss some editors off, especially those who feel static maps are better than dynamic maps, but I think it's time for that to end.
Now I should also mention that a huge city article should have some map. Otherwise it's pointless. I just think that star huge cities should also be allowed to use an interactive dynamic map (something like the one I recently made for Canberra), because as far as I'm aware, few editors make static maps on a regular basis, and often, this leaves city articles without mapshapes, making it particularly difficult for future editors to identify which district an article should go in. While it was concluded in the above discussion that city/park/district articles would no longer required, I propose we end the requirement that huge cities should have a static map and allow dynamic maps that show districts. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this. The thing about star articles is that they're supposed to be near-perfect in every respect. Unless dynamic maps can be truly beautiful, they won't be optimal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- From an editing viewpoint, I like having a map which can be zoomed in to street level to see if the statue in the middle of the street belongs in the left or right district. But this can go on a talk page and isn't important if the districts have mapframes.
- I don't think dynamic maps show the district colours as well as static maps, and the lack of exact colur matching might give problems with black and white printouts. In Melbourne the static map looks a lot better than the dynamic map (due to the stations shown on the dynamic map).
- I would be happy to see dynamic maps in huge cities in addition to static ones, but I am not convinced on them being a replacement. AlasdairW (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek, AlasdairW: I think as to whether a static map or a dynamic map would be more helpful to readers, it's a bit of a case-by-case basis. Melbourne's static map is obviously better than its dynamic map, but for an article like Canberra, I just can't visualise how a static map would look like due to the radical differences in the sizes of districts hence why I don't want to make a static map. Canberra isn't the only example though. Perth currently has a static map, but right now, it looks like a bunch of boxes and straight lines, and I find it hard to identify where exactly the boundaries are. The roads identifying the freeways and major highways do help a bit, but still without numbers or names, it's really hard to know which suburb is in which district. An approach that could be done to resolve this issue is to format the maps like they're done in London, but I really don't like how the outer districts map just duplicates the two inner districts maps. Singapore is probably a better example: a star article, but uses a dynamic map. To me, the dynamic map looks better and more visually appealing than the static map. Its CBD map looks okay, but its outer districts map doesn't. However, with the dynamic map, I can see where the country's parks, expressways, suburbs etc.
- Additionally, the lack of guidance provided on how to make district maps also means that there will be fewer complete cities, and essentially, we'll have heaps of star-worthy articles that will never reach star status because the policy requires them to do something that barely anyone knows how to do.
- But if we want a compromise, I'd suggest that if a star city were to use a dynamic map instead of a static map, the map needs to be manually traced out via geojson.io instead of simply just using a mapshape from OpenStreetMap so it doesn't become a victim of disappearing mapshapes – essentially, something like this or this. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have just tried creating a black and white pdf of Canberra. The grey shades shown on the map do not match the key. On the map, North Canberra, Acton and South Canberra look the same, but they are quite different on the key. Can the map colours be match the key better? AlasdairW (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- But if we want a compromise, I'd suggest that if a star city were to use a dynamic map instead of a static map, the map needs to be manually traced out via geojson.io instead of simply just using a mapshape from OpenStreetMap so it doesn't become a victim of disappearing mapshapes – essentially, something like this or this. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just tried and printed out a black and white pdf and the left boxes used in Template:Regionlist were just white. Uploaded a screenshot for reference. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Two things: First, if there are no clearly defined boundaries between districts, that's a poor example of districtification and absolutely should not and cannot be a star article (even being a guide article seems questionable to me). Second, I'm not sympathetic to the argument that it's too hard for articles to get a star. It should be extremely difficult. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly. I agree with you on the second point and hence why I agree with the criteria for a star article, but rereading my comment earlier, I wasn't very clear re your first point.
- If a city doesn't have a clear defined boundary, then it will never go past usable hence why Nashville is now an outline. Perth, the example that I brought up won't ever become a star article unless someone creates a better map, or creates an interactive dynamic map. What I'm saying is that in some cases, a dynamic map significantly looks better than a static map, often due to the various sizes in districts. For a city like Auckland, Manhattan, Macau or Berlin, this is not a problem given that most districts are about the same size and labelling would not be a problem. This is the case for most cities, so this should not be a problem.
- However, for a map like Canberra, its largest district (Canberra/Tuggeranong and Country ACT) is 1661 and 841 times larger than its two smallest districts (Canberra/Civic and Canberra/Hall respectively). Even if you don't know a single thing about mapmaking and cartography, I'm pretty sure you can imagine how botched the labeling will look like. On a dynamic map, you can try and adjust the map so it's centered and focused towards the downtown/city centre areas and let the reader zoom out. This is not possible on static maps, and this should should give you an insight on how a map would look like – you can barely see the two smallest districts, and all other districts rather seem small. ttcf, that map does not help travelers. Likewise, for Singapore, its largest district (Singapore/North and West is 532 times larger than its smallest district (Singapore/Little India hence why a static map would miserably fail to do the job. My point is that for cities with roughly equal suburban areas, it is not a problem, but for cities with large suburban areas that are over 200-300 times larger than its smallest districts, a static map won't really do the job. Hence why I'm proposing that we allow dynamic maps if it helps the traveler. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- The answer in such situations is probably an inset for the city centre. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Two things: First, if there are no clearly defined boundaries between districts, that's a poor example of districtification and absolutely should not and cannot be a star article (even being a guide article seems questionable to me). Second, I'm not sympathetic to the argument that it's too hard for articles to get a star. It should be extremely difficult. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I just tried and printed out a black and white pdf and the left boxes used in Template:Regionlist were just white. Uploaded a screenshot for reference. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
