Wikivoyage talk:Travel topic article template Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

Article sections commonly found in travel topics include "Understand," "Stay safe," and "See also," but headings of travel topic articles should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The template is ambiguous, and it would be useful for newer users to provide at least some guidance on travel topic sections. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 17:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but wouldn't "See also" be used on a case-by-case basis, too? Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think that's what I indicated. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

You did. So I approve of your idea. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Further to this discussion, I am proposing the following clarification. Replace this text:

If you add listings to specific venues, in most cases the full listing (with details such as prices and phone numbers) should go to a destination article. The listing in the travel topic article should describe the venue in the context of the topic, with enough detail for the reader to know whether they are interested. Whether to link to the destination article, the section of it containing the listing or the listing itself is a judgement call.

With this text:

If you add listings to specific venues, the full listing should go to a destination article. The listing in the travel topic article should describe the venue in the context of the topic, to help the reader to know whether they are interested. Details, such as street addresses, prices and phone numbers, should be omitted from the travel topic article. Instead link the full listing, or the section or article containing it.

Comments? Ground Zero (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

A preliminary observation: the proposed wording allows the listing not to refer to the article where the listing is. I think that link is fundamental. The last sentence could read: "Instead link the full listing, or the section or article containing it". –LPfi (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I prefer your wording and have incorporated it into the proposal. Thanks. Ground Zero (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The wording does not address the last issue raised on the pub, about notifying those interested in the topic when an external link goes dead. Just saying, as the reference to this talk page might be read as it would. I think this should be handled in a separate more technical thread. –LPfi (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is beyond my skill set, so I did not include it. I agree it would be better handled in a separate thread. Ground Zero (talk) 11:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I support the proposed text. Duplication of content is bad. Twsabin (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

I support it, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I've made the change. Ground Zero (talk) 12:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply