|
Archived discussions
|
Border checkpoints
[edit]
- If you just pass through, then a listing or subsection in a suitable Get in section (country, region, nearby town) would suffice. If it is a real city, even a dull one, then I think a proper city article is warranted. The small city template is probably the one to use. As the info should be linked from several places, I think the threshold for creating an article should be low, unless there is some suitable other article where it can be handled (perhaps in Get in or Nearby). –LPfi (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is a discussion at Talk:Jaigaon about a specific example where Sbb1413 has redirected an article about a town to India#Get in without transferring any information. I would ask that we have the discussion there about the specific example, rather than dealing only in generalities. Ground Zero (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I thought I have transferred some of the information in Jaigaon to India#Bhutan as a summary, something I have done with Benapole and Panitanki. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- You didn't transfer any information about the town in this edit. The hotel listings, which are the valuable information were not transferred, and they shouldn't be, but where should they go?. If you have an opinion on whether the Jaigaon article should be restored or not, you should express it at Talk:Jaigaon. Ground Zero (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is a similar discussion at Talk:Hasimara. That article had a listing for the town's train station. Now it is redirected to a section of the India article that doesn't mention the town. Ground Zero (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at these specific articles yet, but in general I think it's useful to provide information about border towns, even boring ones. They're often visited by travellers for a variety of reasons, and it's not uncommon to end up spending a day or more there – to change forms of transportation, to take advantage of different laws on the other side of the border, or to deal with visa issues. Many years ago (long before the Schengen Agreement) some of my relatives were stuck at the border between Spain and France for several weeks due to a visa issue.
- So we can provide a valuable service by giving advice about border towns (hotels, restaurants, practicalities like ATMs and photocopy places, the border crossing itself, and whatever the most interesting attractions are in case a traveller is stuck at a border and needs to pass the time). I've worked on articles like Desaguadero, Villazón and La Quiaca, and Chuy with these considerations in mind. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. However, should that be extended to border crossings in the middle of nowhere? We have a few in Finland, where the nearest town is quite some distance away (50 km to Ivalo from Raja-Jooseppi, described in the fifth paragraph of Urho Kekkonen National Park#Get in). Kivilompolo in Enontekiö and Kelloselkä in Salla are similar (some 20–50 km from the towns); the nearest lodgings could be mentioned along with suggestions for wild camping and advice on services (go for the town). A redirect to a relevant article and a paragraph or two in Get in might be ideal for the latter two. Now the names redlink. The articles on Russia seem to have no information on border crossings (I added mentions of ones to Finland to some articles). –LPfi (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- To reply to the question; it depends. If the border crossing is a complicated one and/or there is a lot that the traveller needs to know like common scams happening there, then it should get its own article (see Poipet). If crossing the border is easy, and the place is just a border crossing point rather than a town on its own, the information can be added to the article about the last town before the border, or possibly to the region article. Ypsilon (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. However, should that be extended to border crossings in the middle of nowhere? We have a few in Finland, where the nearest town is quite some distance away (50 km to Ivalo from Raja-Jooseppi, described in the fifth paragraph of Urho Kekkonen National Park#Get in). Kivilompolo in Enontekiö and Kelloselkä in Salla are similar (some 20–50 km from the towns); the nearest lodgings could be mentioned along with suggestions for wild camping and advice on services (go for the town). A redirect to a relevant article and a paragraph or two in Get in might be ideal for the latter two. Now the names redlink. The articles on Russia seem to have no information on border crossings (I added mentions of ones to Finland to some articles). –LPfi (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is a similar discussion at Talk:Hasimara. That article had a listing for the town's train station. Now it is redirected to a section of the India article that doesn't mention the town. Ground Zero (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- You didn't transfer any information about the town in this edit. The hotel listings, which are the valuable information were not transferred, and they shouldn't be, but where should they go?. If you have an opinion on whether the Jaigaon article should be restored or not, you should express it at Talk:Jaigaon. Ground Zero (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- I thought I have transferred some of the information in Jaigaon to India#Bhutan as a summary, something I have done with Benapole and Panitanki. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is a discussion at Talk:Jaigaon about a specific example where Sbb1413 has redirected an article about a town to India#Get in without transferring any information. I would ask that we have the discussion there about the specific example, rather than dealing only in generalities. Ground Zero (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Roads?
[edit]I propose adding a line in the section "What does not get its own article?":
- Roads and highways, unless they are legitimate itineraries. Scenic roadways can be mentioned in region or destination articles.
Thoughts? Mrkstvns (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- What makes an itinerary "legitimate"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would say that a legitimate itinerary is baased around points of interest (things to "see"). That could be great scenery, like on the Pacific Coast Highway, or it might be places of historical interest around a common theme (like a modern art tour, Civil War battlefields of a region, etc.) An itinerary is definitely not an ordinary highway that people use to get around or transport goods. Mrkstvns (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think an itinerary can be thought of more like a "plan" and that may, or may not use multiple roads. The road is typically not the crux of an itinerary, the theme is. A good itinerary might be a travel plan that includes recommendations for great places to stay, things to do, or even places to eat or drink (I could write an itinerary for a taco tour of Texas, for example). Mrkstvns (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would say that a legitimate itinerary is baased around points of interest (things to "see"). That could be great scenery, like on the Pacific Coast Highway, or it might be places of historical interest around a common theme (like a modern art tour, Civil War battlefields of a region, etc.) An itinerary is definitely not an ordinary highway that people use to get around or transport goods. Mrkstvns (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Take a look at Illinois_Route_173. Does it provide any genuine value to a traveler? Seems out of our focus (not to mention ridiculously boring). Mrkstvns (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The advice should explain what we mean, rather than using "legitimate", which is open to interpretation. The exceptions should include challenging or remote routes like Quebec Route 389, which may not be scenic, but its remoteness means tjat our article provides value to readers. (I created the article as part of my research for a planned trip there.) Ground Zero (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Illinois Route 173 article looks fairly useless in its current state. Still, some decent itinerary articles are based more on practicality than scenic appeal. Here in California, Interstate 5 is an ordinary highway and a not-very-scenic way to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles (for the scenic route, take the Pacific Coast Highway instead). But if someone is driving up or down I-5 for practical reasons, our article can provide value by recommending whatever roadside attractions are available and practicalities like where to stop for gas. In other cases, an itinerary provides value by helping travellers get from Point A to Point B when the best way to do that is complex (Kota Kinabalu to Brunei by land was formerly a good example of this, though nowadays that article is less useful because the journey has become easier with a direct bus). I think Wikivoyage has room for many types of itinerary articles, some that are more about getting from A to B and others where the route is chosen simply to be enjoyable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I totally agree. Illinois Route 173 is currently a stub, so of course it's pretty useless at present. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] I think what is in scope for an itinerary should be defined in Wikivoyage:Itineraries, nor here. Anyway:
- The challenging and remote routes are certainly show that the route does not need a theme and sights to be in scope as itinerary. We also have articles for many European Routes ("E roads"), which aren't remote and don't seem to be intended to cover a specific theme, but rather to help with practicalities and roadside service and sights. A good example would be Highway 4 (Finland) (part of E75). E8 through Finland and Norway is actually scheduled for featuring. Those highways are indeed used for getting around, and to the extent there are sights on the way, that's a happy coincidence (although the articles do try to include them).
- –LPfi (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Monasteries, temples, and archaeological sites
[edit]I have noticed we have a significant number of articles that are dedicated to monasteries and other religious sites (as destinations in themselves). These sites are complexes with their own accommodation in many cases, but they are categorized inconsistently because they don't seem to meet the requirements of a city, park, or rural area. Examples include Guinsa (categorized as a "city"), Mount Athos (a rural area), Lumbini (a city), and Taizé Community (a rural area). There are also some sites which are on the fine line between monastery and "city", such as Mont Saint-Michel, Tengboche, Ki, and Ellora. I'm sure there are more of both of these types, but they are hard to find.
How should we categorize them? As rural areas? Parks? Cities? Or should we create a separate article type for them? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 17:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I just found another one, Mount Kailash, which is classified as an itinerary. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is surprising that we don't have a category for Wikivoyage:What is an article?#Exceptions says:
- "Cases for which exceptions are made include attractions, sites, or events that are far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article."
- But it provides no advice on how to categorize these articles. The examples it provides shows that we haven't thought this through. Ephesus and Pompeii ruins are treated as cities, as is the Disneyland amusement park. Choquequirao Inca ruins and Cedar Point amusement park are classed as parks. Ground Zero (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting. I could see archaeological ruins (which overlap with these religious sites in some occasions) as a potential category as well. To me, it makes more sense to categorize Ephesus and Pompeii as parks (or even some new category) rather than cities. Pompeii, however, is a complex one as there is a modern city of Pompei next to the ruins. One of the challenges with archaeological sites is that they are major tourist destinations in their own right but often don't have accommodations and therefore fail the sleep test.
- One potential argument is that it doesn't matter how an article is categorized because it's just a tag at the bottom of a page, so I'd like to address that in advance. Details for how to improve and upgrade an article (such as Wikivoyage:City article status) are written specifically for that type of article (such as how to write a travel guide to a city), and not for archaeological sites or monasteries. It's unclear whether poorly categorized article types should be created and how they should be addressed when there's no article type for them. I know when I started editing here, it took me a while to grasp the concept of WV:What is an article? because it isn't straightforward. I think the rural area article type filled a significant gap in our coverage and I remember how only a few years ago, barren and rocky islands in the middle of the ocean were categorized as "cities". We could take a further step to resolving that by establishing a consensus for categorization of monasteries and archaeological parks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 19:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is surprising that we don't have a category for Wikivoyage:What is an article?#Exceptions says:
- Most monasteries and temples are well handled as points of interest ("See"), and even quite large complexes could be adequately handled as a 3rd level head under ("See"). Some of the exceptions you cite seem like the authors have chosen good templates to use (Mont Saint-Michel, for example, works pretty well with the city template). Considering that the english WV has over 30K articles, I'm not sure that new article types need to be defined. (If they are, I might lobby to create a type for "archaeological site", which I've wanted on more than 20 occasions). Mrkstvns (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree regarding Mont Saint-Michel. It's unusual in that it does function like an entire town. I'm really looking more at those first four options as the biggest candidates for some kind of categorization (Mount Athos, etc.).
- I'm definitely leaning more toward an article type of its own for archaeological sites given above comments. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another monastery: Montserrat (Spain) (this one is labeled as a park, which it is within a park, but not a park of itself) --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would support creating another category, Sites, to include "exceptions such as attractions, sites, or events that are far away (too far for a day trip) from any city and would require an overnight stay, or so large and complex that the information about them would overload the city article."
- "Archaeological sites" is very specific, and it might lead some contributors to conclude that all archaeological sites can have articles, which is not our intent. Unless we have a discussion and change policy, a new category should apply only to the exceptions that we already allow. Ground Zero (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, that would be a good compromise to allow a category without deviating from the framework provided by existing policy. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I’d prefer status quo, no action, or failing that a broad term such as “site", "attraction” or "other" that could cover monasteries, palaces, theme and safari parks or whatever that might appear among the “other destinations” on the map.
- Looking at the examples quoted, most are well out of date. Guinsa, Mount Athos, Tengboche, Ki, Ellora and Mount Kailash are unsullied by dates; Disneyland almost so. Lumbini dates to 2015, Mount Saint-Michel to 2015, Choquequirao to 2019, and Cedar Point to 2016. Those entire pages need a whole heap of work and it’s not obvious that the unobtrusive category tag at the foot should be more important than that. Grahamsands (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with @Grahamsands. I'd prefer status quot (no action), but if a new template is needed, then an all-purpose "site", as described by @Ground Zero seems like the most useful approach. Mrkstvns (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Articles being out of date is a problem across Wikivoyage, and not one that is easily resolved. A lack of a way of classifying articles that are not a city, rural area, itinerary, region or topic is a problem that we can resolve. —The preceding comment was added by Ground Zero (talk • contribs)
- Solving the problem of outdated information is not trivial, but with the editor listing having timestamps now, it's much more approachable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Grahamsands I recently went to Universal Orlando and will update/confirm the older contents.
I will be using Universal Orlando page for demonstration on coming Sunday's newcomer workshop and politely asking everyone to avoid updating this page (so I actually have some outdated/missing info to work with on screen at the meeting!)OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- I ended up using Orlando to demonstrate. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Articles being out of date is a problem across Wikivoyage, and not one that is easily resolved. A lack of a way of classifying articles that are not a city, rural area, itinerary, region or topic is a problem that we can resolve. —The preceding comment was added by Ground Zero (talk • contribs)
- I agree with @Grahamsands. I'd prefer status quot (no action), but if a new template is needed, then an all-purpose "site", as described by @Ground Zero seems like the most useful approach. Mrkstvns (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looking at the examples quoted, most are well out of date. Guinsa, Mount Athos, Tengboche, Ki, Ellora and Mount Kailash are unsullied by dates; Disneyland almost so. Lumbini dates to 2015, Mount Saint-Michel to 2015, Choquequirao to 2019, and Cedar Point to 2016. Those entire pages need a whole heap of work and it’s not obvious that the unobtrusive category tag at the foot should be more important than that. Grahamsands (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
A question to those who don't want a new classification for the exceptions, repeating SelfieCity's original question, "How should we categorize them? As rural areas? Parks? Cities?" None of those really fits, which is why I propose a "Sites" classification. Ground Zero (talk) 13:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- We could probably classify them as "Teapots" for all the difference it makes to reader experience or WV taxonomy, but I'm fine with "Sites". But are we in accord that such categories are inclusive not exclusive? That's to say, a page may meet the criteria for several categories, we need flexibility for the great variety of topics, and we simply assign the one that makes most intuitive sense (the "duck test"). Exclusive would mean that anything that qualifies as a Site is disbarred from being anything else. I ask because I've seen "Rural area" treated in that way, leading to labelling even sillier than when those pages were classed as "cities". Grahamsands (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- We might benefit from a rule that says if you are writing about a teapot, and there's no Official Taxonomy of Teapots, then just pick the format that seems most relevant for what you plan to write, and then stop worrying about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the above, but @Grahamsands: if you are concerned with some of the articles that are being labeled rural areas, can you give some examples? I think we should address your concerns. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm curious too – I don't see any particular examples of miscategorized rural areas (other than the instances mentioned below, which I do not think are miscategorized), but I might be missing something. --SHB (t | c | m) 02:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with the above, but @Grahamsands: if you are concerned with some of the articles that are being labeled rural areas, can you give some examples? I think we should address your concerns. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- We might benefit from a rule that says if you are writing about a teapot, and there's no Official Taxonomy of Teapots, then just pick the format that seems most relevant for what you plan to write, and then stop worrying about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- We could probably classify them as "Teapots" for all the difference it makes to reader experience or WV taxonomy, but I'm fine with "Sites". But are we in accord that such categories are inclusive not exclusive? That's to say, a page may meet the criteria for several categories, we need flexibility for the great variety of topics, and we simply assign the one that makes most intuitive sense (the "duck test"). Exclusive would mean that anything that qualifies as a Site is disbarred from being anything else. I ask because I've seen "Rural area" treated in that way, leading to labelling even sillier than when those pages were classed as "cities". Grahamsands (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like GZ's suggestion of "site" as a category. Pashley (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't greatly care, but it's OK with me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Two rural examples are Eysturoy in Faroes and West Antarctica in wherever that is; the fallacy being that because they technically meet the criteria for "rural", they weren't allowed to remain as "regions". But if the principle is agreed, I'll simply adjust examples that I come across. I'm content with the concept and majority of pages marked "rural", but I foresaw similar nonsense developing over Sites. Grahamsands (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Eysturoy seems like the textbook definition of a rural area to me — low population density, with multiple small villages that don't constitute articles of their own, but when all together do. If those villages merit their own articles and you can create articles for each of them, I've no objection to making that a region article with those villages breadcrumbed within it.
- West Antarctica is a strange one, for sure. As it stands, nowhere is breadcrumbed underneath it, which typically is what meets our definition of a rural area as opposed to a region. Perhaps we need more clarity on that distinction, since it seems that isn't entirely clear.
- If these aren't rural areas, what article would you consider to be a rural area? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 14:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn’t think we intended to disqualify somewhere as a “region” by the absence of constituent places, be those WV subpages or real-life geography. If you do so argue, you end up concluding that the Moon is a rural area. The criterion is the “duck test” – does it look, walk and quack like one? West Antarctica is 3000 km by 3000 km so it looks, walks and quacks like a region. A soft rule might be that anything over 100 km is probably a region, under 10 km is probably a rural area / park / city etc, but in all cases use your duck sense (yes, I’ve heard of Yellowstone). Faroes Northern Islands contain the city of Klaksvik yet are supposedly “rural”. Eysturoy is of similar size (rural) yet bigger than Streymoy (region). Vágar looks rural enough to me, must it be re-classed just because Mykines is a sub-page? The duck test also helps distinguish sites, rural areas, parks, teapots and so on. Grahamsands (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- 100 sq km? That would make Anticosti not a rural article, when it clearly should be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- 100 km longest dimension, soft rule I stress. Anticosti at 160 km is longer than Prince Edward Island so my inclination would be "region", but if what it most quacks like to you is rural then stay with that. Grahamsands (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, total area has never been a factor in distinguishing between what is categorized as a "region" vs. a "rural area". If we want to discuss that and establish a consensus on that, that's okay, but the size of rural areas has never occurred to me, nor I suspect many others, who have created and categorized such articles up to this point. There is also no justification to move rural area articles to regions, when they have no lower-level articles beneath them, at this point given no discussion nor consensus has been established on this topic.
- Personally, I don't believe the size of a rural area should determine whether it meets that category. My opinion is that the distinction between a region and rural area should remain whether there are articles breadcrumbed beneath it, and I fear that adding a second angle of distinction between regions and rural areas would make categorizing said articles more confusing. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. The region article template and region article status are the pages that define whether having something as a region makes sense, and there being sub-articles is key. If the terminology confuses readers, then we should just hide it (I don't like the "X is a huge city" headnote). For places like West Antarctica or Los Angeles, we just need to treat exceptional places as exceptions, with whatever solutions that work in practice. –LPfi (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The region article template is sensible and I concur with it. It doesn't specify a size, it's driven by breadth of content, but it does not require that a region must have sub-pages - that I suggest is a misinterpretation that has crept in. It's clearly an unusual region that has no sub-structure, but collectively there must be quite a few of those, and WV can excel in going where commercial guides cannot. I am sensing agreement that West Antarctica is one example. That's our gut feeling or duck sense, which surely reflects its size? So somewhere between its 3000 km length and Eystremoy's 100 km is a tipping point.
- "Rural area" was intended as a base category like "city". A city may contain other cities or rural areas, so I guess a rural area could contain a smaller rural area, but it's a bit odd if it contains a whole city. Grahamsands (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- To get usable status, a region article has to have 'links to the region's major cities and other destinations (the most important of which must be at usable status or better)'. I read this as requiring such subarticles for usable status, and I think that a template choice that hinders the article from getting usable status is invalid (except for extraregions, disambiguation pages and such). –LPfi (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, per above, I would support clarifying in our guidelines that regions must have lower-level destinations breadcrumbed beneath them (even if it is just one). There seems to have been an oversight in the drafting of that article which can be fixed.
- I'd add that, as far as I'm aware, cities can't contain other cities — they must be made into huge city articles with the breadcrumbed articles converted into districts. However, I believe we may be treating Los Angeles as an exception to that? For instance should Los Angeles/Hollywood be a city or a district? It was recently moved by an editor, in good faith, to the latter, because our standard policy would dictate that it should be a district (an argument toward which I lean in favor). --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 16:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- While I generally think that regions should have lower-level destinations, I'm not sure that should be an absolute requirement in all cases. I think we should put some value on having similar levels. For example, if we have a country or state that we'd like to divide up like this:
- and three of the regions have cities and other obvious destinations, but the fourth is almost entirely uninhabited (e.g., due to inhospitable geography or legal restrictions), then I'd still call that fourth one a region, because it makes more sense to have the whole country divided into four equal regions than into three regions plus one rural area.
- I wouldn't expect this to come up very often, and I would not apply this to smaller areas, but if it does, e.g., with the first subdivisions of Antarctica, we should not worry too much about having a region with no destinations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe we should write an exception for cases such as Antarctica. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- To get usable status, a region article has to have 'links to the region's major cities and other destinations (the most important of which must be at usable status or better)'. I read this as requiring such subarticles for usable status, and I think that a template choice that hinders the article from getting usable status is invalid (except for extraregions, disambiguation pages and such). –LPfi (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes. The region article template and region article status are the pages that define whether having something as a region makes sense, and there being sub-articles is key. If the terminology confuses readers, then we should just hide it (I don't like the "X is a huge city" headnote). For places like West Antarctica or Los Angeles, we just need to treat exceptional places as exceptions, with whatever solutions that work in practice. –LPfi (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- 100 km longest dimension, soft rule I stress. Anticosti at 160 km is longer than Prince Edward Island so my inclination would be "region", but if what it most quacks like to you is rural then stay with that. Grahamsands (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- 100 sq km? That would make Anticosti not a rural article, when it clearly should be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn’t think we intended to disqualify somewhere as a “region” by the absence of constituent places, be those WV subpages or real-life geography. If you do so argue, you end up concluding that the Moon is a rural area. The criterion is the “duck test” – does it look, walk and quack like one? West Antarctica is 3000 km by 3000 km so it looks, walks and quacks like a region. A soft rule might be that anything over 100 km is probably a region, under 10 km is probably a rural area / park / city etc, but in all cases use your duck sense (yes, I’ve heard of Yellowstone). Faroes Northern Islands contain the city of Klaksvik yet are supposedly “rural”. Eysturoy is of similar size (rural) yet bigger than Streymoy (region). Vágar looks rural enough to me, must it be re-classed just because Mykines is a sub-page? The duck test also helps distinguish sites, rural areas, parks, teapots and so on. Grahamsands (talk) 16:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Two rural examples are Eysturoy in Faroes and West Antarctica in wherever that is; the fallacy being that because they technically meet the criteria for "rural", they weren't allowed to remain as "regions". But if the principle is agreed, I'll simply adjust examples that I come across. I'm content with the concept and majority of pages marked "rural", but I foresaw similar nonsense developing over Sites. Grahamsands (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't greatly care, but it's OK with me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
What are the similarities between Disneyland Paris and Taizé Community? The principal similarity is that visitors to both sites go from their homes to the site in question, potentially spend several days there and then return home. The principal differences between both sites - I won't even try to list them
From the point of Wikivoyage, both should include directions on how to get there, details of costs an outline of expected accommodation, food and what to expect at the site. These explanations should be oriented towards the expected traveller. When writing the article on Taizé, I assumed that the traveller was coming, possibly as part of a group, from a neighbouring country in Western Europe. In the case of Disneyland, I would assume that most travellers were already in Paris, though I would make a point of mentioning how travellers could get there from elsewhere in Western Europe (direct train etc). The structure of both articles should therefore be similar and indeed the rural area and city travel guides suited Taizé and Disneyland well. I therefore do not see the point in having more categories for monasteries, temples or archaeological sites. Martinvl (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree. What could be done is to write a guideline for such articles, be it one for "site" articles or one for archaeological sites, one for monasteries and one for amusement parks. That or those guidelines should discuss the merits of creating a See or Do listing or choosing between article templates. –LPfi (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the proposal is going anywhere, but I'll add another "city" for consideration: Mount Ostrog. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another: Mount Popa. I don't see how we can call these cities in good faith — calling them parks would be an improvement, but even better would be a specific categorization: even "temple" if "sites" is too broad? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mount Sinai is another "city". I propose that we call these sacred sites. I think that's clear in meaning and scope. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that solves anything, really. Before creation of the rural area template, we called large expanses of wilderness with some small villages scattered around "cities". Calling monasteries "cities" is no worse. The rural area template wasn't created just because of the common meaning of the word, but because the issues in a rural area are different from those of a city, e.g. information on getting around is essential (that isn't yet reflected in the status criteria, but it should be – and it is in the template). I see no major problem in the "city" categorisation of those monasteries, while I think that they differ quite a lot from Taizé. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is the main annoyance that the box says "This city travel guide to Mount Popa is an outline..." at the bottom of the page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- That, but also (for me) what LPfi says about differences in template, although I have the opposite stance on this. I think monasteries should have different headings from cities. "Drink" is typically for nightclubs and dances — this heading doesn't make sense for a monastery, which is somewhere between an itinerary (often with an extended remote route for entry) and a city (with some basic services). --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- While there seldom is nightlife in monasteries, there may be issues about alcohol, and there may be places where you go for a break in your visit over a cup of tea or another drink. See e.g. Taizé#Drink. The verb doesn't tell that the section needs to be about nightlife – it seldom is in park articles. And why cannot the extended route be described in Get in? The issues can be explained in a guideline without touching the city templates.
- My main worry is that a new "sacred sites" wouldn't suite all sacred sites.
- Start by writing the guideline, include instructions on what should go into different sections, and only when it is obvious that also the heading structure (or status criteria) need to be different, only then should we create a new template.
- –LPfi (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hello all, I have created Wikivoyage:Sacred site article template. I looked at existing articles such as Mount Sinai and Mount Athos and added a "Talk" section, a "Respect" section, a "Restrictions" subsection, and different "Sleep" subsections based on the differences between those articles and park/city articles.
- To me, this showed that there are significant differences between sacred sites and other types of articles, while maintaining the overall layout of a Wikivoyage travel article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't object to a "Sites" template, but why "sacred"? Why wouldn't we use a template that could work for amusement parks, ruins of cities and other non-sacred sites, too? We also need to be careful about a slippery slope. Will someone propose a "village" template because villages are not cities? (By the way, I still can't edit the pub from my iPhone, as the "Reply" button doesn't work and there's no offer to edit any sections. Is someone trying to fix that?) Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I thought I had seen opposition to a broader sites category in this thread, but I don't have anything against creating a new draft template for sites for review. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think there are issues that are common for most sacred sites but more seldom apply to archaeological sites. I have not decided whether we need a separate article category for "sites" or "sacred sites", but I think that a guideline on sacred sites is useful, be it in the form of a template or in free form. If we combine sacred sites with archaeological ones and amusement parks, we will need a lot of "for x …, for y …" or "if [criterium mostly true only for sacred sites] …". –LPfi (talk) 09:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't object to a "Sites" template, but why "sacred"? Why wouldn't we use a template that could work for amusement parks, ruins of cities and other non-sacred sites, too? We also need to be careful about a slippery slope. Will someone propose a "village" template because villages are not cities? (By the way, I still can't edit the pub from my iPhone, as the "Reply" button doesn't work and there's no offer to edit any sections. Is someone trying to fix that?) Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- The bit about "This city travel guide to Mount Popa is an outline..." can be fixed in the existing template. We'd just need a switch to use a generic word (or to omit it altogether): "This destination travel guide to Mount Popa is an outline..." or "This travel guide to Mount Popa is an outline...". This is not difficult (i.e., I could probably code it myself, though I'd have to go look up how to do it). The same thing could be added to all of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would support the latter, "This travel guide to Mount Popa is an outline..." It's easy to understand. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- To be clear, I support this only for city articles — I think the other categories' templates are OK as they are. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I too think that removing our internal terminology on cities and huge cities from view in mainspace would be an improvement. (Editing them is a bit convoluted, as the text is got through {{stbox}}.)
- A related issue is where the links from the templates should go. I have found them utterly unhelpful. As a new editor here I was severely confused by where they lead me (I was looking for section and status descriptions, while the links onward to the relevant pages were well-hidden), later I just ignore those links and try to remember the relevant page names instead.
- –LPfi (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Selfie, are you sure that you don't want this for other destinations, too? It seems to me that someone with your username is complaining at the top of the thread that there are articles saying things like:
- This rural area travel guide to Taizé Community is...
- This itinerary to Mount Kailash is...
- This park travel guide to Montserrat is...
- Wouldn't you rather have them all fixed? The fix that I have in mind would default to current behavior. {{usablecity}} would work exactly the way it does now. We would just add a switch that would suppress the name if you manually put in something like
{{usablecity|suppress=yes}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)- I certainly don't oppose fixing those as well; I simply think those templates are adequate as they are. I should've clarified my view on that.
- As for the three you've suggested, especially Taizé and Kailash, it's still not clear to me whether those will remain in their current categories. I'd hope that rural area articles and itineraries more generally are made into "pure" categories in which those links within the templates are informative for all articles within those respective categories.
- City categorization, however, seems it will remain applied to small towns, suburbs, and villages for a long time. So I think cities are a little different from the other types.
- Also, I didn't realize this was to be an opt-in, as opposed to all articles within the category. I'm okay with that but it clarifies my view of your proposal. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Selfie, are you sure that you don't want this for other destinations, too? It seems to me that someone with your username is complaining at the top of the thread that there are articles saying things like:
- To be clear, I support this only for city articles — I think the other categories' templates are OK as they are. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would support the latter, "This travel guide to Mount Popa is an outline..." It's easy to understand. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- That, but also (for me) what LPfi says about differences in template, although I have the opposite stance on this. I think monasteries should have different headings from cities. "Drink" is typically for nightclubs and dances — this heading doesn't make sense for a monastery, which is somewhere between an itinerary (often with an extended remote route for entry) and a city (with some basic services). --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 02:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- Mount Sinai is another "city". I propose that we call these sacred sites. I think that's clear in meaning and scope. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another: Mount Popa. I don't see how we can call these cities in good faith — calling them parks would be an improvement, but even better would be a specific categorization: even "temple" if "sites" is too broad? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the proposal is going anywhere, but I'll add another "city" for consideration: Mount Ostrog. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)