Talk:Algeciras

Hi, I'm not entirely sure about the recent edit to this page in order to make it comply with the Manual of Style, and to label it a stub. Algeciras is not a tiny town, but from a travellers perspective it has very little to hold your interest. 99 percent of people to the city are using it as a gateway to Morocco, and nothing else. The vast majority of tourists come in by bus or train, and then leave on the next (hourly) ferry out to Africa. For this reason the areas of importance are the bus station, the train station and the main coastal road where you can buy ferry tickets and walk to the ferry terminal.

Even the most detailed guidebooks on Anadlucia don't give Algeciras more than 3/4 of a page.

So when I copied and pasted the 'small town' article template to start the page, I combined the Eat, Drink and Sleep sections into one heading (funnily enough called: Eat, Drink and Sleep). This is because all the accommodation, food and drinking options used by travellers are on the one road, Avenidos de la Marina, and they are all much the muchness in terms of quality and price. Most travellers would not even use this info because they rarely stop long enough to eat, sleep or go out in Algeciras.

So I think that as it stands now (well, perhaps with addition of a map, but I'll wait for the templates to be drawn up for those...) the page has enough information to help 99 percent of people who arrive there and need to get to Africa. So for that reason I don't think it should really be called a 'stub'. It'd be nice to have one or two accommodation recommendations, but very few users will actually want them, and even then there is plenty to choose from within a small area.

Assuming that the page isn't really a stub, then this raises the question: does Wikivoyage want to have seperate headings for Eat, Drink and Sleep even when each section only has one sentence or two? I combined them into the one heading because I thought that Wikivoyage's goal was to have a print-friendly format, and combining those three headings into one for small towns made sense. This is the same approach taken by the major guidebook publishers in similar circumstances.

Perhaps in these situations, sections could be combined, and if a lot of information is added down the road, then they could be split up again.

Cheers,

(WT-en) Allyak 17:09, Aug 6, 2004 (EDT)

It's a great start to the article, thanks! Keep in mind that we want this guide to be useful for all travellers, not just tourists. So if someone was visiting, for example, the new in-laws in Algeciras, one might need a hotel. So we really would like one or two bits of hotel and eats. Also, the article says that many folks come in for an hour or two. Is there really nothing for them to see?

Secondly, the stub message just implies that the article is incomplete. Keep in mind two things: First, we really appreciate any and all work you've done, and we are not trying to imply that you haven't done enough! Second, just because it's a stub doesn't mean you have to finish it. Maybe next time somebody goes there they'll add it themselves. Feel free to go work on whichever article you want to work on; it'll be more fun for you that way!

And thanks again for the article! -- (WT-en) Colin 17:56, 6 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Hi Colin,

Seriously, there's nothing to see but smoke stacks and cranes ... it's that kinda town. :) I take your point on helping all travellers, though, but it still leaves one question unanswered, and raises a new one:

1. As I asked before, is there an official WikiTravel policy on combining multiple headings when it makes sense, there is very little information under each heading (and there is not likely to be any in the future) to aid presentation? Having a big heading with only sentence looks a bit poxy, and makes a section look incomplete, even if its not. Some villages, for instance, only have two bars, both of which double as restaurants and hotels.
2. When is an article determined to be finished for the purposes of 'destubbification' (to coin a phrase)? You say that a stub means an article is incomplete, but when is a Wikivoyage article ever complete? New info can always be added, no matter how comprehensive an article is. When do we draw the line and say an article is 'complete enough' to be destubbed?

Both of these questions relate to the article I've just added on Montejaque because a) I think it makes sense to combine the Eat and Drink headings as there are only 6 or so bars and restaurants in the village, and most act as both, and b) I think its complete.

Cheers,

(WT-en) Allyak 18:43, Aug 6, 2004 (EDT)

There's no way that I'd consider "plenty of cheap cafes and restaurants" as "complete". Names, addresses, phone numbers, identification of each place have to be there. I'd strongly recommend looking over Minot for a small city that's at about the right level of completeness -- perhaps even too much.

As for combining headings: I'd really rather have spaces for someone else to fill in later than have an "Eat, Drink, and Sleep" section with one person's opinion ("Nothing to see here, move along.") Collapsing headings is a way to shut off further contributions.

Lastly, for stubs: I think a guide passes from stub to not-stub when it treats its subject completely. This doesn't mean that the article is finished for all time, but that it covers the topic.

For a destination guide, I think the metric should be: could you use the destination guide as the sole tool for travel? Could you arrive in, and survive in, the destination for an appropriate amount of time (one day, two weeks, six months) and enjoy the sites and activities at the destination? We don't have a whole lot of destination guides in Wikivoyage that are at this stage of completeness, but I'd like to think that we will have a lot more at this time next year. --(WT-en) Evan 02:40, 7 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Start a discussion about Algeciras

Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikivoyage the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve Algeciras.

Start a discussion