From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Region article or city article?[edit]

Is this really supposed to be a region article? It currently contains no city or other destination articles, and it has "See", "Buy", "Eat", "Drink", and "Sleep" listings. This makes it look a lot more like a "rural area" city article than a region article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Corrected. All islands are regions now with the most important villages and cities listed. And as per previous discussion, regions can contain such listings, especially when not located in a city. Ceever (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, but currently this "region" doesn't contain any city articles. Does it make sense from a traveller's perspective to divide it up into separate articles for each village? If not, then this should probably be kept as a city article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Same thing with Saaremaa and Hiiumaa, which I see you just changed to "region" articles, but which still don't contain any city or other destination articles. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Are we really discussing this right now? Is it that hard to accept something for once?
  1. We have many region articles with an overwhelming majority of cities without city article. Just head over to Brazil to convince youself. This never posed a problem. Why does it for an island suddenly?
  2. Clearly, a large island like Saaremaa with one city and many villages represent the meaning of a region, IMHO, far closer than that of a city.
  3. Last but not least, these region will develop, and just because currently not many editors have been there and the quality of our articles is not the best, does not mean the definition of things itself needs to be doubted.
Why not just appreciate the work I just put into these articles, acknowledging your valid point in the beginning, and making the articles more WV conform? Why always criticising?
Ceever (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
If you're familiar with Kihnu and you think it makes sense to divide it up into several city articles, then that's fine—we can add links to the "Villages" section and start moving the listings into the individual city articles. I've never been to Estonia, so I don't know for sure, but it's hard for me to imagine that this small island with about 500 people should be divided into five articles on Wikivoyage. Do you really think that would make sense from a traveller's perspective? If so, I won't object, and I'm glad we'll be able to make this a more useful travel guide. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think one article is enough for Kihnu.
The "problem" is that in Wikivoyage jargon a region article is supposed to have cities, parks, other regions and such below it; otherwise it can't be called a region even if the place isn't urban at all. Bottom-level articles are supposed to be called cities, or alternatively, national parks. In my opinion this is non-intuitive, but it's sadly how it is. (If we'd follow the rules, for example our regions of Antarctica should really be city or park articles instead of regions :D) ϒpsilon (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Anticosti, an island which is over 160 km long (pop. 250) has a WV:Small city article template. A region which merits only one article should be given a city article template even though, as Ypsilon says, it is obviously not actually a city. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)