Talk:Nidaros Path

vfd

Nidaros Path

Per the one year rule for itineraries. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• What does this need to be usable, other than a map? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  It lacks the proper formatting for an itinerary per Template:Itinerary skeleton. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I think the formatting of itinerary articles is more fluid than that of other articles, but there's always some flexibility. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

    This is more or less just the Understand. The various routes are not described enough to be followed. They would each need a list of intermediate destinations and descriptions on how to get between them. There is no Understand, and a "complete" Understand is required for usable, in addition to the list of stops. I'd like to have a good Prepare and at least some attractions along the routes pointed out, although that isn't formally required. –LPfi (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. The roads are historical pilgrim routes which can be described in detail. /Yvwv (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep. Official routes, not personal itinerary. –LPfi (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, though the route badly needs clarification. It needs to conform to the Wikivoyage:Itinerary article template. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • As it is not one, but several itineraries, I think we should not force the normal template. Anything mentioned in the itinerary template should be there somewhere, but whether Prepare and Get in should be given individually or summarised in common sections depends on the differences. I suppose they could be given at the start as in the template, but I think also an intro for each route is needed. Those who know the routes should make the decisions – or just add enough information for others to determine. –LPfi (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Would reclassification as a travel topic make sense? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 17:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It could be a travel topic, but it is much more useful as an (assortment of) itineraries – only they were written. As of now, it is still useful for the general description, the pointers to other sources, and pointers to our articles on some of the places involved. –LPfi (talk) 11:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@SelfieCity, LPfi: Would the format of Helsinki itineraries work better? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

What is foremost needed is more content. Ideally we'd have an itinerary for each of the routes, and a common introduction on the current page. If there is some improvement that can be done without actually writing the itineraries, it should of course be done. What is the essential difference as you see it, other than that the Helsinki itineraries are complete? –LPfi (talk) 07:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Helsinki itineraries is more properly formatted, while Nidaros Path isn't really formatted that way. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could fix that. I don't see how to make it better, otherwise I had done it. –LPfi (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Will do it tomorrow (this message is sent at 23:57 AEST, so that will probably be three minutes) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Looks good now, and now I vote to keep this page, and I think this can be closed. (might do it after I get a little bit of sleep) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 14:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, that looks fine to me also. –LPfi (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Outcome: Kept, as per substantial improvements. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)