Talk:Yorke Peninsula

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Big clean up required[edit]

This region article is full of listings that need to go down into their respective towns. I've added the Template:Movetocity throughout. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ground Zero (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :-) Looking much better now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of highlights the failing of the tag system. For 4½ years, readers have been seeing these tags advertising the article’s failings, and nothing was done about it. Tagging an article so the "someone else" will clean it up doesn't seem to work in a project with a small contributor base. Ground Zero (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ground Zero: From what I've seen, it doesn't always work on the English Wikipedia as well. So if it doesn't always work on the English Wikipedia, it'd definitely not work on a project about a 1000 times smaller.
On another note, I've nearly finished upgrading all of these towns to usable, just Minlaton, Port Vincent and Stansbury left, in which is one of the 50 or so Australian articles needing TLC which I should be finished upgrading all Australian articles to usable before this summer (which was about 450 or so, in which about a third of them were left in a state of "I'm just going to dump this shit and let someone else clean it" sort of state, hence why we went from 850 ish Australian articles to about 700). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! The problem really boils down to that slacker User:Someone Else, who just isn't doing the work that is expected of them. Wikivoyage would be in much shape if they would get cracking on their to-do list. Ground Zero (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's worse when someone does that for uninhabited places, where Someone else would have no idea on how to improve it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Someone Else isn't always there...
The way I figure it, we have on average a hundred contributors a year who add a large amount of useful content to the project, each improving an average of ten articles (from the prolific ones such as you, SHB or GZ, who each might upgrade a hundred articles in a year, to some who just improve one article). We have 30,000 articles, roughly, so it would by my math take thirty years to reach all articles. The problem is that not equal attention is paid everywhere, so it is likely much more than that. So far, in nearly 20 years of the project, we're maybe a third of the way there, so that seems to show my math isn't far wrong, as we've had periods of more prolific (first few years) and less prolific (2010-2012 and 2015-2016) editing patterns. That's not to mention the information that gets out of date. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting and somewhat depressing math. That says a lot about how welcoming we should be of new (stub) article creation.
On another issue, I am thinking that it would be better to have these maintenance tags on talk pages, where they will be seen by active contributors, rather than cluttering up the articles. I don't think that new readers will start moving listings from region articles to city articles because of a tag. That's really the work of active contributors. @SHB2000, SelfieCity: What do you think? Ground Zero (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also feel that maintenance tags would be better off going on talk pages. Not only does this not fix anything (and this has been shown time and time again), it gives a terrible look and makes voy look like a useless resource (although I'm opposed to stub creation in the first place and personally feel that useless stubs should just be deleted instead of keeping it because there's civilization there).
And I also don't think losing PetScan's ability to no longer detect these tags is a big loss as well. And same with the translation tags (a typical example is Cycling in France), as whoever places that tag almost never does the translation, and same with districts as well. The only tag I'd even oppose to removing is {{copyvio}} which is quite a big concern. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually, I do have plans to get all articles in Oceania usable, in which once I've finished Australia (maybe PNG or NC after). Then there's also the issue with that often smaller countries such as the Solomon Islands don't get much coverage.
In saying that, it's quite easy to get an article to usable hence why I've been able to upgrade about 400 or so articles this year. And even for some articles of like Myall Lakes National Park which became a guide article within 24 hours from creation. All it does to get an article usable is to have the most prominent attractions + an eat and a sleep which is not hard at all. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above comments. Regarding the usability of continent articles, I noticed Africa was upgraded from outline status to usable status. I wonder if the same upgrade could be applied to South America.
As for the above math, I'm not including travel topics in the total, as I'm only thinking about our attempts to get destination articles to usable. I'd add that the numbers aren't as bad as they sound: many of the outline articles are small towns that are rarely visited by tourists anyway. When you focus on major travel destinations, such as (real) cities that travelers regularly visit, I've found that most of them are usable, and quite a few are guide.
I experimented at User:SelfieCity/North Florida article status (I've created a few new articles I haven't added to the map). Before my recent article upgrades, there were fewer articles at usable or guide status (usable articles don't show on the mapframe as you must click on an orange marker to see all orange markers). The old status ranking might look awful from a WV-contributor perspective, but those usable articles are for the most part all the important travel destinations. Tourists are unlikely to visit a place such as Marianna, so while that article is useful, the vast majority of people will be going to St. Augustine, Jacksonville, or Gainesville (Florida), so they're going to read decent articles. The goal is, simply, more complete coverage by getting more small towns to usable to give tourists the chance to visit them. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with you, except for parks though. Budj Bim is an example of a UNESCO World heritage site, and yet it has no content in it apart from a little bit in the understand section (I may work on it, although the fact that it has no content isn't motivating me in any way or form). Another one, Kosciuszko National Park, which before I expanded, was a mere outline (given this is one of my most favourite parks, I may eventually try get this into a star article) and is also one of the most visited parks in the state. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that parks are the exception. I thought that as I wrote my comment. What are your thoughts on South America's article status? --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 23:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be usable, given nearly all the country articles are usable. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. All continent articles are now at usable status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. All continent articles are now at usable status. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice :) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no South America doesn't qualify as nearly all of the country articles are outlines, with only French Guiana and Suriname usable. I have put it back to outline. I would encourage people to double check these details before upgrading such a high-profile article, and also to hold discussions on more relevant and prominent talk pages.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thought Brazil, Argentina and Venezuela were usable as well, but it seems I was having deja vu. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realised that when I was checking the list, I got the outlines and usables mixed up (hence why I thought FG and Suriname were outlines) SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Easily done... --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]