Template talk:Districts discussion
Add topicOptional parameters:
1: section name for districts discussion on talk page
2: name of the main article (to refer to main city from its district article)
Created per: Project:Huge city article template#Districts Discussion template.
Splitting into districts vs Defining districts
[edit]Any objections if I change the text a bit, from "splitting into districts is in progress" to "defining districts is in progress"? It sounds more precise in my opinion, and it's more appropriate for the cities which already have district articles, but district borders are still vague--like it's in Barcelona, for example. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 14:44, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
- All sounds good to me! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 20:04, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
- Done. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 02:43, 11 September 2007 (EDT)
Unusuable on mobile
[edit]This template is unusable on mobile.
mw:Recommendations_for_mobile_friendly_articles_on_Wikimedia_wikis#Making_page_issues_(ambox_templates)_mobile_friendly as some guidance on how to fix that. While it partially shows when clicking it I cannot view it in full as I can on other wikis.
Likely needs some upstream template changes. Jdlrobson (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Jdlrobson: I'm sorry! Could you post a screenshot of what seems broken for you, or explain further? On my iPhone SE using either Chrome or Safari, the template appears in an abbreviated version, which I can tap to expand into a full-screen view (with complete text and a link to the the talk page):
- If you gave me some details on your experience, or on what mobile device and browser you're using, I could try to take a look at the template. –Nucleosynth (t c) 04:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Also apologies if editing your comment is bad form, but I'm pretty certain you were referring to that page title at mediawikiwiki instead of a redlink here, so I edited it. –Nucleosynth (t c) 04:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- And now I've read that document, and I believe successfully implemented the advice it gives. Please take a look and let me know? –Nucleosynth (t c) 04:48, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
- Also apologies if editing your comment is bad form, but I'm pretty certain you were referring to that page title at mediawikiwiki instead of a redlink here, so I edited it. –Nucleosynth (t c) 04:19, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
.png)
Position of discussion tag in article
[edit]Often it takes years to resolve discussions about districts as editors don't have sufficient local knowledge to sort out districts within a city, lose interest, or leave Wikivoyage. The discussion tag is an internal, administrative issue for Wikivoyagers, and should not be one of the first things that readers see when they arrive at an article.
The template documentation page provides this instruction: "This template should be placed at the top of a city page...."
Template:Merge and Template:Regions discussion, on the other hand, tell us to place those similar templates at the bottom of the article.
I propose to bring this template in line with similar administrative templates, and put the traveller first, by changing the instruction so that that it appears at the bottom of the article instead of the top. Ground Zero (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Here are the discussions that are underway.
- Ahmedabad: discussion started: Sep 2018
- Beirut: discussion started: Sep 2018, dormant since: July 2019
- Charlotte: discussion started: Aug 2017
- George Town: discussion started: Sep 2018
- Kolkata: discussion started: Apr 2021
- Lisbon: discussion started: Nov 2017, dormant since: June 2019
- New Taipei: discussion started: Dec 2017, dormant since: June 2019
- Osaka: discussion started: Sep 2011, dormant since: Sep 2018
- Quezon City: discussion started: Aug 2018, dormant since: June 2020
- Richmond: discussion started: Nov 2015, dormant since: June 2020
- Ground Zero (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. The bottom of the page would be a better place to put it. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- While I'd usually agree with most of Ground Zero's proposals, I have to say, I prefer this one to be on the top. This is because some readers might know it and instantly contribute to the discussion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose it's possible that a random reader would arrive in and jump into a discussion on the talk page, but it seems extreme unlikely. I think people generally read for a while first, then make a few minor edits here and there before they become active contributors and particate in discussions. Making Wikivoyage a good experience for readers is investing in getting more contributor down the road. Ground Zero (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- In cases where work is mostly complete, I agree we should move the templates to the bottom of the article. However, if active discussion is taking place and work is being done on the article, the notice serves as a message to travelers that some aspects of the city's article are not complete. In these cases where the discussion is dormant, I agree with Ground Zero that we should move the template to the end of the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- @SelfieCity: how long would be a reasonable time to wait after discussion peters out before moving the template to the bottom of the page? Ground Zero (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Probably two months, also, I'm changing my vote to bottom, after your reply. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Two months is reasonable. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- Probably two months, also, I'm changing my vote to bottom, after your reply. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 00:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- @SelfieCity: how long would be a reasonable time to wait after discussion peters out before moving the template to the bottom of the page? Ground Zero (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
- In cases where work is mostly complete, I agree we should move the templates to the bottom of the article. However, if active discussion is taking place and work is being done on the article, the notice serves as a message to travelers that some aspects of the city's article are not complete. In these cases where the discussion is dormant, I agree with Ground Zero that we should move the template to the end of the article. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose it's possible that a random reader would arrive in and jump into a discussion on the talk page, but it seems extreme unlikely. I think people generally read for a while first, then make a few minor edits here and there before they become active contributors and particate in discussions. Making Wikivoyage a good experience for readers is investing in getting more contributor down the road. Ground Zero (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- While I'd usually agree with most of Ground Zero's proposals, I have to say, I prefer this one to be on the top. This is because some readers might know it and instantly contribute to the discussion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:14, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. The bottom of the page would be a better place to put it. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
There are three options on the table then. Here is how I understand the view expressed so far. Please correct or changes these "votes" as you wish.
- Option A (no change): "This template should be placed at the top of a city page...."
- Option B: "This template should be placed at the bottom of a city page...."
- Option C: "This template should be placed at the top of a city page, and moved to the bottom if discussion is dormant for more than two months."
Votes :
- @SelfieCity: C
- @Nelson Ricardo 2500: B
- @SHB2000: C
- Ground Zero: B, then C
Ground Zero (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, fixed my vote. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 13:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm willing to accept C, as it is an improvement over the status quo. It's not my preference, but I won't argue against the consensus. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- If we don't get any more votes in a couple of days, C does seem to be a compromise that would be acceptable to all who gave participated. Ground Zero (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm willing to accept C, as it is an improvement over the status quo. It's not my preference, but I won't argue against the consensus. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. Ground Zero (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2021 (UTC)