Template talk:Needsimprovement

Experimental

As this is still an experimental template, and there's no consensus to use it, this template should not yet be added to more articles. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I support at least trying out this template. Right now when questionable articles are created (those that might be better handled as redirects or that are potential page creation vandalism) people tend to either jump on the creator or lose track of them, so this template provides a way to track those articles while giving the author room to develop things. My preference would be to not have any text displayed in the article and just use this template as a tool for tracking, but I don't feel strongly on the matter. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The wording is flawed. Deletion is not a feasible outcome if the topic is a real place (and if it's not a real place, it should be VfD'd). Powers ^(talk) 20:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that this template is based on the idea that we will do something with empty skeleton articles. My first instinct in the discussion on Wikivoyage_talk:Votes_for_deletion was to support the concept of this template, to give new users a chance to expand before one or us comes along and redirects it. The simple truth however, is that we have no consensus or policy that says that anything should be done with empty articles about eligible destinations at this moment, so tagging articles only because they are empty is pointless. We would not tag articles that don't meet the "what's an article" criteria: those are just redirected on sight. So we would only tag articles that could become a complete article, but are currently empty. Current policy is that those should be made stubs/outlines, awaiting development. Policy is not to delete them and also not to redirect them. We've been having several discussions regarding skeletons lately, on vfd, in the Pub. It's clear that many of our regulars see harm in the empty outlines - so we might just need to have a proper, focused discussion about that. Maybe we should change policy to include some minimum threshold for new articles: I think I would support that. I know some Wikipedia languages have rules like "an article should mention at least 3 things about its topic to be a stub". I could see us change policy along those lines, but until we do, the question is what this template can really tell us. So I'm not against this template in principle, but it's too early to roll it out widely. JuliasTravels (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Putting aside the question of whether mostly-empty skeletons are a good thing or not, I would like to be able to tag articles in two very specific instances that currently fall within existing policy:

• A user is creating multiple mostly-empty skeletons about tiny places that looks likely to be just page creation vandalism. In this case, if the article isn't further developed or if it becomes obvious that the user is a troll then the articles should be deleted.
• A new article has been created about a place that might be better covered in a different article. An example would be a place like Ladera Heights, where some discussion may be necessary to figure out that the article is better handled as part of our existing Los Angeles/South Central district.

At the moment we either harass a new editor to justify the edits or lose track of articles that match the above criteria, neither of which are good options. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought we delete pcv articles regardless. Powers ^(talk) 02:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not usually immediately obvious when someone is a page creation vandal. Often they may edit as an IP or create only one or two articles. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't always agree on who is a pcv vandal. I was overruled at least once. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I’m not ready to support this until I see more guidelines or clarity about what circumstances it will be used in and, more importantly, when it can be removed. From what I see of the discussions taking place right now, opinions in the community seem to range from empty skeletons are fine to an outline needs to be well on the road to usable before it should be kept. I think it will be difficult to apply this template consistently if the community doesn’t agree on how skeletons should be handled first.

I’m also concerned, based on the wording of the first sentence of the template documentation that there is an element of needing to justify a new article. I’m perhaps a bit sensitive about this since someone put a merge tag on what will probably be a 2-3 month project five hours after I started, but it was very off-putting and demotivating. My impression over the years has never been that new articles need to be justified and I hope we’re not thinking of moving to that position now.

I think JuliasTravels idea of a minimum threshold is interesting and worth exploring if we’re going to move forward with this template. I’m also fine with Ryan’s proposed uses. I think they’re both good steps to developing more clear guidelines about the use of this template and avoiding the whole road of justifying edits. -Shaundd (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree on holding off on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

An alternative might be to expand the criteria for {{stub}} to include empty skeletons for places that may not meet WV:What is an article?. If the article is expanded it would be promoted to outline or usable, and if not we would have an easy way to track it and decide whether it's potential page creation vandalism, a candidate for merge/redirect, or a valid article that was mis-tagged. My concern with doing nothing is that we now seem to have multiple active page creation vandals, and it would be useful to have a way to keep track of mostly-empty skeletons for tiny towns in the Australian Outback or in the backwoods of Maine to see if they are given minimal development by well-intentioned editors, or if they are simply the result of a bored kid looking up a tiny town and clicking on a "city" template link. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The empty skeletons of Australian articles concern me, as they really reflect badly on the quality of the larger project... whatever their origin, it would be good to identify them as items requiring improvement - at least it shows we recognise that we have a pool of potentially improvable articles - after further discusssion to clarify guidelines JarrahTree (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Is the issue only the wording right now? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

We already have a way to identify articles as items requiring improvement: our status templates. Why do we need another one? Powers ^(talk) 00:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Do we have one that identifies blank articles, that is has outline section titles but no listings? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

No, but in terms of the article needing improvement, right now an empty outline article is no different than an outline with (some) content. Ryan's suggestion could work for me as well, but if others (besides Shaund) are interested, we could start a discussion on establishing a minimum threshold for new articles. That would be a low threshold, but just enough to eliminate the pure click and go creations. JuliasTravels (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Minimum content may be the way to go. I would say basically there should be at least one listing that is of interest to a visitor to the location; can be a sight, an activity or a restaurant or hotel. Articles like the one created today, Cookham should really just be a sentence in the region page with a red link to the article. Again the idea is to tag such article to give the originator or someone else a week or two to enhance the article further rather than instantly slapping a merge or delete tag straight away on it or leaving it and forgetting it like the 150+ empty outline articles we have at the moment. --Traveler100 (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, if we were to establish such a minimum threshold, this tag would be useful to keep track without discouraging new editors. I'll say that in practice, I don't suspect we'll be deleting many articles, as it's easy enough for any of us to include one or two listings to make it meet the criteria. But still, it would probably address everyone's concerns. @Powers, I'd like to know what you think, as you're one of the advocates for outlines to stay even without content. Would you consider supporting a few minor requirements, like including at least one relevant listings for new outlines? JuliasTravels (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I’m good with a minimum number of listings, one or two works for me. What’s going to happen though if the article stays as a blank or nearly blank skeleton? Ideally, I guess there should be some discussion about whether the destination warrants it’s own article and decide how to move forward. Practically, are we going to do this for all current skeletons and new ones that come along?

I’ll ping ChubbyWimbus, Andrewssi2 and PrinceGloria for their thoughts too, as they were active in some of the other discussions. -Shaundd (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

For now, I don't think there will be consensus to do anything to largely empty outlines about eligible destinations. We can set up standards for new articles, and require at least one or a few facts or listings, but once an article has that, and provided it's about a destination that warrants an article, it would stay as it is (in line with policy). For articles that clearly do not warrant an article (like tiny hamlets or attractions), we don't need to change anything. Any user can inform the creator of our "what's an article"-policy and just redirect in that case. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Either remove on sight or add content if a legit destination. Slapping templates just makes WV look uglier and doesn't help. Just my 3 cents as I've been pinged. Sorry for not being appreciative enough of the effort :/ PrinceGloria (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I fair point, but the idea is to put the template on as that is a quick action and get back to it later in the week. --Traveler100 (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

@PrinceGloria, would you care to give an opinion on the idea of minimum requirements? I do think you kind of simplify the principal discussion too much; if people are interested in adding content then there's obviously no issue, but the problem lies in the many outlines that are established and then remain empty for years. Deleting them is not an option if it's a legit destination, but there's quite a bit of resistance against letting them sit there with no content at all. Or is your position that other users simply have to add content if they're not satisfied with the empty outline (which is a valid opinion too, of course)? JuliasTravels (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

For me it is a subjective look at the article and ask whether the traveler is being served or not. This isn't something that can be generalized and needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

This template will at least give others the opportunity to make it useful, and I support that. It shouldn't be however deployed as a red line to prevent an article's deletion for purely dogmatic adherence to Wiki principles rather than serving the best interests of the traveler. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so you want a tag to track outlines that have no listings? Why not just use a category? And what is the desired action to be taken if an article remains in such a state for an extended period of time? Powers ^(talk) 01:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

If you want to "save the article for later", then add it to your watchlist. Perhaps add a note-to-self in your user page - I used to run a to-do list. Big templates only make our guides ugly and can be used for filibustering as Andrew mentioned above. Really, we seem to spend too much time on developing the process sometimes and too little on the content. Perhaps, as we all here, we can choose a country or region and simply go through its destination articles and sort them out rather than discuss another template? PrinceGloria (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree we do tent to talk more about processes that add to articles but I have to challenge your statement a little. I often sign in to Wikivoyage when I have a few minutes free and check for new pages. Will make them as stub if necessary and recently as test needsimpriovement. I usually come back within a day or two and format stubs correctly or add/edit listings to articles (have already made empty outlines usable in the last few weeks). It is just these tasks take a little more time and should be done when I can concentrate on the task. Watchlist will not work, firstly because mine at least is too large to spot these type of cases and secondly it does not highlight for other. If I do not get round to fixing stubs someone else will within a week. On other peoples comments on yet another long this that will not be addressed, do not forget that stubs were in the 100s, redlink images was over 3000 and telephone formats was in the thousands. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

We're not talking about stubs though, but about (almost) emtpy outlines. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

(indent) So the discussion has shifted from tracking to delete/merge to tracking to take stock and possibly add useful content? I don't have any strong opinions regarding tracking in order to improve them if this would help editors, although I think a category would be better than the template notice on the article. Tracking for deletion is something that would need more discussion and I'm actually quite opposed to tracking for merging. As I've said, merging is not something we should take lightly, because it kills the article. Also, it makes no sense to redirect them when the judging point is only that nobody wrote anything, not that there is no potential. It'd make merging into a penalty that will only be felt by the travelers and editors. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The reason we're talking about general rules here, I think, is to somehow address concerns raised by you and others, Andrewssi2 :-) I'm happy not to, as long as the people who want to delete or merge legit destinations (because they feel that benefits the traveler) will first gain consensus to do so, for individual articles. There is no "red line to prevent deletion"; deletion is not on the table under our current and long-standing policy. I'm perfectly comfortable discussing policy changes, but I'm surprised you would not want to discuss policy to incorporate that option and then call others "dogmatic" for applying policy as it is. As for the template specifically, I think we've established for now that there's no consensus to use it. JuliasTravels (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The term 'dogmatic' was used to differentiate between the two trains of thought above, not to disparage anyone or even refer to existing Wikivoyage policy. Deletion is actually "on the table" according to policy described in Wikivoyage:What_is_an_article? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

maybe put this template on the talk page instead?

Might it be a solution of some of the issues raised to put this template on the talk page instead? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

A very good idea indeed! PrinceGloria (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary

• Good way to track new articles that need more content but do not want to jump on contributor straight away with redirect or delete tags.
• Remove word delete from template text
• Useful for tagging articles with no listings but some people are uneasy about creating another to do this that may never get addressed.
• Is this preferable to redirects? Maybe a good way of seeing if page will develop before merging into another exiting article.
• At what point should template be removed? A single listing is added that is useful to a visitor (see,do,eat,sleep), or on its way to being useful?
• Do we need template when we have status tabs? Should stub be extended to articles with format but no listings and outline to mean not just format and introduction sentence but also some useful content?
• Category of empty articles is useful for tracking and highlighting it existence, allowing others to join in and contribute some content.
• Place the template on the talk page may be better or reduce the visible wording.

Proposal

Attempt to move forward with this. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Use template to mark articles that do not have any listings.
• Reduce text to:
  • Please add some listings to sections of this article, otherwise it will be considered for merging with another page.
• Place on article page. Basically although think putting maintance tags on talk is a good idea it does make checking programs more difficult. (see link at Category:Articles needing improvement).
• Should stay on article for two weeks. If no listing added by this point should be replaced with merge (or delete) tag.
• One listing useful to a visitor (see,do,eat,sleep) is enough to remove this tag.

• Oppose Merge The purpose of this is to target articles without content. If there is enough content to warrant a merge then the article should be left alone and not tagged. Also, as I've said before, merging should not be used as a punishment for creating a contentless page. It doesn't make sense and it is counter to putting the traveler first. We should just delete it.

So information in Get in, Get around, and Understand will still warrant the tag? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying is add the merge or delete tag to the page for discussion.--Traveler100 (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

But there is still no consensus to merge or delete articles about valid places.... The question whether or not an article meets our "what's an article" criteria is not answered by the number or lack of listings. You can have an article with two listings that should still be merged because it is tiny and there's nothing more to write, but you can also have an article without any listings about an interesting place. For both, the proposal would not work. JuliasTravels (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with JuliasTravels . I have seen empty articles with the listing "Town Hall" (just the title) added and absolutely nothing else, and also there are indeed examples of listing poor articles with a great deal of description that shouldn't get deleted. I'd also prefer to see the Wiaa policy more clearly defined before moving forward with this template.. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Something like this needed? (With help text for each block)

OK I see we are not going to be able to solve the small issue without addressing the big problem. I am thinking that maybe we should create a decision tree of what to do with a small article, along the lines of a flowchart with if (do this) else (do that) decision branches. Anyone know a good way to do this in Wiki format or should I just create an image file from a Visio diagram? --Traveler100 (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

(indent) While I still don't necessarily think this is necessary, if we are moving forward with it, that's why I oppose merging/redirecting. This discussion is predominantly about "keeping up appearances", which has nothing to do with the destinations; it's all about wanting only pages with content, so if the goal of this is to encourage the creation of pages with content while discouraging page creation with no content added, deleting the article would achieve that but redirecting things only makes a mess of the site. Deleting would at least allow someone else (or the same person) to try again later to make the article. Merging just says "This article was previously created with no helpful information so for no logical reason we've decided to punish it by not allowing it to have an article". I gave examples of some types of articles that I wondered if people would include in the deletion in the previous discussion, but here they were: Maibara, Seki, Iwami, Nobeoka, Nasushiobara, Zentsuji, Ureshino, Oyano and Ninohe.

The type of article discussed above is one like Zentsuji, Ureshino, and Ninohe with one undescribed listing. With those articles being up for debate, the only article that those in favor of this do not want to delete would be Nasushiobara which meets the criteria with its "Eat" listing.

I think the flow chart seems a bit much. Is Seki really such a threat to the future of Wikivoyage?? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Empty skeleton articles are not a threat to the future of WV, they are a threat to its present. Currently the first thing those that have heard of WV know is the huge amount of articles containing mostly empty space Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Really? Is that what we're known for? How did you conclude that? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree with Hobbitschuster, empty articles do not give a good impression of Wikivoyage. I do however see issues too with redirects if they are back to a region, going round in circles will also discourage readers. obviously option 1 is expand, alternatively if it is a one-liner article then I think delete and add the text next to a red link in the region is a good solution. For small places, particular in rural area then adding to the local administrative town and creating a redirect is a good solution until more content is created, then can split back to villages. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The image of the flow chart is to get the point over, needs expanding with more guidelines on when to expand, merge or delete based on content and location. At this point want to gauge if people think this is a way forward out the endless discussions on various pages we have at the moment. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And there you have the underlying problem :-) The template is based on the assumption that we don't want the empty outline articles, or that they have a negative impact, and that we should (add a template threatening to) delete or merge or combine into a rural article and split back up later.

The reason all these discussions about practicalities don't go anywhere, is that there's just no consensus on those underlying assumptions. The flowchart now seems to recognize that articles about "valid" destinations will stay, but that means that in this chart, the template is only used to put on an article awaiting the Wikipedia-link en Geo-coordinates and such. That's not the actual problem though: we typically fix those things shortly after new articles are created, and we already have ways to track those missing parameters. I don't see the added value of the "needsimprovement" tag, then.

Ryan provided an alternative use for the template above, which seems fair enough. Perhaps we can agree to use the template for those cases, and leave the empty outlines about valid places alone until there's some agreement on that general issue? JuliasTravels (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think in a way this all goes back to our coverage of rural areas. Most empty outlines describe rural places. As do most redlinks. No doubt there are articles with little content that cover mid-sized or even large places in out of the way regions, but I don't think those are the majority. Some places I fear just don't have more in them than bare outline listings. Unless of course we list all WV:boring places Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

(indent/Edit conflict)I'm not sure what the majority of the articles are, but contrary to what Traveler100, I actually think looking at and pointing to specific examples is helpful and necessary if people really want this to go anywhere. We really haven't discussed real articles which I think is problematic. That's why a discussion that began regarding something that annoyed some people (contentless articles) has blown up into being described now as the thing that we're most known for and the thing that's threatening the very existence of the site. Specific examples would be MUCH more helpful than making sweeping statements to push agendas. The avoidance of specifics in favor of scare tactics is bothersome to me. The links I provided above have various low-content and no-content articles so that we can at least all be talking about the same thing. Maibara for example has only a "Get in" section. Is that okay? Zentsuji has a picture showing an attraction but only lists the name in the listing, etc. Delete it? Nobeoka has a sort-of interesting but very short Understand section and a one-word listing. Good enough? I would say on the third point, adding to an administrative town or county or some other configuration works best if the person doing it really knows the area. But in this case, we're assuming it's a place we stumble upon and therefore are unfamiliar with, so I would say the same as before: delete or leave alone. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Take the example Maibara, it is a valid location but has no listings. So should be tagged with NeedsImprovement. It will then be on the todo list so to speak. Someone should then look at adding listings. Not too difficult a task as there is a good list of sights listed on Wikipedia and no big issue to go to trip advisor or Goole map to add an hotel and/or restaurant. Tag can then be deleted. For places like Sivasailam, Gadananathi River Dam and Poovankurichi they should go into a merge Ambasamudram. Seki, tag it needsimprovement, if no action after few weeks delete, the redlink on the region page says more. Iwami tag, wait if no change add the sentence to the region page next to the village name and change the page to a disambiguation page. Nobeoka tag, wait a little if no change add the sentence to the region page then delete the page. Dipperz I would redirect to Fulda, the hotel is only 15 minutes from Fulda town centre so can be added to that article. --Traveler100 (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Can a few people run through the flow chart with examples to see if it works? --Traveler100 (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It does serve as a easy method to show new users how WV process should work. My concern is that the flow chart why 'override' written policy (causing conflict between editors) and the decision points are still not completely clear to follow. For example "Is there valid Sleep, do, see content?" is open to wide interpretations.

A current example might be the nearly created article for Winterberg ( revision being discussed here ) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes it does need to be backed up with more detailed text for each step that then links to other policy and guide pages. Also maybe need to do a detailed check against other policy pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

(indent) I'm wading into this discussion mid-stream, I realize, but a couple of thoughts come to mind. One is that, despite looking through this discussion, I'm still foggy on what the intended purpose of this template is. Looking at the flow chart, it seems that the NeedsImprovement template is only meant to be applied to outline articles of real locations with very little content, correct? Because if that's the case, it seems rather redundant to me; the whole point of the outline template in the first place is that it is applied to articles which have the framework to be a travel guide but little actual content. To say that an article is an outline is already to implicitly state that it needs improvement.

My second thought is that I'm troubled by the proposed addition of a 14-day window to add a listing to an outline before shuffling it into the merge/delete process. There should be absolutely no urgency in developing a travel guide, especially if it has already been determined to be a real location potentially deserving of a travel guide. Yes, our travel guides for minor/rural locations are often slow to develop, but that's not a bug, that's a feature. We've taken an "innocent until proven guilty" approach to travel guides; that is, we assume a place is worthy of a guide unless we feel very confident that it would work better otherwise. That process needs time to happen, but the results are more rewarding for it. PerryPlanet (talk) 19:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but this was more to address articles with no content. How does tagging empty outlines sound?--Traveler100 (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps, but it still seems like an unnecessary distinction to make. You really don't need a lot of content to upgrade a guide to usable; for a town article, all that's required is one Eat listing with contact info, one Sleep listing with contact info, some basic Get In info, and the most prominent attraction described with directions. Given that an outline covers everything below that pretty basic level of info (but still with a Wikivoyage article template), I guess I just don't see the need for an added status level in there.

Maybe what's really needed is just a way to encourage contributors making new articles to add enough content to warrant usable status. Even just a simple message on one's talk page ("Hey, I noticed you created the ____ page! We noticed it's still at outline status; would you be willing to add some more content?") might go some way towards addressing the issue. PerryPlanet (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I have moved a good number of outlines to usable, it does however take about an hours work. The idea is to tag a page when you find it to come back to later. There are some catscan searches that can be done that help but they tend to find other cases too, such as POI done without the listing templates. --Traveler100 (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

(indent) While some proposers seem to feel there is one single proposal, it does seem that a few different ideas are floating around. One is to simply tag the articles for tracking purposes and to encourage editing, one is to tag them for deletion/merging if and only if they have zero content, and one is to tag them for merging/deletion if they have what is deemed "insufficient" or "unhelpful" content (or are lacking information in specific sections). If we do this, the first looks better to me combined with PerryPlanet's idea. I also don't like the 2 week notice. It's very unwelcoming. Remember, we need to assume good faith. Maybe the editor plans to edit later or is still trying to get their bearings on the site, maybe they made the page because they're interested in the location and are hoping someone else will add content, etc. Leaving a message on their page encouraging them to add content in a friendly manner is a much better approach than deleting their page.

I also don't like the stated reason for the tag in the example. While the population of a town is sometimes an indicator of how likely it is to hold enough information to warrant its own article, there is no rule that towns with populations under 10,000 (or whatever) don't get articles. Town population is not a valid reason to get rid of or merge articles, but listing it as the reason on the tag makes it look like we have some kind of population policy.

PerryPlanet also made the point that I've tried to make as well in that only someone with authentic knowledge of the area should be considering redirecting valid town articles. Those without actual knowledge should just let it be. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)