Template talk:Poisym

attribute names

I think we'd be better off with more intuitive attribute names: "parking" instead of "carp", "bus" instead of "dbus", "chairlift" instead of "clift". Texugo (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Done --Traveler100 (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Icons galore

We need to figure out what to do with this experimental template that adds all the extra icons at Rheinburgenweg and Rheinsteig. When it was created, we didn't yet have dynamic maps, but now that we have them and their associated number icons, we now have 2-3 icons per listing, which is obviously very different from our preferred style. @Traveler100:, who put them in, has stated on his talk page that he "would not want to retire the idea until I see an alternative method on how to label points of interest along a route by type". But these have been sitting around like this for months now, and I don't think we should just leave them like this indefinitely. Any thoughts? Texugo (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It does no harm and, especially for readers whose English is poor, has an obvious use. Remove the experimental tag. This whole idea of "template clutter" is problematical in a project like this where server space becomes cheaper every year and the maintenance cost of this kind of template is pretty well zero. --118.93nzp (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To remove the experimental tag, I think we would need a pretty strong consensus that having a pile of 2-3 icons at the start of every listing is a style that we really like and want to have in all such articles. To me, it is a very ugly cluttery look which I definitely don't want to see anywhere, and it wasn't even the intention at the time this template was created, since we didn't then have the numbered color boxes. I don't think the question at this point is simply whether to remove the experimental tag, but whether this template could serve for further active experimentation toward the creator's original goal. Unless someone vouches for that with new proposals, I don't think it should be kept any longer. Texugo (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

That argument is wholly fallacious. This template does not have to be used on more than a few walking routes - and even then it's a matter of user choice. --118.93nzp (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand that we have always valued consistency in presentation across our articles as a facilitator of usability for the traveler, the key motivation behind our having article templates, standard headers, standardized listings and a dozen other things. It has never been a simple "matter of user choice" to ignore our standards and design how they would like listings to look in a given article. It's something we have thus far always worked out by community consensus.Texugo (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd be all in favour of that approach if our articles looked consistently good. For many readers at many screen resolutions the text overlapping the fixed image width maps look consistently dreadful and childish and far outweigh any lingering concerns about a few helpful icons... --118.93nzp (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Not only does that opinion on relative image sizing not even make a good argument against consistency in its own case, it is doubly removed from having anything at all to do with this template. We still don't allow people to design random personal or idiosyncratic ways of displaying listings in any given article. Texugo (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

So this idea was started before the map number tagging on listings was there. I can see your point on the icon clutter but it does provide easy and rapid access to useful information. On the point of consistency across article, this is intended as a solution only for itineraries that are routes, in particular hiking paths, it was not intended for city articles. What about if the icons where moved to the end of the listing text or inside the listing information (content or alternative name)? --Traveler100 (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you want to keep actively experimenting with it and come back with a proposal before long that we can all look at and discuss, that would be fine with me. Texugo (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments on Rheinburgenweg. Moved to start of text content.Traveler100 (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Screenshot showing disparity in sizes and poor vertical alignment of icons

Hmmm.. You know, most of the information would actually be conveyed by the colors of the map numbers if it had a key. All the listings with a restaurant icon have the same color number, all the ones with a see icon have the same color, etc. What if we got rid of the icons and just made a little color-key box to float off to the right? Since itineraries are not divided into see/do/buy/eat/drink/etc., the dynamic map could probably use such a key anyway. The icons would then be largely redundant, and they don't show up on the map anyway. Texugo (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The icons will display tool-tip "hover text" in many browsers, but I do think that key box idea would be helpful - although I'm surprised that you wouldn't think that "clutter", too. However, it would also look better if all icons were the same size and their tops and bottoms aligned. There is so much on Wikivoyage that is poorly executed in detail from the visual perspective. --118.93nzp (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

In the context of an itinerary, the meaning of the map-number color is lost. I think it much less cluttery to drop the icons altogether and give a single, simple key in a little box than it is to add a second icon to every line. The only info that would be lost is that parking lots would then become "other" in the key, but that's essentially no different from any of our destination articles. Texugo (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of something like this:

Listing Key
	See
	Do
	Buy
	Eat
	Drink
	Sleep
	Other

We'd float something like this once off to the right, where it would serve for both the listings and the map, and then get rid of all the extra icons, thus classifying the listings into the same categories we use on all our destination pages (a bonus to consistency between articles), and also simplifying entry by requiring only that the listings be of the right type, rather than requiring an additional template with an additional parameter to match up for each listing given. Texugo (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Note a bad idea but how do you handle places that are more than one listing? For example I see you have change Forsthaus Jägerhaus on Rheinburgenweg from eat to sleep, it does have rooms although it is more known and popular for its food. Or when I get round to working on the page again, Burg Stahleck is a castle to see but also a youth hostel to stay in, and many castles on the Rheinsteig and Rheinburgenweg also are restaurants (or have a restaurant in them) and a few are hotels. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that situation is really no different from regular destination pages, where we are occasionally forced to pick one section or the other to list places like that in. Just choose whichever function you feel to be the most useful. The rest is made clear by the description. Texugo (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Listing Key
See	museums, castles, etc.	View	viewpoints
Do	pleasure rides, beaches, sports	Buy	shopping
Eat	restaurants, snack outlets	Drink	bars and cafes
Sleep	hotels, hostels, campsites	Go	car parking, rail stations, etc.
City	towns and villages	Vicinity	near route locations
Red	warning or points of concern	Other

Here is an experimental template to create the box at right: {{map key}}. Texugo (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)