Template talk:PrintDistricts

Background

See Wikivoyage_talk:Huge_city_article_template#a_notice_on_districts_on_top_of_huge_city_articles for background of creation of this template. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 13:46, 18 February 2007 (EST)

More specific info?

I'm wondering if something less about printing and more about what's in the district pages might be useful? If you're just there to browse the guide, you might skip over the message about printing and then not understand where the listings are (really! this could happen! ;-) Maybe something like This guide covers a Huge city and has been broken into districts, be sure to check individual district pages for details and listings! -- I'm sure someone can edit into something better, but you get my point. (WT-en) Maj 12:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Personally I don't mind rephrasing to a more general "be sure to check" from current "consider printing" -- as long as the text doesn't grow over single line in most layouts. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 09:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

How about :PrintDistricts is a huge city with its listings spread across several district articles — consider printing them all. – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 01:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Actually, what about leaving printDistricts as it is (since part of the reason we named it that is in case we come up with some sort of transclusion thing where we can make the "print" word a link to print the article with all of it's districts in one command)... and then adding a slightly different line at the top of the sleep and drink sections, something to the effect of:

Individual listings can be found in the district articles

I would've argued against that not long ago, but I think it would make it more user friendly without being too intrusive to the article. – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 16:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I second the idea to have something like that notice in frequently-districtified sections (Eat, Sleep, Drink, See). I don't think any rewording of the notice on top of article can substitute notices in the respective listing sections. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Cool, so unless there's any objections, what should we call the new template? Template:SeeDistricts, Template:Districted, Template:Districtified? – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 15:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

From the above options, I vote for SeeDistricts, as two others can be too easily confused with Districtify. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 16:08, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I like that one too... let me know if you think of something better... – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 17:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

No progress on SeeDistricts template yet? --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 07:59, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Consider it done – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 20:27, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Great. I am interested in some examples of how you envision this template to be used. Just found it in Los Angeles--but I wonder if this template will be useful in the beginning of section; in my experience, any time a business owner encounters some listing of his sector (like hotels or restaurants), s/he just adds his business to the end, ignoring anything stated in section's introduction.--(WT-en) DenisYurkin 08:44, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Well, that's a problem we'll just have to continue to deal with... I think this is more aimed at making the guides more usable for travel, to make sure people are aware that the listings they're looking for are in the district articles not on the main page. you can always add the hidden notes like <!--PLEASE ADD NEW LISTINGS TO THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT ARTICLES!--> at the bottom of the sections if you like. But I really feel that Template:SeeDistricts can help avoid problems such as this one. – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 17:38, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

containing sightseeing, restaurant, nightlife and accommodation listings

I wonder if we can measure somehow whether "containing sightseeing, restaurant, nightlife and accommodation listings" addition really helped. Personally I believe it's adding length without adding much benefit, but looking at some statistics of why not would likely pursuade me ;-) --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 07:57, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

I see your point... maybe once we've implemented Template:SeeDistricts in lot's of articles then we can reduce it again? – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 20:30, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

printing

Given all the effort made to reduce paper use, it really sounds very environmentally unfriendly to be encouraging people to print lots of articles. It also sounds very backward, as I imagine most people will be loading their phone/pda, etc rather than printing anything. Any objections to changing the word print to some media independent form? --(WT-en) Inas 23:11, 2 December 2008 (EST)

I'd be fine with switching the template altogether. The point of the usage is to make it as clear as possible that specific listings and information is contained in district articles—so that more thickheaded users don't miss the most important stuff. So a template saying something along the lines of "Information about individual restaurants, sights, and hotels is found in the [[#Districts|district]] articles." --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 01:44, 3 December 2008 (EST)

Oppose. Wikivoyage is still very poorly usable under PDAs / offline at notebooks--and when on travel, printed version is frequently more useful than electronic devices (especially for those users who spend much time with computers at work and expect to escape it while travelling).

Present edition emphasize that for those who need printed edition, they should open (and print) many sub-articles to have a complete guide to the city of their destination. "Info on ... is in _district_ articles" doesn't catch attention of the user who is about to print article in the last day before departure--and for articles of usable status and lower, they more likely print it in the last minute (as they plan using something else than wikivoyage). --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 10:20, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Another anonymous coward here, who isn't too happy encouraging people to print everything. Obviously you should evaluate for yourself if you want to save trees or have a book with you, but reading that each time doesn't jibe well with me. Even if the word "printing" becomes "(re)viewing", I'd be 100% satisfied. Also, I'm pretty sure modern mobiles (we're 5 years on from the comment above) are more suitable for browsing this site. --User:toothbrush 17:30, 11 October 2013

This notice is only for people who are printing out the guides, to remind them to print out the district articles as well; a user on mobile doesn't need to be reminded about the presence of district articles. LtPowers (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Double categories

Why was Category:Huge city added, is this not just a duplicate of the existing Category:Huge city articles?--Traveler100 (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that they are duplicates, and went ahead and deleted the duplicate category. -- torty3 (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

"Huge" cities

Not all districtified cities are really huge. E.g. "Helsinki is a huge city" sounds very odd in my ears. I think Helsinki is an ordinary city (but not a mere town or village, which is true of many of our "cities"), while a huge city is something like Moscow, New York, London or Mexico city. I think we should change the wording in a way that makes districtifying independent of the actual size of a city. Changing "huge" to "big" in the template text (or just saying "city") might be enough, though. --LPfi (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess the idea was that "huge city" is one of our article status categories. Though I do agree the wording is kind of odd. Maybe simply removing any mention of a city, so it becomes Helsinki has several district articles... James A ▪ talk 11:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Currently, "huge city" is linked to Wikivoyage:Huge city article template, which, while it provides some explanation that "huge city" has specific meaning here on WV, is probably not an appropriate link in mainspace. (We usually want to avoid taking readers away from our content and into the project namespaces, which can be confusing to them.) But without the link, I think we'd have to change the text. Would "large and complex" make it clear why the districts exist? Powers ^(talk) 00:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The original purpose of this template was to do with printing. It no longer makes any mention of printing. Do we still need it? The first section following the intro in districtified cities is "Districts", so it is clear in the early part of an article that it has several district articles. Nurg (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it's still a useful reminder, especially in cases where sections are linked directly. Powers ^(talk) 18:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative labels

The motivation for this edit (which enables this syntx) appears to be related to this previous change. But I can't find anywhere we achieved a consensus to alter the names of our article types in certain situations. In particular, I find it very odd to say that an article is a "borough" and link, by way of explanation, to a policy page that says nothing about "boroughs". I am wrong that this could be confusing? Powers ^(talk) 02:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to link to the WV: page, especially not to explain what a borough (or any local name for the administrative entity) is. Calling Manhattan a huge city is less confusing than in the example above (Helsinki). While it is not necessarily strictly true, we should use everyday speech words, not the legalistically correct ones, which vary from country to country.

I'd prefer to have that link only in the status box in the end of the article, which is full of WV: links anyway. That is perhaps a separate question, but the wording in the template should be clear enough that an explaining link is unnecessary. Perhaps "Manhattan is big enough that we have split it into several [#Districts|district] articles, which ..." That Manhattan is a "borough" is explained in the first paragraph, in a much less confusing way, which is how this should be handled.

--LPfi (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I see above I proposed "large and complex". Powers ^(talk) 02:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)