Template talk:QuickbarRegion

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Regional quickbox[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Lüneburg Heath
The Lüneburg Heath near Wilsede
At a glance
Information: Lüneburger Heide, Wallstr. 4, 21335 Lüneburg
☎ +44 (0)700 – 20 99 30 99
Website: www.lueneburger-heide.de
Orient yourself: Between Hamburg, Hanover and Bremen
Must do: Walsrode Bird Park, Heide Park and Serengeti Park.
Time needed: one day per main attraction
Just for kids: Heide Park and Serengeti Park
Also see: Hamburg, Celle, Lüneburg

Following the earlier discussion, I have produced a "draft" quickbox template (see right) for regional articles as desired. The key advantages are:

  • It provides an "at a glance" summary of the key questions a tourist might ask when choosing a holiday destination:
    • Where is it?
    • What are the top attractions?
    • Is there anything for kids?
    • How long do I need there, minimum?
    • Where can I get more info?
  • It means you can quickly get a feel for the tourist potential of a region without having to wade through the whole article
  • It avoids the "spurious facts" criticism of the previous quickbox
  • It takes no more width than the standard photo
  • It is based on exactly sort of info shown in popular travel guides
  • It therefore enhances the usability and appeal of WikiTravel

I'm sure it can be improved, but you can see the basic idea: "key tourist information at a glance", not "a box of spurious facts". Views? --(WT-en) SaxonWarrior 07:48, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

It's not bad, but I'd prefer to see it without the photo and placed only in the Understand section, which meshes with the changes that are underway with the country quickbar (see Template talk:Quickbar#Round three). As a more specific critique, the "website" link is wholly superfluous as the website should be linked prominently in the first sentence of the article. (WT-en) LtPowers 09:59, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
I'd like to reiterate my strong objection to adding quickbars to region articles. I think the content they contain belong in the proper article sections, and that they hog the screen real estate we use for pictures. As per the discussions linked above (and in further discussions regarding specific articles, for example those of the UK's home nations), the community in the past has come down firmly against expanding their use to non-country articles. And even with the country quickbars, the community over time has come around to the idea that they do hog space, and we are just about to reduce its size and scope significantly. I do not think we have a consensus to create or use this template, and think it should remain in SaxonWarrior's userspace until we do. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:46, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
I'll also re-voice a strong objection here. We are backing off on even the country quickbar. I can't imagine why we would introduce one for cities, which have even less unique info about them. All the info in your box already has its proper place within the article. I give this a huge no. (WT-en) texugo 00:38, 2 September 2011 (EDT)
@texugo. We're not backing off the country quickbar - we're trimming it to what is essential - this quickbar does exactly that for regions (not cities by the way). Of course the info can be found in the article, the whole point is you don't have to wade through 500 words of text to find it. It's a quick "at a glance" summary of key tourist facts - that's why major international tourist guides use this system - and they have done their customer research!
@Peter. The quickbar includes a picture anyway. The browsing tourist will see the top of the article first - he wants to be able to see at a glance whether he would be interested in going there. In about 6 seconds he can browse the key point and make a quick judgement, then read on or move on. It's purpose is not the same as the country quickbar. --(WT-en) SaxonWarrior 01:43, 2 September 2011 (EDT)
They also shove the regions map way down the article, and for region articles, that will usually be below the regions section. That is a huge disadvantage. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 14:59, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
Well, that's easy to fix: put the map in the box or leave the image out. The example is only a draft - we can change the template or even tailor it slightly to each article. Those that like the concept will find ways to make it work even better; those that don't... well nothing will convince them! --(WT-en) SaxonWarrior 16:05, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
I don't think that's fixable at all, as different region maps come in different shapes and sizes, based both on the needs of the region and the aims of the mapmaker. Some regions require more than one map to adequately do the job. Here are a few examples: a b c d e f g h.
In my view, essential "at a glance" information belongs in the lede. Only one piece of information in the example you have provided seems to me essential, and it's the "must do"s, which absolutely should be mentioned in any good lede. For more detail or less essential information, there is a table of contents right at the top (which could use an overhaul), and the breadcrumb navigation just above for geographical orientation. Ideally, the WT-style regions map would also provide that type of immediate context, but not if it is buried—even below the regions section itself! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:02, 8 September 2011 (EDT)


Moved from Project:Votes for deletion

Before sweeping this discussion, I thought we may want to consider what will happen to the template itself. Personally, I don't see any real need to remove it, as opinions on these things change over time, but if it is left in the template namespace, it may be confusing for new users who think that it is available to use. --(WT-en) Inas 19:58, 4 December 2011 (EST)

  • I agree. A notice on the Template page should alleviate any confusion on the part of the user who stumbles upon it randomly. (WT-en) LtPowers 14:58, 5 December 2011 (EST)