Template talk:Starpotential

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I moved Template:Failedstarnomination to here, per a discussion at Project:Travellers'_pub#Stars_in_the_making. It's still not totally clear what Project:Star potential will develop into, but for now it's a more positive version for failed stars, and will probably expand into something to do with helping "Guide" quality articles through their last few steps before being nominated for star status (WT-en) - Cacahuate 20:40, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Link slush discussions[edit]

Bah, the {{FULLPAGENAME}} tag doesn't work since this template goes on the talk page, rather than the page itself. Does anyone know a way to auto-link the discussions on the slush pile from the template? If so, please restore my failed edit, with a workaround. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 23:38, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

More limited use of this template[edit]

Seeing now how strange this template looks on some pages... don't think we should apply it to every article that gets nominated.... maybe just those that are pretty darn close but need a little love that this template may encourage someone to give to it. But putting in at Talk:India, when it will take years for a country that size to reach star status, is strange and is confusing. Removing it now, but let me know if anyone disagrees :) – (WT-en) cacahuate talk 12:29, 21 February 2009 (EST)

share a todo item as a form of contribution[edit]

This seems to be the most appropriate place to promote adding todo items as a form contribution to the article. Its regular contributors shared everything they realize may be useful, but frequently a casual reader's external view can suggest what's missing. Those readers can't plunge forward to improve as they got only questions, not answers--while regular contributors aren't aware which questions arise among readers in the wild.

Such todo sections exist in Talk: pages of a dozen articles here, although I don't have a success story to share: most of the time questions stay there for months. However, for star potential todo lists can be more effective. --(WT-en) DenisYurkin 15:14, 7 July 2010 (EDT)


Swept in from the pub

SelfieCity just posted this on Talk:Buffalo after what I gather is a temporary slushing of its starnom. I've never actually seen this template in the wild before - in general, an article has almost always been either a full-fledged nominee or nothing - and I have to say I object to some of its language, specifically that Star articles need "to perfectly match the Manual of style" (emphasis in original). mos says "[o]ur manual of style is a collection of rules of thumb and guidelines", not carved-in-stone policy. If an article contravenes mos in a way that can be demonstrated to work better or make more sense, we've always held it to be Star-worthy regardless. The text of the template should reflect that. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm just doing what it says to do at Wikivoyage:Star nominations#Failed nominations. But I can understand that there would be reason to change it. Because saying that something has to be perfect invites people to say, "Well, I don't quite like this" or, "This could be just a little better" and the result is a lot of criticism and not much work done. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't calling you out for doing anything wrong, just pinged you so you'd see this thread and maybe share your thoughts (which you did). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I also think there is a problem with "perfectly". A few misformatting times or phone numbers, or an intentional deviation from our style because it suits the destination to do so, shouldn't prevent an article from being a star. I realise this isn't the place to propose a change, but since we're talking about it, would a proposal to change this to "to closely match the Manual of style" get support? We do want to avoid situations like Windsor (Ontario), which was riddled with formatting errors when it was nominated (and outdated listings, and clumsy text). Ground Zero (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I can't imagine anyone would disagree with a change to "closely" matches our mos. Indeed, that is a more accurate description of the star-criteria anyway. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think "closely" is nearly good enough for a Star. "Perfectly" may be overdoing it, though that's arguable. How about "very closely matches"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Haha, alright, strike my comment :-) Very closely (or a similar wording) would be fine for me too (even though I wouldn't read "closely" as leaving all that much space either, but that might just be me). JuliasTravels (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
The way I see it is that Guide articles need to closely follow the Manual of style, so Star articles would have to follow it really closely. And it's very nice to see you here. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I would say though, that if something is so close to star status that it literally just has "a few misformatted times", it would be a failure on our part to let such a nomination get slushed rather than a failure of the policy. I sort of see the "perfectly" as a way to ensure that an article is fully scrutinized, so that in a case like the time-formatting mentioned, we actually fix it rather than saying "Meh, it CLOSELY matches, so just make it a star." That's just as bad as slushing it. It also forces any abnormalities to be justified as part of the nomination (if it's not already justified in a Talk discussion) which can be vital in determining if something is relevant for precedent or not. I don't think it's valid anyway for someone to just say "I don't like this" or "It could be better". If a user is unable to actually pinpoint areas to improve and why they are inaccurate/hard to understand/too encyclopedic/etc. then it is an invalid critique, just like saying "I don't like it" is not a valid reason to oppose a Destination of the Month nomination. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Agreed. Although, just because an argument isn't valid doesn't mean that people don't make it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:03, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree, too. But I'm not really clear on why we're debating this. Does this reflect the actual nature of discussions in Starnom threads? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It reflects some of the arguments I had made about Buffalo's starnom, and will probably make again when it's revived. As for the template itself, Wikivoyage:City guide status says that Star articles' "[l]ayout and listing formats either match the manual of style exactly or are the exception that proves the rule", and I think that wording or some variation on it would be a fine replacement for the current text. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
By way of getting this done, I've taken the word exactly from the quotation that Andre provided here, and swapped it into the template, in place of perfectly. If the MOS has a line about exceptions, then we can safely call this one Yes Done and sweep this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't see any difference between "exactly" and "perfectly". What would you say is the difference? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
The main difference that I see is that the one word is taken from the requirements, and the other isn't. Additionally, "perfection" isn't a comfortable concept in wiki culture, as it implies that subsequent edits will make things worse. I'd personally be happy with removing both adverbs, but that idea was not discussed here, and there did seem to be more support for "exactly" than for "perfectly". WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Understood. I suggested a different form of words above, but I don't think the exact wording of the template matters enough for me to debate it further. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)