Wikivoyage talk:Geographical hierarchy

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived discussions

one large or many small articles[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I would like some input on recommendations regarding whether it is best to have a number of small location articles or have a single good sized one? This is not a policy discussion but more aesthetics and usefulness to the reader. Take for example Beer, Branscombe and Seaton, all close to one another, is enough attractions to make each a usable article but there is never going to be more than a couple of listings per section. Or Grantchester, is this far enough outside Cambridge (England) and enough information to be its own article? No debate all these settlement are in their own right valid destinations but it is useful to the traveller to click through lots of small articles? --Traveler100 (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's hard to tell if you don't know the place... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to consider is if you sleep in one place would you have dinner in the other. Beer is 1.5 miles from Seaton so walking to have dinner in the other is quite possible. Branscombe is 4 miles away, and some buses between the two go via Sidmouth, which is about 5 miles from Branscombe. So my thought is that Beer could be merged into Seaton. With the name Beer, it may be worth considering how many readers would be looking for an article about the drink, and would they be confused reading about Seaton? I think that I would leave Branscombe as it is, mainly because it is midway between two places it could be merged with, and the distance is probably a little too big to merge in a place with multiple listings. AlasdairW (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been struggling with this with Australian articles recently. I guess the question what would you find more useful when visiting? My preference is for a large article covering many smaller places, but not precluding splitting off a smaller location if the quantity of material is large enough. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of where you would go for diner from where you are staying, useful concept/guideline. On the specific of the example I was thinking of making Beer a disambiguation page. --Traveler100 (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On that topic, I can't find any policy guidance on how to disambiguate between places and topics that share the same name. All of our guidelines assume that naming conflicts are only for one place against another place. Powers (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Breadcrumbs (isPartOf) for destinations covering two regions[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I recently created a park article for the Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch UNESCO area. This site lies on the border of the Valais and the Bernese Highlands regions and has significant parts in both regions, therefore I marked it as part of Switzerland. This was then changed by AndreCarrotflower to be in only one region (Valais in this case). A discussion arose to which way is the correct way.

The problem is that both methods are used on WV. Examples:

The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any official policy on this (or at least I couldn't find any). The only reference to this problem I could find is at Wikivoyage:Breadcrumb navigation#Under the covers, but this does not describe very well how this should be handled for new articles. (And it's not up to date, as Russia is now marked as part of Europe). How should this be handled? Drat70 (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with at least a few of the articles in the second list is that they're mischaracterized. As it doesn't fall anywhere within the regional division scheme of either New York (state) or Ontario, Thousand Islands should be an extrahierarchical region (taking Template:Extraregion rather than Template:Guideregion; extraregions also have null article statuses - they can't be Guides, Usable, etc. - though I don't necessarily agree with that policy). As well, Aral Sea, which is currently inexplicably characterized as a park, should also be an extraregion. Unlike bottom-level destinations (i.e. cities, Huge City districts, and parks), extraregions pretty consistently follow the rule of being placed in the next biggest shared region as far as the breadcrumb hierarchy goes. However, Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch, as a bona fide Park article and therefore a bottom-level destination, IMO needs to be treated differently. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean. I specifically looked for park articles which were put into the next biggest shared region: Curonian Spit, La Amistad International Park and Mount Nimba Strict Nature Reserve as well as above mentioned Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Zion National Park. It seems to me that those parks who are put into only one region either have the majority of their area in one region or are big enough to be split up into two articles. For destinations which are more or less equally shared among two territories, I think it makes sense to put it into the next biggest shared entity. Whichever way it is done however, I think there should be some better defined rules on this. Drat70 (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else has inputs on this? I think this is still not very consistent. Drat70 (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Niagara Falls and Nogales are {{extraregion}} as they are containers which hold two cities each. Thousand Islands is a bit more awkward as there are no cities under it, so it can't be a region. The only villages on the islands are tiny places like Marysville (Wolfe Island ON K0H 2Y0) and Fineview (Wellesley Island NY 13640) with fewer than a thousand people each. That makes 1000 Islands a bottom-level destination, like Prince Edward County (one municipality) or Rural Montgomery County. It's not a region, so it can't be an extraregion. The same would be true of Jellystone Park as a park article.
There's also the not-so-minor detail that extraregions exist outside our main hierarchy - which is fine if they're Niagara-sized, but awkward for something Russia-sized which needs to be in the hierarchy as it's a whole country. An extraregion works well for certain applications - something like Sioux City] or the Quad Cities where there are a few clearly-defined twin cities-like entities which can be grouped as a highly-local region across a boundary. It just works poorly for Glenrio-sized entities as there are no individual cities under them. K7L (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fairly simple for extra-hierarchical regions; just use the smallest in-hierarchy region that includes the whole thing. I've done that with several — Bactria, Ferghana Valley, Lake Tai, Panay, Negros, ...
Where there's a problem is if in-hierarchy regions need to span others. Also are Russia, Turkey or the Caucasus in Europe or Asia, Iran in the Middle East or Central Asia, etc.? Pashley (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see from the discussion how it works for extra-hierarchical regions and that if a region spans more than one region it should be made into one of those. That doesn't work however for bottom-level articles such as Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch, which is a park article and can't be a region because there's no real towns inside. So what is the proper way of attributing it to a region? I still don't think it makes sense to choose one of them in cases where it's split in more or less equal parts. Drat70 (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is another case of this that just popped up. Standing Rock is a bottom level article which has been created and which straddles two regions. It has thus been declared as part of Great Plains which is quite high up in the geographical hierarchy. How is this case different from the one that started this discussion (Swiss Alps Jungfrau-Aletsch) and how should that be treated? Drat70 (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russia / Europe[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Hi there,

The Kiwix team has released a European version of Offline Wikivoyage, but then realised that Russian cities are not included. This is weird since Russia appears to be in category:Europe as a page... but not as a country category. I've seen this change happen in 2014, but I do find rather suprising that Turkey would only have {{|isPartOf|Europe}} while Russia only has {{IsPartOf|Asia}}. So here is my question:

  • Can a country belong to two continents (and therefore have two {{IsPartOf}} (I would think of Israel and Cyprus as other countries with a double location)?
  • If not, then shouldn't Russia be in Europe and Turkey in Asia?

Thanks, Popo le Chien (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Unfortunately - as far as I know - any child region can only belong to one parent region. So Russia can only be in either Europe or Asia. Extraregions (regions that otherwise don't fit into the regional hierarchy) are usually formally child regions of the regional element to which they fully belong without any overlap into other regions. So "Harz" would be a child of "Germany" in that logic as it crosses state boundaries. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe better if there was a new top level region for Eastern-Europe/(Western)Central-Asia, consisting of Russia, Turkey and the Caucasus. Although there is a risk of being dragged into an argument over Ukraine. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's far from ideal - there's a Eurasia region, but that does not really solve the issue, does it? Would it make more sense at least to "move" Russia to Europe then? Popo le Chien (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree not ideal, just a though for others to consider. For now have fixed the category. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we manually add Category:Russia to Category:Asia? Powers (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a perfect solution -
  1. Category:Eurasia would create a new top-level geographic category, which isn't ideal.
  2. Adding Category:Russia to Category:Asia wouldn't fix the issue where the breadcrumb for Siberia shows it as part of Europe.
  3. There was a past effort to create sub-regions solely for breadcrumb purposes, but while that approach would fix Russian sub-regions, we would still have to pick either Asia or Europe for the breadcrumb on the Russia article. The idea was that "Russia (Europe)" and "Russia (Asia)" would be created as redirects to Russia, but would be either {{isPartOf}} Europe or Asia (not Russia), so breadcrumb trails would look like "Europe > Russia (Europe) > Central Russia" or "Europe > Russia (Asia) > Siberia". It looks like that effort was aborted (see Talk:Russia (Asia)), but it might be worth revisiting.
-- Ryan • (talk) • 04:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I wasn't aiming to fix the breadcrumb issue, but rather the issue User:Popo le Chien identified. Powers (talk) 01:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{IsPartOf}} is designed to be hierarchical. I suggest you use the latitude/longitude of each article to decide whether you want it or not. Just choose a few segments and do basic math (see for an example). God luck :-) Syced (talk) 07:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Places straddling (open) borders[edit]

Swept in from the pub

So we have had an issue with places that are to be found on both sides of an open border. Should two separate articles be created for towns the size of Rheinfelden even if the border has little to no effect on travelers or should the smaller be redirected to the larger part? What about breadcrumbs? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same question is already open at Talk:Laufenburg (Germany). If the place is really tiny, one Glenrio-sized article could cover both sides. K7L (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the border has no discernible effect on the travel experience, there's no reason to have two articles when one would suffice (unless both sides of the border has a metropolis that just happens to share a name, though I don't know of any examples). The breadcrumb trail could be via the country with more of the town's territory; e.g. the Netherlands seem to have slightly more of the frankly ridiculous Baarle than Belgium. But there's no reason why the region articles on both side of the border can't link to the towns in question. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kansas City (Kansas) and Kansas City, Missouri have the same name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So they do. I quite like the Mexicali / Calexico approach, even though it's such a New World approach. Maybe Kansas City, KS should be called Missouri City. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the breadcrumbs issue needs to be addressed properly. It has been handled very inconsistently and there seems to be no clear consensus on what to do about it. See for instance this discussion I tried to start a while ago: Geographical_hierarchy#Breadcrumbs_.28isPartOf.29_for_destinations_covering_two_regions Drat70 (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of breadcrumbs go well with Thousand Islands dressing? I've been using croutons. :) K7L (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Park covering two different countries[edit]

Iguaçu_Falls is a national park on both sides of the Brazil-Argentinian border, and the article covers both in high detail. Since the detail given to Brazil is not applicable to Argentina and vice-versa, should it not better be a disambiguation page and content merged to Iguaçu_National_Park on the Brazilian side and a new article on the Argentina side? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we potentially want individual answers for individual parks here. Sometimes the park is really different from country to country or even sub-national entities really matter, but sometimes there is an open border within the park and the administrative line in the whatever does no really correspond to what the visitor experiences... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a disambiguation as that infers multiple unrelated entities with the same name. The {{extraregion}} model might apply (as was used for Niagara Falls) but it's a judgement call... how much information is there and how much is duplicated across both sides? If there isn't enough here for two articles worth of text, it may be best to leave it together. I think Waterton Glacier International Peace Park is taking this too far – everything is split out and duplicated, including the climate and the wildlife? K7L (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Niagara_Falls works best. The border is not as open as (say) Germany-Poland, but not incredibly tight either. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Greenland is geographically part of America but politically of Europe, as part of the Nordic countries and the kingdom of Denmark. Normally geography is more relevant for the traveller, but in this case, as there seems to be no easy way to get to Greenland from the rest of America, I think it would make sense to have Greenland PartOf Nordic countries. North America does not say much about the island.

I raised the issue at Talk:Greenland#PartOf: North America or Nordic countries, where I suppose those interested in Greenland will most easily find it.

--LPfi (talk) 10:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airport information in district articles[edit]

Swept in from the pub

So this edit removed information about how to get from SXF IATA to Berlin/Tempelhof and Neukölln and as keen eyes might notice, the information provided there differed in wording and detail from the one still provided in Berlin and there was notably no mention of TXL IATA, because its location with regards to that district is beyond awkward. I think airports should be listed in district articles if they are a)contained within said district or b)if their access is particularly notable to/from that district. The information should be there if it serves our readers and particularly in multi airport cities. We should of course tailor our information. If there is a "stupid rich people with more money than time shuttle" that costs 40€ and makes no stops other than downtown and the airport and a local train, we should list only the local train in the district article through which the shuttle passes without stopping. What do you think? Is there a policy on this issue, should there be? And if so what should it be? Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A similar edit also occurred here removing info on SXF from Berlin/Treptow Köpenick. Hobbitschuster (talk) 04:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not sure there needs to be a full listing in every district article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should mention details about airports on each district page. This will be hard to maintain because people will forget to adjust details on every district page, and readers will be left with confusing and inconsistent information. By the way, I didn't remove all of the information how to get from the airport to the district. However, I'm not sure to what degree it is useful to mention each public transport line that will bring you from the airport to the district (and whether it should be in a "By plane" or "By tram/..." section). Maybe this should only be listed if there is a special bus/... that a traveler new to the city won't find right away.
Regarding the removed information in particular, I don't think it is important to the traveler to be reminded on each district page that the BER airport is not yet open, and that certain tunnels are not yet built or planned for.
Also relevant for this discussion is Berlin/Reinickendorf and Spandau, where I would remove the airport details just in the same way as in the previously mentioned districts. Xsobev (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tegel is literally inside the district of Reinickendorf. If it isn't listed there, where should it be listed? I mean we list the former THF airport in Berlin/Tempelhof and Neukölln and we should sure do the same for TXL once it shuts down. And the two mentioned articles are with regards to SXF the one it is physically closest to (hence why mentioning U7 there is germane) and the one to which it is best connected (hence why the S-Bahn should be dealt with in more detail there). Neither airport is mentioned or should be mentioned in any of the other district articles Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tegel Airport - as part of Berlin's infrastructure - is covered in detail on the main Berlin#Tegel_International_Airport page, and I think that's the only appropriate location. The former THF airport in Berlin/Tempelhof and Neukölln is no longer part of the infrastructure, but became a sight/park itself (that's why it's listed as a "see" listing). Once Tegel is shut down and proves to be a sight relevant for the traveler, then of course it can be mentioned as a "see" listing (but then certainly not as part of "Get in"). Xsobev (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You'll perhaps notice that Berlin#Get in also mentions a bunch of train stations and the likes that are mentioned again in the district articles wherein they are contained. Should we remove them too? TXL certainly is a way to get into Reinickendorf, just the same as Spandau station is a way to get into Spandau. And SXF is a way to get into the two districts we have covering the Southeast of Berlin. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the "Get in" section in district pages is that they provide information of the sort: "I'm in Berlin, how do I get to Reinickendorf", but not "I'm in Paris, how do I get to Reinickendorf". Therefore, airports should be covered in the main city page, and not on the district pages. I'm not sure about train stations, but no matter how they are handled, details should only be at one location (either at the main city page or at the appropriate district page) in the same way that detailed listings are only on the district pages, and on the main city page there are only pointers to the most important ones. My reason for that is maintainability and consistent information for the traveler as pointed out earlier. No matter how this issue is resolved, a good place to document it would be in Wikivoyage:District_article_template#Get_in I guess. Xsobev (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A district's "Get in" section is taken in the context of its city, and explains how to get into that district given that you're already in the city. It would be fine for Manhattan/Financial District and Manhattan/Midtown East to mention that there's helicopter service between helipads in those districts to/from JFK. But an airport that serves the whole city belongs in the city's article. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some Berliners are petty and provincial enough to say SXF and the future BER don't serve the entire city. As evidenced by some of the 2017 referendum results. Anyway I think there is different information about the same place that can go into district and city articles. Like in the city article I'd focus in the ICE to Hauptbahnhof in the district article I'd mention the S-Bahn and U-Bahn in greater detail. Having however the airport not show up on the map of a district even if it is contained therein seems to me to not help the traveler. And as I said airports can have unwieldy access if there is one local line that gets you right to adjacent district (s) but doesn't reach downtown either at all or fast enough that one clearly is more relevant to the visitors of one part of the city. In addition some airports are architectural or cultural or shopping attractions that visitors might want to go to even if not flying. And furthermore the sight and noise are potential concerns in choosing accommodation. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] (Detailed) Airport information belongs in the main city article, the same goes for other stations that serve as a main entry points to the city as a whole.
That said, I very much agree such airports/stations can also be mentioned in the Get in section of the districts they're located in, especially if getting from the airport to hotels etc. in that district (e.g. 10 minutes walk or a few stops by local bus) differs from getting from the airport to elsewhere in the city (e.g. half an hour to downtown by shuttle bus/train or taxi, and from there onwards by some other transportation). ϒpsilon (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Airports absolutely should be mentioned in districts where they're located. Full listings may not be necessary, but not mentioning the airport would be weird and unhelpful. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobbitschuster: I'm not quite convinced by some of your reasons, or perhaps by the conclusions.
"Airports can have unwieldy access if there is one local line that gets you right to adjacent district (s) but doesn't reach downtown either at all or fast enough that one clearly is more relevant to the visitors of one part of the city." That may be true in some cases, but it doesn't seem to apply in the edit you linked. (The district's Get in section is quite clear that you should use U7, and the airport's description in the city article explains how to use bus X7 to connect to U7. Why should this district article merit an explanation of how to make a simple public transit connection, and not the 3 other districts that also mention U7?)
"Some airports are architectural or cultural or shopping attractions that visitors might want to go to even if not flying." I question whether any of this is true. But if it were, then the appropriate place to mention it in a district article would be under See or Buy.
"And furthermore the sight and noise are potential concerns in choosing accommodation." The appropriate place to mention this in a district article would be under Sleep. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bigpeteb, that's exactly how I would do it as well. Regarding the other issues, I still don't have a good idea: a) Should airports near or in a district get a (geo) marker so that it shows up on the dynamic map; b) should airport-related public transport that fits into the districts "Get in" section according to your mentioned scenario be under "By plane" or "By metro/subway/..."; c) how do we handle train stations. @Hobbitschuster, did I miss any of your objections? Xsobev (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I also think each and every WV guide should - at least to some extent - work on its own. And thus not mentioning an airport contained in a district makes no sense. Furthermore, some airports are also transportation hubs for local transport (though that's more common for train stations). Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Airports and stations should definitely be mentioned in the district in which they are in. However this can just be one or two lines, focussing on the local transport to the airport, and leaving another (linked) article to describe the flights. In the unlikely event that the airport has no public access from the district it is still worth mentioning. AlasdairW (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me (and I believe that I made the edit(s) that triggered the whole discussion along those lines). I just didn't want to have duplicate information in both the district page and the main page, which will quickly get out of sync (links and details change, airports close).Xsobev (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Listings: Low Tatras (national park) or Liptov (higher-level region)?[edit]

Currently there is a huge overlap of listings in most sections between Low Tatras (national park) and Liptov (higher-level region). Where each of them they should placed, do we have any clear rule on situations like that?

Specifically I am about to add listings and prose on alpine skiing and related activities (like major spa centers nearby), and it's not entirely clear where to stick each of them (and how to resolve pre-existing overlap between listings of the two articles). --DenisYurkin (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I'd say listings should be placed as low as possible in the hierarchy. ϒψιλον (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But for Liptov vs Low Tatras, looks like they are overlapping; neither is contained in another. However, it's difficult to judge as boundaries for each are not clearly defined. --DenisYurkin (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably better to put the content in the park article, as regions are never bottom level articles.
Also, what says (Slovakian user who largely remodelled the regions a while ago)? -- ϒψιλον (talk) 07:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any overlap between those two, actually...? Which ones do you have in mind? In any case, Liptov should contain (IMO) the highlights, and the other sub-articles should contain details. E.g. I'd probably add Liptov village museum to Liptovský Hrádok (#vicinity), because currently it's only mentioned in Liptov. I guess that's a general problem of more Slovakia regions that I created/extended - that I only added the region-specific highlights into the higher-level regions, and didn't bother adding some bottom-level articles or putting them into the right cities nearby. Maybe one day I'll fix it, if I have time... -- 12:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I'd probably stick the activities in the park into Low Tatras, and the rest of the stuff either to the cities (you can also create a city article for Liptovsky Jan or whichever spa area you have in mind) and/or Central Liptov/Horehronie/... (or create further region(s) if needed). I don't really have a strong opinion here, but I'd like if we could keep Low Tatras as a comprehensive self-contained guide to the mountain range (including lodging, hiking trails, skiing etc.). It's not that big that it needs multiple articles, IMO. But do as you see fit, in worst case there will be reverts :)))... -- 12:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply], I just posted an invitation to join us without first checking updates to this thread.
I've fixed some overlap in a quite ad-hoc manner, see my recent edits.
The only question currently open is where to stick Bešeňová and Tatralandia. Several conflicting thoughts:
  • both are most detailed currently in Central Liptov which is region article and should not have listings at all
  • Tatralandia is also listed in Liptovský Mikuláš--which is also part of its official address
  • both are closest to their respective towns (Besenova and Liptovský Trnovec), which fit the "can you sleep there?" criteria: both water centers are part of their respective hotels
  • subjectively, majority of readers looking for either will come from Low Tatras (or, if it is separated at a later point, from Jasna (ski resort)). --DenisYurkin (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you fixed it... ok... :-) Anyway, regarding Besenova, check 'go next' section in Low Tatras (-> Central Liptov, using the small city template). I'd leave it that way (because there's not really any big city between Ruzomberok and Liptovsky Mikulas; e.g. Tatralandia should be in a 'go next'/vicinity section of Liptovsky Mikulas, IMO). -- 14:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added all I know about Besenova into the Central Liptov. --15:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Island article status[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Fairly recently the rural area article status type was created, and it was discussed whether or not there should be a new "island" article status separate from rural area status. At the time I argued in favor of a separate status, but as I have added rural area status to articles, I've noticed that there is definitely some overlap between the two. The problem is that there are islands that truly operate as rural areas: Fehmarn is a good example. But others, examples including Guadalupe Island and Sable Island, really aren't rural areas, because they're small and, most importantly from the traveler's perspective, remote. Perhaps these should be park articles while the less remote islands become "rural areas"?

Policy clarifying article status would be helpful, as none of these remote/rural islands should be "city articles," since almost none of them function as cities; yet many, at least until recently, were given that status. I would propose that any islands that are nature reserves of any sort should be classified as park articles, those with small settlements scattered around without their own articles should be classified as rural areas, and those dominated by a large city should remain city articles.

(Of course islands that are themselves regions, such as Greenland, should remain region articles.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes island or archipelago article hierarchies get complicated. See Talk:Visayas#Radical_change_proposal for one example. Pashley (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]