Wikivoyage talk:Outline articles

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The old "outline articles needing attention" list can now be found at Wikivoyage talk:Outline articles/Outline articles needing attention. It is kept solely for historical reference.


Unless I'm just not finding it, I don't have the "Threshold for stub display" option in my preferences. Is this just outdated? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:36, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

I have a "Threshold for stub link formatting" under Preferences/Misc, which is presumably the same. Fixed the article. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:49, 3 June 2009 (EDT)

Different message and tone between templates for outline articles and outline topics[edit]

Should the messages not be a little more similar in content and tone? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Outline articles[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Currently there are about 19 thousand articles at the outline status and within that there is a large range of varying quality. One thing I'm not that keen on is that any stub article can make it to outline status by applying the templated layout. What I would like to propose is that there is a new status in-between stub and outline, called start (or better name if one could be suggested) that would contain articles without any listings (not necessarily using the listing template) and don't have much info (could mainly be measured by size being under roughly 1500 bytes). Running a query for this on PetScan returns about 3400 articles (although a few of those could still be outline rather than start). -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this would make sense especially for regions or country articles. While it's quite easy to get bottom-level destination articles to 'usable' status, it is quite hard to do so for countries or regions, because it requires the most important destinations (or all destinations linked for countries) to be at usable or better level. So I think for those cases it would make sense to have something between outline and usable, to differentiate between a region with only the template and a region which is good, but where the destination articles are not yet up to standard. Drat70 (talk) 07:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think an extra low-level status would solve anything, to be honest, and I don't like the idea of further complicating the setup. I can see the point about regions, but for simple destination articles, the proposed extra status would make the difference between none and one or two listing, in practice. Three listings already make them usable. If an extra status is deemed necessary, I would suggest replacing or changing our current "stub" status. Placing a template on an article or redirecting it is hardly more work than adding a stub-rating, and its use is very limited. In the end, I don't think any of this makes much difference. While these status-ratings are important to our community's "organizers", users read an article first, and wil judge for themselves. The status is only at the bottom, and likely missed by the majority of users anyway. If we want users to take our ratings into account, they should be as simple as possible. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
We have had similar discussions in the past. One proposal was to have an addition maintenance tag. It was not given much support but maybe we should re-discuss {{Needsimprovement}}. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Articles that have had so little info for a year or two could then be converted into redirects to a location nearby with more info. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
I would not recommend this, unless you're very familiar with the place in question and are confident that redirecting is the best solution. I've done this a couple of times in the past and have managed to raise the ire of newcomers who are mad that their town/neighborhood isn't represented. PerryPlanet (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, there is no consensus or policy to support redirecting valid destinations solely because they are currently outlines. Redirecting is fine for destinations that likely wouldn't be able to fill articles of their own, but for larger towns that could have their own articles, the fact that they are as good as empty is no reason for redirecting or deleting. Personally, I think redirecting is the worst possible outcome, as it's usually confusing and not helpful for readers. We've discussed it a few times, including last year: Wikivoyage_talk:How_to_redirect_a_page#Redirects_for_real_places_with_no_content. JuliasTravels (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
But isn't there always a lot of outrage whenever a "real place" is proposed for deletion? Hence redirecting or keeping are the only options, or am I mistaken? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
In fact, unless it's a small destination/neighbourhood that would fall under our redirect rationale, keeping is currently the only valid option. I know the empty outlines bother you (and me, too), but redirecting is not a solution that benefits the traveller in most cases. There was no consensus to allow deletion last time we discussed. Perhaps, that will change over time. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

We might need to discuss the status ratings for regions countries and continents. Or at the very least their current wording. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what a new status below "outline" would entail. Once you add the appropriate template's section headings, it's an outline. We have so few stubs as it is; I don't see a point in adding another status below "outline". Powers (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm also skeptical about adding another status; to address the original concerns my preference would be to expand the definition of "stub" to include articles that are either missing a template or contain a template without any content. That said, overall I think our current "status" rankings need a massive overhaul - star nominations are lingering for months, country and region articles containing pages of useful information are "outlines" because a single child destination is incomplete, a mostly-complete article is kept at outline because one section is missing data while a barebones article with just the name of an attraction, a restaurant, and a hotel can be promoted to "usable", etc. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Adding a category between stub and outline wouldn't make much sense, as promoting the article to outline only requires adding the section headings. What perhaps could be added is a category for countries and regions, for cases where the country or region article itself is informative and otherwise in a good shape but only the bad status of articles below it prevents it from becoming usable (or guide). I think somebody already suggested this a few months ago. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, regions need a separate approach. To get back to the original idea posted here, there's one other option to limit the number of empty outline articles for cities. I've suggested it before, but it was buried under another discussion. Rather than adding an extra category, we could add an extra information box to a stub page, refraining from adding a template and making it an empty outline directly and offering the benefits of a redirect without actually redirecting. Maybe it's a terrible idea, I don't know, but I've made a quick example here. I'm not even sure where it should link to (just the edit version of the page, a templated page or an info page), but you get the general idea. Personally, I think such stub pages are friendlier to the eye and more useful to travellers than almost empty templates are. We could then proceed to add a template when there's some more information. JuliasTravels (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Well the correct solution is to add some information to the empty articles. Take a look at Wikivoyage:Germany Expedition, Wikivoyage:England Expedition and Wikivoyage:Wales Expedition; in particular do a history compare between current and start of project. The table numbers need to be updated manually but clicking on an entry gives you an actual list of article. Pick a country or state/region. The first thing to tackle is the bottom right field, articles with no listings at all, the bulk of these can be addressed with formatting then take a look at Wikipedia for sights of interest. Next group to tackle is has no - sleep (bottom left) look at Google maps for hotels in the area or check out another travel website to add one or two entries. During this process finding places without accommodation identifies the articles to merge. While doing this keep eye on those in the green needs only - check, these may well be usable status candidates, just need a little cleaning up. Next task is then generally looking at the articles with no see listings. Usually during this whole process start to look at the bottom level regions and clean them up. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Those expeditions are interesting. I didn't realize we had them for countries/regions. On the topic of outline and stub articles, It's odd to me that a user would want to put forth the effort to adding a template box and locating nearby cities to link to but NOT want to put forth the minimal effort it often takes to add some content to the article. Why is there so much interest in marking/deleting/banning low-content articles but none in adding content? If there is a particularly problematic area, why not just bring that up instead of always proposing some massive overhaul of all articles sitewide? If a user stumbled upon 53 empty outlines in Cape Verde (for example), asking if we can delete some might actually get support, but proposing a deletion of all such articles on WV or adding a template on that basis just seems like a lot of effort put in for no meaningful gains (and potentially some losses). The bar for usable status is quite low, so I don't see how adding another status would be that useful. If it would merely be to separate empty outlines and outlines with at least 2 sentences, I think the user is better off just doing that work when they find it to eliminate their own problem. The region status is a separate issue. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The bar for "usable" is indeed quite low for city articles. However, with all the child articles needed it can be quite high - if not to say too high - for continents, countries or larger regions. And the current text for outlines suggest that Europe or Canada lacks content (both are ranked "outline"), which frankly is an absurd statement to make. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You're mistaking our status templates as article status templates. They are not. They indicate the status of the entire guide, which is hierarchical and can include hundreds of pages for large countries. Powers (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Well the way they are currently formulated does not indicate that. It is true in essence that our status ratings are hardly ever of the article in question alone, but they are formulated as if they were. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
If it's confusing, then we should look to clarify that somehow. Powers (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
It wouldn't be obvious for someone coming here from another wiki (such as Wikipedia) where the status box on the talk page is indeed rating the individual content page only, and not whatever subtopic articles may fit under it. From Talk:Canada#Destination article statuses it looks like Terra Nova National Park is holding the whole country back? That's not obvious without reading policy very carefully. K7L (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)