Wikivoyage talk:Rural area article template

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Buying fuel[edit]

In sparsely populated areas, it may be worth listing filling stations. I am not sure whether this should go in "Get around - By car", or "Buy". In some cases the fuel is sold at a shop which would be worth listing in buy, but in others it is a standalone, possibly unmanned, pump. AlasdairW (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Get around - By car" seems best imho. A convenience store could be listed in "buy" if there are no alternatives per boring. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 22:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Get around" makes more sense, and I've plunged forward accordingly. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suriname[edit]

People have mentioned Rural Montgomery County, but the regions of Suriname are also good examples of rural areas made up of several small communities being handled in one article. --Ypsilon (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True. I would agree that these regions should be rural area articles. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 15:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"More subjective"[edit]

From the current language for "Understand":

This is a more subjective description of the rural area

More subjective than what? By contrast, look at Wikivoyage:Big city article template#Understand:

Give a deeper understanding of the city, such as its history, its culture, its mores, its politics, its relationship to other cities and the country it's in. Jokes and stereotypes about locals, etc.

Unless someone objects, I'd strongly advocate using clearer, less informal language that's closer to what I quote immediately above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:05, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my best effort at an edit. Please feel free to tweak it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Good areas of the destination to try"[edit]

I hate this language - it's so awkward! - and I will be changing it everywhere I see it. I think all the articles about article templates will need copy editing and updating. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Islands[edit]

Islands aren't necessarily rural. Should we have a different template for island articles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, since islands are greatly varied and definitely not all are rural. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the island, I think rural articles could work well for the islands with no big places. --Ypsilon (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added some details specific to islands, as that was my understanding of the pub discussion. A separate island template is probably better, but this one could work for sparsely populated islands. I am thinking of Berneray or Chatham Islands as examples of islands which have been OFBP in the past, where this template could work. If an island template is agreed, then we can remove the island specic details and let this template go into service before creating an island one. AlasdairW (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by categories not working? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This category should show the (currently short) list of rural area articles. If someone knows how to solve that problem that would be excellent. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiking and cycling[edit]

I added a bit about biking and hiking as those are reasonably popular and common modes of getting around in some rural areas (at least for holidaymakers) think of the Appalachian Trail on one extreme and the Fünf Seidla Steig on another. Hobbitschuster (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could clarify when hiking or biking is "get around" and when it is "do". AlasdairW (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "experimental" template[edit]

Are we ready to remove this template yet? I've added the rural area status to 14 articles, so it can still easily be removed from all the articles within the status, if necessary. But hopefully consensus can be established here on whether or not to use this article type. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Headings[edit]

I changed On foot to By foot according to Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates/Sections. Better keep to the standard. What about By public transit? In most cases that would be By bus, I suppose, and in other cases a By cable car or whatever could be used. Is there any special reason for the current heading? --LPfi (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well in countries that didn't appoint an axe to head their railway or are otherwise infected with the privatization or the "let's destroy railways and build asphalt paths on them" virus, there are rail lines with service in rural areas... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But not often. This video describes the future of Amtrak. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with SC that getting around by train in rural areas is not that common. There might be a station or two, but seldom a comprehensive network. I usually cover those by pointing to Get in – like I do with the coach line along a single main road. Were there is local rail it can very well be described in By train. By public transport is useful when trains and buses (and perhaps other modes of transport) are well integrated, but that too is hardly common in the countryside. --LPfi (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to change "By public transit" to "By Bus", which also avoids the issue that transit is mainly a US term. We have "By Boat" which is one form of public transport (assuming it is scheduled ferry). If "By train" is likely to be a means of getting around rather than in, then we can have that too, but I think that it is unlikely unless there is a tourist steam train or the like. AlasdairW (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, presumably those subheadings are optional depending on the circumstances, but perhaps that needs to be said. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletons[edit]

Swept in from the pub

I am unable to find a skeleton template for counties (not countries). I am currently working on a userspace draft for one (see User:Prahlad balaji/userspace drafts/Maricopa County, Arizona). Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks --Prahlad balaji (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When we have articles for counties, they usually follow the Wikivoyage:Region article template. Sometimes they might follow the Wikivoyage:Rural area article template. But often counties aren't that important for travellers, so most of them don't have their own articles. Would a Maricopa County article be useful for travellers? If so, it might be best as an extraregion. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mx. Granger, thank you for the advice. It looks like an extraregion to me! Prahlad balaji (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite unconvinced that it's useful unless a consensus decides to make it one of the regions listed at Arizona#Regions, and that would require a discussion at Talk:Arizona. But if you're convinced it would be useful as an extra-region and wouldn't overlap too much with Greater Phoenix (or vice versa), please use the name Maricopa County, without Arizona in the name of the article. See Wikivoyage:Naming conventions. We do things a bit differently from Wikipedia here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since Greater Phoenix consists of Maricopa and Pinal counties, and that article doesn't have much content, I think it would be better to add any Maricopa County content to Greater Phoenix to build that article up. If, at some point, there is too much content in Greater Phoenix, it might make sense to split it, but I think it is premature now. Ground Zero (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ground ZeroThank you for the advice. I have created a redirect. Prahlad balaji (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Integration with other pages[edit]

Pages like Wikivoyage:Usable articles provide no guidance for and make no mention of rural areas, and there is no Wikivoyage:Rural area article status page. Ground Zero (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoyage:Rural area article template would be a good starting point for an article status page. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 02:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the criteria was the same as for city. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 02:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ibthink that should be explained on Wikivoyage:Usable articles and similar pages if we're not creating separate criteria. Ground Zero (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eat sections for Rural areas[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Should the eat section of rural areas be divided by cost or location. Some featured rural areas like Norfolk Island divide by cost while others like Jost Van Dyke divide by location. I am rewriting the article on the fairly large Boso Peninsula and think it would help the traveller more to have it divided by location though I know that division by cost is the norm for city articles. Tai123.123 (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is more useful to divide thee listings in rural articles by location. And if the policy doesn't permit this, we should change the policy. Ground Zero (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the rural area has distinct "parts" (small villages separated by a long trek, or separate islands) then I think we should bow to geography. Otherwise, when there is no clear geographical demarcation, I don't mind following the usual pattern of splitting by cost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think policy does permit this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on User:SHB2000/Sunshine Coast for almost a month now, and I divided it up based on price, but that is because the Sunshine Coast is a very strange settlement, as it's not a city but mostly urban at the same time (it took me a while to understand how that settlement works and it's why South East Queensland is very messy). I think how listings should be organized is a case-by-case basis. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 06:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone update wikivoyage:Rural_area_article_template#Eat with this as nothing is stated on dividing eat and other sections Tai123.123 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article templates are the best places to add such advice. Wikivoyage:Article skeleton templates/Sections#Eat already says "Restaurant listings should be divided, if necessary, by price, by location or by cuisine." There are similar sentences for the other relevant sections. Wikivoyage:Listings#Avoid long lists also mentions dividing the sections by location. I added a short section to Wikivoyage:Section headers, with links to these. –LPfi (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot that also people who don't know our help and guideline pages get the advice in the templates. I added a sentence. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it also depends on the size of the rural area. Larger areas encompassing multiple villages, for example islands, can do it by location to clearly identify POIs by region. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 10:57, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The typical "rural area" has its small population distributed over several villages, and transport is often at least a bit challenging, so I think location is more important than price in most such articles. –LPfi (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage_talk:Rural_area_article_template&oldid=4470428"