Wikivoyage talk:Star articles

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Star districts[edit]

Just wondering if I can nominate a city's district for star status rating even if the city article is outline? --Saqib (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, but you might want to raise this at Wikivoyage talk:Star nominations instead. LtPowers (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you definitely can. Similarly, a town article could be a star, despite its region article being an outline. We have numerous examples of that. --Peter Talk 18:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Star articles with no custom banner[edit]

Swept in from the pub

Only two lonely star articles have no custom banner:

Anyone game? Texugo (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still mulling over options for the Disney articles; Walt Disney World needs an improved one. Though Downtown Disney is an interesting challenge, especially since it'll be Disney Springs by this time next year. Powers (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so I was close. 18 days off. Powers (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

End requirement for static maps.[edit]

I think it's time to end the requirement of a static map for star-level city and district articles. Dynamic maps stay up to date far easier, and show all of an article's listings, as long as the lat and long fields are filled in correctly. Region and country articles would, in my view, continue to be served best by static maps, so the requirement for those to be star articles shouldn't change. Thoughts? ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion several times before and always end up hopelessly deadlocked, but for what it's worth, my opinion is the same as ever: in agreement with the above. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any statement that a star article must have a static map isn't quite true. There's nothing on this page making that requirement, and on the status for the individual article types the policy varies:
  • A star city or park "has a tourist-style map in Wikivoyage style with modifiable vector source". That's the closest we come to outright requiring a static map for a star article, which makes little sense as city, district, park are the lowest-level articles in the hierarchy and therefore the most adaptable to dynamic maps.
  • A star region or country "has a tourist-style map showing" (for regions: "...all the 5 to 9 listed...") "linked cities, subregions, and other destinations (all guide status or better) and routes between them". The 5-9 item limit doesn't make sense for an Adirondack-size bottom-level region in a sparsely-populated area (there are more than nine villages in the park, but most of them are tiny) but for anything more complex than a bottom-level region, dynamic maps are not as good as a carefully-made static map.
  • For the rest, at the moment any map style will do. A star itinerary "has a map showing the route of the itinerary, identifying landmarks (such as cities) along the way". A star travel topic, "if practical (such as for a niche activity) has a map identifying relevant destinations". A star phrasebook "has a map identifying places where this language is officially recognized and/or commonly spoken." We could safely leave this much well enough alone.
I'd be tempted to allow any map style (so "a map with point-of-interest markers" instead of "a tourist-style map in Wikivoyage style with modifiable vector source") for city and park articles, remove "the 5 to 9 listed" village limit for bottom-level regions and leave the rest as-is. Admittedly, "has a tourist-style map" for regions is ambiguous, but that seems harmless enough. K7L (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Drawing up static maps for city/district level articles is a waste of time since POIs tend to change rapidly on that level (businesses opening/closing etc.). Every star needs a map, but for city/district articles that should be dynamic map instead of a static one. ArticCynda (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]