Wikivoyage talk:Usable articles
Add topicLatest comment: 10 years ago by Ikan Kekek in topic Usable templates
For reference the old "usable articles needing attention" list has been archived at Project:Usable articles/Usable articles needing attention.
Usable templates
[edit]I suggest we modify some of the Usable templates particularly Template:Usablecity and Template:Usabledistrict. Both of these templates says "the article has information for getting in as well as some complete entries for restaurants and hotels." however I found in majority of our usable status city and district articles, complete entries for restaurants and hotels, especially restaurants, are missing which is giving a wrong impression. I think we can copy Template:Usablepark. --Saqib (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, yeah, for example Usablecity says that the article "has information for getting in as well as some complete entries for restaurants and hotels." yet it does not mention that in addition to those an article should also have at least one sight listed to qualify for usable. ϒpsilon (talk) 21:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest we omit the word "restaurants" from the phrase and insert "sights" instead. --Saqib (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- If it requires at least one of all three, why not "sights, restaurants, and hotels"? Texugo (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are four criteria in Wikivoyage:City guide status. We could mention them all by changing the template to something like this: "This article is usable, it mentions how to get to the destination and at least one option for sightseeing, eating and sleeping. Plunge forward..." etc. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Changing the template to include a sight is fine with me. I wouldn't agree with downgrading it because some of our articles don't really meet the criteria of their status, like Saqib was suggesting at first. Adding one listing isn't a lot of work, so we should just fix those articles instead of changing the footer. Actually, while guidelines are good, I'm not sure we should be too strict about the "one complete listing per category"-thing. Especially for off the beaten track destinations, any information is helpful and fixing might be more difficult. Say an article has directions to get there, a listing for the main sight, a hotel listing but it only says "There's plenty of places to eat, this-or-that street has a bunch of good restaurants, the pizza place is especially good". That's quite a usable article for an adventurous person heading out there. These are not star articles, some flexibility should be okay. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds right to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Changing the template to include a sight is fine with me. I wouldn't agree with downgrading it because some of our articles don't really meet the criteria of their status, like Saqib was suggesting at first. Adding one listing isn't a lot of work, so we should just fix those articles instead of changing the footer. Actually, while guidelines are good, I'm not sure we should be too strict about the "one complete listing per category"-thing. Especially for off the beaten track destinations, any information is helpful and fixing might be more difficult. Say an article has directions to get there, a listing for the main sight, a hotel listing but it only says "There's plenty of places to eat, this-or-that street has a bunch of good restaurants, the pizza place is especially good". That's quite a usable article for an adventurous person heading out there. These are not star articles, some flexibility should be okay. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- There are four criteria in Wikivoyage:City guide status. We could mention them all by changing the template to something like this: "This article is usable, it mentions how to get to the destination and at least one option for sightseeing, eating and sleeping. Plunge forward..." etc. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- If it requires at least one of all three, why not "sights, restaurants, and hotels"? Texugo (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest we omit the word "restaurants" from the phrase and insert "sights" instead. --Saqib (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)