I'm wondering if something less about printing and more about what's in the district pages might be useful? If you're just there to browse the guide, you might skip over the message about printing and then not understand where the listings are (really! this could happen! ;-) Maybe something like This guide covers a Huge city and has been broken into districts, be sure to check individual district pages for details and listings! -- I'm sure someone can edit into something better, but you get my point. Maj 12:52, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
Personally I don't mind rephrasing to a more general "be sure to check" from current "consider printing" -- as long as the text doesn't grow over single line in most layouts. --DenisYurkin 09:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
How about :PrintDistricts is a huge city with its listings spread across several district articles — consider printing them all. – cacahuatetalk 01:36, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Actually, what about leaving printDistricts as it is (since part of the reason we named it that is in case we come up with some sort of transclusion thing where we can make the "print" word a link to print the article with all of it's districts in one command)... and then adding a slightly different line at the top of the sleep and drink sections, something to the effect of:
Individual listings can be found in the district articles
I would've argued against that not long ago, but I think it would make it more user friendly without being too intrusive to the article. – cacahuatetalk 16:54, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I second the idea to have something like that notice in frequently-districtified sections (Eat, Sleep, Drink, See). I don't think any rewording of the notice on top of article can substitute notices in the respective listing sections. --DenisYurkin 15:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Great. I am interested in some examples of how you envision this template to be used. Just found it in Los Angeles--but I wonder if this template will be useful in the beginning of section; in my experience, any time a business owner encounters some listing of his sector (like hotels or restaurants), s/he just adds his business to the end, ignoring anything stated in section's introduction.--DenisYurkin 08:44, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, that's a problem we'll just have to continue to deal with... I think this is more aimed at making the guides more usable for travel, to make sure people are aware that the listings they're looking for are in the district articles not on the main page. you can always add the hidden notes like <!--PLEASE ADD NEW LISTINGS TO THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT ARTICLES!--> at the bottom of the sections if you like. But I really feel that Template:SeeDistricts can help avoid problems such as this one. – cacahuatetalk 17:38, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
containing sightseeing, restaurant, nightlife and accommodation listings
I wonder if we can measure somehow whether "containing sightseeing, restaurant, nightlife and accommodation listings" addition really helped. Personally I believe it's adding length without adding much benefit, but looking at some statistics of why not would likely pursuade me ;-) --DenisYurkin 07:57, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Given all the effort made to reduce paper use, it really sounds very environmentally unfriendly to be encouraging people to print lots of articles. It also sounds very backward, as I imagine most people will be loading their phone/pda, etc rather than printing anything. Any objections to changing the word print to some media independent form? --Inas 23:11, 2 December 2008 (EST)
I'd be fine with switching the template altogether. The point of the usage is to make it as clear as possible that specific listings and information is contained in district articles—so that more thickheaded users don't miss the most important stuff. So a template saying something along the lines of "Information about individual restaurants, sights, and hotels is found in the [[#Districts|district]] articles." --PeterTalk 01:44, 3 December 2008 (EST)
Oppose. Wikitravel is still very poorly usable under PDAs / offline at notebooks--and when on travel, printed version is frequently more useful than electronic devices (especially for those users who spend much time with computers at work and expect to escape it while travelling).
Present edition emphasize that for those who need printed edition, they should open (and print) many sub-articles to have a complete guide to the city of their destination. "Info on ... is in _district_ articles" doesn't catch attention of the user who is about to print article in the last day before departure--and for articles of usable status and lower, they more likely print it in the last minute (as they plan using something else than wikitravel). --DenisYurkin 10:20, 12 December 2008 (EST)
This discussion is now about 6 years old -- I think modern smartphones etc are fine for offline reading of pdf versions or whatever. I hope nobody still feels strongly enough to have the "printing" reference up there. Toothbrush (talk) 09:10, 15 April 2014 (EDT)
I'm also in favor of changing the template and removing the reference to printing the article. The purpose of this template is just to make users aware that we have separate articles for districts. If users want to print them, it's up to them; no need to encourage them to do so. Warm regards, IBAlex (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2014 (EDT)
I reverted that edit because you shouldn't change templates before discussion. To me there is no problem in removing the printing reference. GiulioC (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2014 (EDT)
That's a good point, GiulioC. Because one of the prime uses of a template is to ensure uniformity on many pages (and saving editing many separate pages with a similar or identical edit) any far reaching changes (other than non-controversial spelling corrections or removing surplus lines or the the like) to templates should really be discussed (or, at least, signalled) first.
What threw me in this case was your edit summary of "Some kind of vandalism".
Since there no longer seems to be any opposition to the "tree-huggers' point of view" I've reverted your reversion... --Ttcf (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2014 (EDT)