Wikitravel talk:Geographical hierarchy - Revision history

Wrh2: /* Weak regions */

2012-04-27T22:15:41Z

‎Weak regions

LtPowers: /* Weak regions */

2012-04-26T18:21:51Z

‎Weak regions

Peterfitzgerald: /* Weak regions */

2012-04-26T07:48:57Z

‎Weak regions

Ravikiran r: /* Weak regions */ support + comments

2012-04-26T06:09:27Z

‎Weak regions: support + comments

Shaund: /* Weak regions */

2012-04-26T05:33:11Z

‎Weak regions

Wrh2: /* Weak regions */

2012-04-26T05:15:44Z

‎Weak regions

Ravikiran r: /* Weak regions */ No one cares about regions

2012-04-26T05:10:26Z

‎Weak regions: No one cares about regions

Peterfitzgerald: Weak regions

2012-04-26T02:46:42Z

Weak regions

Peterfitzgerald: /* Optimal districts schemes */ +Detroit

2012-02-13T21:25:24Z

‎Optimal districts schemes: +Detroit

Inas: swept

2011-12-05T00:38:20Z

swept

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:15, 27 April 2012
Line 1,263:		Line 1,263:
	:::::I have long felt that the primary problem is finding someone with knowledge of the entire region to write the darn articles. I've been trying to work on [[Finger Lakes]] for quite some time, but I've never been to most of the destinations in the region. It's hard for me to provide an overview of the highlights without that personal experience. But someone else intimately familiar with, say, Ithaca, might never have been to Letchworth State Park.		:::::I have long felt that the primary problem is finding someone with knowledge of the entire region to write the darn articles. I've been trying to work on [[Finger Lakes]] for quite some time, but I've never been to most of the destinations in the region. It's hard for me to provide an overview of the highlights without that personal experience. But someone else intimately familiar with, say, Ithaca, might never have been to Letchworth State Park.
	:::::I would be curious to know what you think of the Finger Lakes article as it stands. The See, Do, Eat, and Sleep sections still need work, and I'm in the process of subdividing it into four subregions (as you can see in the Cities section), but is the scope and tone appropriate as it stands? [[User:LtPowers\|LtPowers]] 14:21, 26 April 2012 (EDT)		:::::I would be curious to know what you think of the Finger Lakes article as it stands. The See, Do, Eat, and Sleep sections still need work, and I'm in the process of subdividing it into four subregions (as you can see in the Cities section), but is the scope and tone appropriate as it stands? [[User:LtPowers\|LtPowers]] 14:21, 26 April 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::::: I think the Finger Lakes article illustrates the problem, to some extent. The "Eat" and "Sleep" sections contain single listings that should probably be removed and replaced with... what? The Drink section is OK, but it's a wine producing region - most regions probably won't have much to say there. The best part of this article is probably the "Cities" section, and I say that mostly because there are descriptions of each pseudo-sub-region in that section that provide some way to differentiate between them. However, there is then little or no information for each city to aid a reader in determining whether or not that is a city they should investigate.
		+
		+	:::::: Regarding the comment "It's hard for me to provide an overview of the highlights without that personal experience", I think that's the core of the problem. An individual can write about their favorite restaurant or museum, but the number of people with broad enough knowledge to cite the highlights within a region is minimal and requires a massive amount of subjectivity. While ideally a region with an overview of highlights should be something to strive for, the reality is that it will probably be the exception rather than the rule for the near future.
		+
		+	:::::: Final note: the above is not in any way meant to criticize the work [[User:LtPowers\|LtPowers]] did on the article, but more as an example of how for even an article that has received significant attention we may not do a good job at either "region as overview" or "region as navigational aid". As noted earlier, my opinion is that failure is probably due to the current region concept/template, and not due to a lack of contributors or a lack of effort from those contributors. -- [[User:Wrh2\|Ryan]] • ([[User talk:Wrh2\|talk]]) • 18:15, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 26 April 2012
Line 1,260:		Line 1,260:

	::::Whatever we do decide here, I'd like to see us trying a range of ideas, and looking for more flexibility, rather than a one-size-fits-all solution, at least to start. Allowing a little creativity to be put to work might eventually point to the solution. --[[User:Peterfitzgerald\|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald\|Talk]]</sup></small> 03:48, 26 April 2012 (EDT)		::::Whatever we do decide here, I'd like to see us trying a range of ideas, and looking for more flexibility, rather than a one-size-fits-all solution, at least to start. Allowing a little creativity to be put to work might eventually point to the solution. --[[User:Peterfitzgerald\|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald\|Talk]]</sup></small> 03:48, 26 April 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::::I have long felt that the primary problem is finding someone with knowledge of the entire region to write the darn articles. I've been trying to work on [[Finger Lakes]] for quite some time, but I've never been to most of the destinations in the region. It's hard for me to provide an overview of the highlights without that personal experience. But someone else intimately familiar with, say, Ithaca, might never have been to Letchworth State Park.
		+	:::::I would be curious to know what you think of the Finger Lakes article as it stands. The See, Do, Eat, and Sleep sections still need work, and I'm in the process of subdividing it into four subregions (as you can see in the Cities section), but is the scope and tone appropriate as it stands? [[User:LtPowers\|LtPowers]] 14:21, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:48, 26 April 2012
Line 1,246:		Line 1,246:

	::: In addition, I propose that this distinction be entirely fluid. Let's say that you have a state with one well-defined region that has a lot to write about, and a vast and remote hinterland we don't anticipate writing much about. It should be entirely acceptable to create an article only for that region and have no article for the hinterland. — [[User:Ravikiran r\|Ravikiran]] 02:09, 26 April 2012 (EDT)		::: In addition, I propose that this distinction be entirely fluid. Let's say that you have a state with one well-defined region that has a lot to write about, and a vast and remote hinterland we don't anticipate writing much about. It should be entirely acceptable to create an article only for that region and have no article for the hinterland. — [[User:Ravikiran r\|Ravikiran]] 02:09, 26 April 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	::::Disorganized thoughts:
		+
		+	::::I think region articles are incredibly useful, as the starting point for travel planning, unfortunately! I've also noticed non-WT-savvy friends immediately gravitating towards our regions for answers, not finding them, and then figuring there must be nothing underneath.
		+
		+	::::The most important purpose a region article should ideally serve, I think, is to identify priorities in the region—'''how to choose between the linked destinations''' for your next clicks. [[Capital Region (Maryland)]] is a good example of what I think would be ''ideal'' for a fairly bland region, with a quick overview of where you will find what.
		+
		+	::::Right now, we do that by breaking down information into our standard see/eat/buy/drink/sleep sections, but maybe we could reduce the lot of them to a section called "Highlights," or something like that? Or just generally relax the template, since no one seems interested in filling the sections out?
		+
		+	::::I find that these articles are in a way exceptionally easy to write, since the various sections do not require much work—just mention a few of the towns with the most accommodations options, and you have a sleep section. The difficulty, though, is that most of our army of anon contributors are adding small bits of specific knowledge, while to write region article sections, you need to be familiar with all or at least the most important of the region's sub-destinations. Our collaborative model is less successful here, since each region will need someone with a certain amount of expertise. I can't think of any solution to that problem other than to grow our base of regular users.
		+
		+	::::The other big obstacle to improving our region guides is just that we have so few good examples. New contributors will go through our site for days before running into a good, basic region article, most of which are either in [[Maryland]] or [[Bali]]... Thus, directionless contributors toss in little bits and pieces of information into the region outlines, which don't ever add up to decent prose, and generally just make the article more muddled.
		+
		+	::::Whatever we do decide here, I'd like to see us trying a range of ideas, and looking for more flexibility, rather than a one-size-fits-all solution, at least to start. Allowing a little creativity to be put to work might eventually point to the solution. --[[User:Peterfitzgerald\|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald\|Talk]]</sup></small> 03:48, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:09, 26 April 2012
Line 1,242:		Line 1,242:

	::: Not sure how to deal with this though (it's too late for me to think right now). Probably something similar to what Ryan mentioned, although I'd want to see the main cities/towns covered and why someone would want to travel there. -[[User:Shaund\|Shaund]] 01:33, 26 April 2012 (EDT)		::: Not sure how to deal with this though (it's too late for me to think right now). Probably something similar to what Ryan mentioned, although I'd want to see the main cities/towns covered and why someone would want to travel there. -[[User:Shaund\|Shaund]] 01:33, 26 April 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	::: I agree with Ryan's idea. In addition, in cases where some regions serve only to provide a hierarchy, they should be rolled up to the main article. Coming back to [[North Goa]], given that there is nothing worth writing in the understand, get in or get out sections that isn't already covered in the [[Goa]] article or in the individual beach articles, we shouldn't have a North Goa article. We should just sub-section the "Regions" section of Goa and list everything right there.
		+
		+	::: In addition, I propose that this distinction be entirely fluid. Let's say that you have a state with one well-defined region that has a lot to write about, and a vast and remote hinterland we don't anticipate writing much about. It should be entirely acceptable to create an article only for that region and have no article for the hinterland. — [[User:Ravikiran r\|Ravikiran]] 02:09, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:33, 26 April 2012
Line 1,238:		Line 1,238:

	::Final caveat: this is just a brain dump, for discussion only. I wouldn't propose changing the definition of a core concept on Wikitravel based on an hour's musing, but hopefully it will provide useful fodder for brainstorming purposes. -- [[User:Wrh2\|Ryan]] • ([[User talk:Wrh2\|talk]]) • 01:15, 26 April 2012 (EDT)		::Final caveat: this is just a brain dump, for discussion only. I wouldn't propose changing the definition of a core concept on Wikitravel based on an hour's musing, but hopefully it will provide useful fodder for brainstorming purposes. -- [[User:Wrh2\|Ryan]] • ([[User talk:Wrh2\|talk]]) • 01:15, 26 April 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	::: I think good region articles are hard to write. As Ravikiran and Ryan mentioned, it's fairly easy to add content to a City article (and Country articles). A region article will aggregate and summarize the highlights of the guides below it in the hierarchy. This requires a good understanding of the region, making subjective decisions and actually writing. That said, I think good region guides are important for travellers who are looking to move around and see more than just the main cities.
		+
		+	::: Not sure how to deal with this though (it's too late for me to think right now). Probably something similar to what Ryan mentioned, although I'd want to see the main cities/towns covered and why someone would want to travel there. -[[User:Shaund\|Shaund]] 01:33, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:15, 26 April 2012
Line 1,191:		Line 1,191:

	:Because no one cares about region articles as a destination? There is a lot to write about countries. When a state or province is a well-known and well-defined destination, you can write quite a bit about them. But the overwhelming majority of regions are there only because they serve as placeholders to put cities in. For example, [[Western India]] or [[North Goa]] are hardly well-defined destinations. Very difficult to write about them. In many cases, they do nothing except make navigation even more confusing. The [[Goa]] hierarchy, for example, is a mess. Also, sorting it out requires someone who actually knows the place intimately and is willing to spend quality time on administrative stuff rather than about travel experiences, which is the kind of combination that is hard to find. [[User:Ravikiran r\|Ravikiran]] 01:10, 26 April 2012 (EDT)		:Because no one cares about region articles as a destination? There is a lot to write about countries. When a state or province is a well-known and well-defined destination, you can write quite a bit about them. But the overwhelming majority of regions are there only because they serve as placeholders to put cities in. For example, [[Western India]] or [[North Goa]] are hardly well-defined destinations. Very difficult to write about them. In many cases, they do nothing except make navigation even more confusing. The [[Goa]] hierarchy, for example, is a mess. Also, sorting it out requires someone who actually knows the place intimately and is willing to spend quality time on administrative stuff rather than about travel experiences, which is the kind of combination that is hard to find. [[User:Ravikiran r\|Ravikiran]] 01:10, 26 April 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	::This is a bit of a brain spew resulting from a long try at formulating a coherent thought. Given that caveat, I think all good destination articles (region or city) on the site should answer two questions:
		+
		+	::# Where should a traveler spend her time?
		+	::# What are the logistics for visiting a destination?
		+
		+	::For the most part, the answers to those two questions are currently found in city and park articles, and the headings address them - "Get in" and "Get around" are for logistics, while "See", "Do", "Buy", "Eat", "Drink", "Sleep" and "Get out" typically answer the "where to spend your time" question. At the city level this isn't a very subjective exercise - the Dr. Seuss museum goes in the "Do" section of the article in which it is located, end of story.
		+
		+	::The vision for the perfect region article is that it will provide an overview of regional highlights, but "regional highlight" is an ambiguous and subjective term, so regions end up empty or filled with vague generalities that are usually of little utility to a traveler. Given that, it seems that the goal should be to provide a useful navigation hierarchy that simultaneously answers the two questions above ''without requiring a lot of subjectivity''.
		+
		+	::One option might be to re-think some region articles as primarily navigational aids. In order to address the two questions above, these region articles would focus on the child regions or cities as their main content and provide much more detail than is currently done in the descriptions. A minimal template might look something like:
		+
		+	<blockquote><pre><nowiki>
		+	== Understand ==
		+
		+	<!-- history, culture, and other useful background info -->
		+
		+	== Regions ==
		+
		+	<!-- map and the current Regionlist template go here -->
		+
		+	=== Sub-Region 1 ===
		+
		+	<!-- 1-4 paragraphs about this sub-region. why go here? -->
		+
		+	=== Sub-Region 2 ===
		+
		+	<!-- 1-4 paragraphs about this sub-region. why go here? -->
		+
		+	<!-- continue with remaining sub-regions -->
		+
		+	== Get in ==
		+
		+	<!-- what are the entry points to this region -->
		+
		+	== Get around ==
		+
		+	<!-- what are the main transportation routes for this region? -->
		+
		+	== Nearby ==
		+
		+	<!-- because "Get out" is a terrible heading -->
		+	</nowiki></pre></blockquote>
		+
		+	::If there is a specific reason to add additional headings then that could be done (for example, if there is a special regional cuisine then an "Eat" section might make sense), but this proposal would reflect the fact that most regions on Wikitravel are navigational aids, and would at the same time provide additional information to help users decide what to visit in those regions.
		+
		+	::Final caveat: this is just a brain dump, for discussion only. I wouldn't propose changing the definition of a core concept on Wikitravel based on an hour's musing, but hopefully it will provide useful fodder for brainstorming purposes. -- [[User:Wrh2\|Ryan]] • ([[User talk:Wrh2\|talk]]) • 01:15, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:10, 26 April 2012
Line 1,189:		Line 1,189:

	Why do our region guides suck? What do we need to improve our site with regards to them? Anyone like to join a brainstorm? --[[User:Peterfitzgerald\|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald\|Talk]]</sup></small> 22:46, 25 April 2012 (EDT)		Why do our region guides suck? What do we need to improve our site with regards to them? Anyone like to join a brainstorm? --[[User:Peterfitzgerald\|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald\|Talk]]</sup></small> 22:46, 25 April 2012 (EDT)
		+
		+	:Because no one cares about region articles as a destination? There is a lot to write about countries. When a state or province is a well-known and well-defined destination, you can write quite a bit about them. But the overwhelming majority of regions are there only because they serve as placeholders to put cities in. For example, [[Western India]] or [[North Goa]] are hardly well-defined destinations. Very difficult to write about them. In many cases, they do nothing except make navigation even more confusing. The [[Goa]] hierarchy, for example, is a mess. Also, sorting it out requires someone who actually knows the place intimately and is willing to spend quality time on administrative stuff rather than about travel experiences, which is the kind of combination that is hard to find. [[User:Ravikiran r\|Ravikiran]] 01:10, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:46, 26 April 2012
Line 1,183:		Line 1,183:

	::::::::I would suggest you finish the article, adding every place that you think warrants it, and then it can be re-assessed.--[[User:Burmesedays\|Burmesedays]] 06:33, 6 August 2011 (EDT)		::::::::I would suggest you finish the article, adding every place that you think warrants it, and then it can be re-assessed.--[[User:Burmesedays\|Burmesedays]] 06:33, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	==Weak regions==
		+
		+	The vast, overwhelming majority of our region articles have failed to develop beyond bleak outlines containing links to cities and other regions. [[User:Gorilla Jones]] remarked to me a long while back that the weirdest thing about reading our guides is starting at a well developed country article, then moving down the hierarchy through several virtually empty garbage articles sprinkled with the occasional spam listing or vandal poo, and arriving at a brilliant huge city guide of a higher quality than any printed guide.
		+
		+	Why do our region guides suck? What do we need to improve our site with regards to them? Anyone like to join a brainstorm? --[[User:Peterfitzgerald\|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald\|Talk]]</sup></small> 22:46, 25 April 2012 (EDT)

@@ Line 657: / Line 657: @@
 |  455 km²
 |  48,700
 |-
 |  [[Kyoto]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:38, 5 December 2011
Line 1,150:		Line 1,150:

	:::::::::::::Obviously the regional scheme doesn't have to match those of the tourist board. But I think some changes could be made, especially to the Hudson Valley and Metro New York (and maybe also cut off Long Island east of New York as tourism there is of a different nature than in the big city). County borders could help in some of these divisions, but are confusing in others (such as the Hudson Valley). --[[User:Globe-trotter\|globe-trotter]] 22:05, 29 August 2011 (EDT)		:::::::::::::Obviously the regional scheme doesn't have to match those of the tourist board. But I think some changes could be made, especially to the Hudson Valley and Metro New York (and maybe also cut off Long Island east of New York as tourism there is of a different nature than in the big city). County borders could help in some of these divisions, but are confusing in others (such as the Hudson Valley). --[[User:Globe-trotter\|globe-trotter]] 22:05, 29 August 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	== How to deal with villages ==
		+	{{swept}}
		+
		+	I wonder where do we really list villages or rural areas. Do we place them under the "cities" list or under the list of "other destinations"? In [[South Limburg]] this has become a problem, where small villages are listed in "other destinations" while the bigger towns are listed under "cities". The same logic is applied at [[North Zealand]]. However, I believe the Other Destinations section was originally aimed at destinations like national parks, ruins or other geographical features like canyons and volcanoes. How should we deal with this? --[[User:Globe-trotter\|globe-trotter]] 17:36, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	:If a village has its own article, I would put it under cities. But if an articles covers several villages or a rural area, I would put it under other destinations, --[[User:ClausHansen\|ClausHansen]] 17:56, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	::Yes, the MOS allows the "Cities" heading to change to whatever is necessary to describe the communities listed therein -- but whatever you call it, all communities go in there. [[User:LtPowers\|LtPowers]] 18:56, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::I'm sorry, that was my mistake, I confused up the titles. I meant to use "Other towns and villages", like Burmesedays suggested on [[Talk:Limburg(Netherlands) and like he did in [[Central_Java]]. I'll change that now. For South Limburg, putting all the villages under cities would be far to many. The area has 18 municipalities and tens of villages, most of which have several options to stay and eat since it is a touristic region. And then I'm not even talking of all the hamlets, which in some cases meet the article criteria too.
		+
		+	:::Now, [[South Limburg]] lists only the largest towns (under cities) and most interesting (arguably, of course) other settlements. I was in fact wondering what would be ideal. I do think it is most useful for a traveler to have an idea of which towns are the more interesting ones, with a link there. But what is the policy? Should a regional article ideally have '''all''' the settlements linked? Splitting up into regions might seem good from a "systemic" point of view, but really isn't from a travelers one (as discussed on Talk:Limburg too). The South Limburg region as a whole is commonly and broadly regarded as "one" travelers destination so a solid overview article with pointers on where to go seems best. However, the whole "cities" header is more a systemic functionality, as a place like Geleen or Heerlen is less interesting than some of the tiny places around. [[User:Justme\|Justme]] 19:34, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	::::Twelve (which is the number of communities listed on [[South Limburg]]) is around the point where we like to see a region subdivided into subregions. But if there's really no good way to do so, twelve is probably a tolerable number (we prefer five to nine). But however you do it, they all go under the same heading. You could, if it's really useful to the traveler, have two lists under that heading, each alphabetized individually. [[User:LtPowers\|LtPowers]] 20:29, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::::Here is an example of how a grouping of villages can be treated as an Other destination. At [[Bali]] you will see [[Amed]] listed as an OD. The Amed article covers 7 villages along a 14 km strip of coastline.--[[User:Burmesedays\|Burmesedays]] 20:46, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	::::::Ah, looks good. Quite similar as I have done for [[Wijdemeren]] at [[Gooi and Vecht Region]]. [[South Limburg]] could easily be turned into a couple further subdivisions as shown by the tourist board. --[[User:Globe-trotter\|globe-trotter]] 22:28, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	:::::::Well, splitting up is an option, although.that is a rather arbitrary thing, with the Tourist board having their own version. For them, it is just a further split with '''all''' info also directly available through their main portal. Since the region /as a whole/ is the destination for most people (it's just a 20 x 20 km stretch with some millions of tourists spending the night each year), I do think the main [[South Limburg]] article should list the most interesting places across any subregions.
		+
		+	:::::::It's not 12 communities, that's just the ones I believe are most interesting, plus the largest ones. However, it now does /not/ list all (18) municipalities. A place like [[Epen]] is a popular destination and should be mentioned in [[South Limburg]], but it's not a municipality of its own. I don't think this region is comparable really to [[Wijdemeren]] or [[Amed]]. South Limburg is highly touristic, with many village receiving so many people that they have a tourist office of their own. A place like Valkenburg has some 6000 inhabitants but 1.2 million tourist overnight stays per year and millions of visitors for the day. [[User:Justme\|Justme]] 06:28, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	::::::::I would suggest you finish the article, adding every place that you think warrants it, and then it can be re-assessed.--[[User:Burmesedays\|Burmesedays]] 06:33, 6 August 2011 (EDT)