Help Wikitravel grow by contributing to an article! Learn how.

Difference between revisions of "Wikitravel talk:Guide articles"

From Wikitravel
Jump to: navigation, search
(requesting {{guidepark}})
(Standards for addition to guide articles..)
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 
I added <nowiki>{{guidepark}}</nowiki> to the list of guide types thinking that there is such a thing (there is a <nowiki>{{usablepark}}</nowiki>). I think it's a useful difference. Could someone who knows how put together the guidepark template? [[User:OldPine|OldPine]] 11:18, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
 
I added <nowiki>{{guidepark}}</nowiki> to the list of guide types thinking that there is such a thing (there is a <nowiki>{{usablepark}}</nowiki>). I think it's a useful difference. Could someone who knows how put together the guidepark template? [[User:OldPine|OldPine]] 11:18, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
 +
:Wait, let me try. [[User:OldPine|OldPine]] 11:20, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
 +
::Template existed, but was just not rewritten for parks. [[User:OldPine|OldPine]] 11:24, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
 +
 +
== Standards for addition to guide articles.. ==
 +
 +
For articles as they are being built, it is better to have some information than none at all.  The better the standard of the article, and as it grows, the greater the expectation of the standard of edits.  This seem to reflect the reality of what happens here.  Would there be any objections to including a para to this effect in description of guide and star articles? --[[User:Inas|Inas]] 20:32, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:No, i think it's a good idea, as long as it's worded so that it still sounds welcoming to edit the article &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 21:28, 8 February 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:: I've had a go at expressing this in the article.  I'm not particularly happy with the wording yet, I'll have another go at improving it soon.  --[[User:Inas|Inas]] 20:20, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 +
 +
==Who Determines What is a Guide Article?==
 +
 +
I have read the pages about Usable articles versus Guide Articles, and am I correct in stating that anyone can make a page a "guide" just by placing the correct formatting at the bottom of the page? Is there a system that checks to make sure the page is really a guide?
 +
 +
I am working to at least get the [[Okayama]] page to guide status, and I was looking at some of the current guides, and the quality seems varied, so I was curious as to how it will be determined when a page has become a guide.
 +
 +
For example, these are guides, but they don't appear to be all that thorough (in my opinion):
 +
[[Luling]]
 +
[[Goris]]
 +
[[Shorjha]]
 +
 +
What makes them up to guide standards?
 +
 +
I realize there is work to be done on the [[Okayama]] page, particularly with the "Eat" category, but I was just wondering if it will be changed automatically once it reaches guide status or if I am supposed to decide that it's a guide and change the status myself as I see fit?[[User:ChubbyWimbus|ChubbyWimbus]] 09:35, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:If you feel that it is guide quality, then you're free to change it to guide status. Although, there's a couple different schools of thought, at least in the past, as to what constitutes a guide article.... earlier on in the project I think articles were promoted long before they were ready. To ''me'', a "guide" article is one that is at least as good as a comparable article in any printed guidebook like LP, rough guide, etc. So in the life of most articles, I see them spending the most amount of time at "usable" status, until they really shine and cover the destination nearly completely. I think "guide" articles are what we really aim and strive for. I almost feel that a map should be a ''requirement'' for a guide article, though that's not yet written in the policy. Star articles, I believe need to ''exceed'' pretty much anything else out there on the destination.... there's a temptation to think of the statuses as rewards for hard work... but I think they should be considered more an objective rating as to how well the destination is covered and in the quality of the writing, photos & map &ndash; [[User:Cacahuate|<font color="green">cacahuate</font>]]  <sup><small>[[User talk:Cacahuate|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]</small></sup> 12:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
::The best rule of thumb is the guidance given in the links at the bottom of [[Wikitravel:Article status]]. There's no formal review process for assigning guide status (unlike [[Wikitravel:Star nominations|stars]]&mdash;anyone can add it, and anyone can move it back to usable. The cities you list are definitely not at guide status (easy to tell, since they have empty sections), and I've moved them back to usable. Feel free to [[Wikitravel:Plunge forward|do so yourself]] in the future!  --[[User:Peterfitzgerald|Peter]] <small><sup>[[User_talk:Peterfitzgerald|Talk]]</sup></small> 16:42, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Latest revision as of 00:24, 9 April 2009

For reference the old "guide articles needing attention" list has been archived at Wikitravel talk:Guide articles/Guide articles needing attention.

I added {{guidepark}} to the list of guide types thinking that there is such a thing (there is a {{usablepark}}). I think it's a useful difference. Could someone who knows how put together the guidepark template? OldPine 11:18, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Wait, let me try. OldPine 11:20, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
Template existed, but was just not rewritten for parks. OldPine 11:24, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Standards for addition to guide articles..[edit]

For articles as they are being built, it is better to have some information than none at all. The better the standard of the article, and as it grows, the greater the expectation of the standard of edits. This seem to reflect the reality of what happens here. Would there be any objections to including a para to this effect in description of guide and star articles? --Inas 20:32, 8 February 2009 (EST)

No, i think it's a good idea, as long as it's worded so that it still sounds welcoming to edit the article – cacahuate talk 21:28, 8 February 2009 (EST)
I've had a go at expressing this in the article. I'm not particularly happy with the wording yet, I'll have another go at improving it soon. --Inas 20:20, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Who Determines What is a Guide Article?[edit]

I have read the pages about Usable articles versus Guide Articles, and am I correct in stating that anyone can make a page a "guide" just by placing the correct formatting at the bottom of the page? Is there a system that checks to make sure the page is really a guide?

I am working to at least get the Okayama page to guide status, and I was looking at some of the current guides, and the quality seems varied, so I was curious as to how it will be determined when a page has become a guide.

For example, these are guides, but they don't appear to be all that thorough (in my opinion): Luling Goris Shorjha

What makes them up to guide standards?

I realize there is work to be done on the Okayama page, particularly with the "Eat" category, but I was just wondering if it will be changed automatically once it reaches guide status or if I am supposed to decide that it's a guide and change the status myself as I see fit?ChubbyWimbus 09:35, 21 February 2009 (EST)

If you feel that it is guide quality, then you're free to change it to guide status. Although, there's a couple different schools of thought, at least in the past, as to what constitutes a guide article.... earlier on in the project I think articles were promoted long before they were ready. To me, a "guide" article is one that is at least as good as a comparable article in any printed guidebook like LP, rough guide, etc. So in the life of most articles, I see them spending the most amount of time at "usable" status, until they really shine and cover the destination nearly completely. I think "guide" articles are what we really aim and strive for. I almost feel that a map should be a requirement for a guide article, though that's not yet written in the policy. Star articles, I believe need to exceed pretty much anything else out there on the destination.... there's a temptation to think of the statuses as rewards for hard work... but I think they should be considered more an objective rating as to how well the destination is covered and in the quality of the writing, photos & map – cacahuate talk 12:16, 21 February 2009 (EST)
The best rule of thumb is the guidance given in the links at the bottom of Wikitravel:Article status. There's no formal review process for assigning guide status (unlike stars—anyone can add it, and anyone can move it back to usable. The cities you list are definitely not at guide status (easy to tell, since they have empty sections), and I've moved them back to usable. Feel free to do so yourself in the future! --Peter Talk 16:42, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Variants

Actions

Destination Docents

In other languages