User talk:Huttite/Pathfinder Expedition
For more about using talk pages check out Wikitravel:Using talk pages.
There are often quick gains to be made with these special pages because an article may just need a wikilink or two to bring it into the fold, as it is often already mentioned on another page, but just not linked, or can be easily linked to another page.
I began noticing that the total number of pages only went down when I did work on the orphaned and dead-end pages. So I began wondering why nobody else was giving these pages any attention. After I had spent some time away from here, I realised that nobody else understood why these pages need attention.
Firstly, orphaned and dead-end pages are the growth area of the wiki. They are the stepping stones into the space where the wiki can grow. The problem often is that these pages do not either have the support of other pages yet, or do not provide support to other pages. The way to provide support is to provide wiki links to and from these pages. However, in order to give that support, one needs to find a path to or from these pages. In some cases that path is simply a wiki-link on another page; in other cases there are whole regions and sub-regions missing from the geographical hierachy that need to be created first.
From this sprang the name Pathfinder and with it the realisation that an expedition was probably needed.
I see the analogy as an appropriate one, as once an article is linked into the wiki with sufficient information about where it is, people will want to list on the page as they will know where it is and realise it is the place for them to list.
I have also begun thinking of these pages as being lost children (orphaned pages) that need to be (re)united with their parents and infertile parents (dead-end pages) that need to be encouraged to procreate or adopt a child. I'm not sure that the Social Work Expedition is as intuitive as Pathfinder Expedition. However, the parent-child terminology comes from thinking of each destination page as being a child of it's parent regional page. The sorts of pages I see that the expedition would address include:
Why not encourage cooperation?
I support this expedition proposal. I've always thought we needed more of this kind of interconnectivity and I think your tree analogy is quite fitting. Just one comment-- I don't understand the purpose of stating that routebox navigation boxes are a non-goal. I think there is a lot more to be gained from encouraging cooperation between these two expeditions. I might even go so far as to suggest that this be posited as the parent expedition of Routebox Navigation expedition, since routeboxes fulfill one aspect of the larger goals stated here. As discussed before, routeboxes are good for increasing connectedness by covering certain kinds of routes, and this expedition would strive to complete the job even more thoroughly. Texugo 08:45, 2 February 2009 (EST)
relation to Get In
> Populating the content of the Get in section of each article that has this section in a way that is natural and logical for the traveller.
Just to clarify, what does this have to do with making nodes of the region hierarchy tree well-interconnected? --DenisYurkin 21:17, 14 February 2009 (EST)
I generally like the idea of having an expedition to improve content around wikitravel in a single specific aspect, and looking forward to follow with a similar expedition or two when this experiment will prove successful. Best of luck! --DenisYurkin 21:19, 14 February 2009 (EST)