Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?/Archive 2016-2017

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I find the changed text (bold below) somewhat confusing:

Companies, even those holding a de facto monopoly or those owned by the state (hotels, restaurants, bars, stores, nightclubs, tour operators, airlines, rail or bus operators, etc.). It may however in some instances be okay to redirect certain quasi-monopolists, such as Amtrak, which redirects to rail travel in the United States.

Actually I don't get the difference between "De facto monopoly" (not allowed) and "Quasi monopoly" (can be allowed). I also don't get under what instances a quasi-monopoly would be allowed. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think that the point is that you should not create an article about a De facto / Quasi monopoly, but redirects are allowed (as they are likely search terms). However it is confusing to use the two similar terms, and they should be changed to be the same. AlasdairW (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Then should the bold text be changed to Companies that are likely to be used as frequent search terms may be created as redirects to the relevant article, such as Amtrak, which redirects to rail travel in the United States ? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

That sounds doable. Though I am not really in favor of creating even a redirect on Delta Airlines or Ryanair as this is bound to end up being a s lippery slope... Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Seems Ryanair is already there :)

How about change the first word to Monopolies that are likely to be used as frequent search terms may be created as redirects to the relevant article, such as Amtrak, which redirects to rail travel in the United States ? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think it should be made obvious that policy dictates the article not to be under the name of any company. And I would vfd Ryanair if it weren't a redirect to a page currently vfd'ed... (btw, am I vfd'ing too much lately?) Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Check out Disney . Anyway, policy is allowed to be very obvious. It removes any potential ambiguity. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Hi.

Some user (apparently a newbie) has just created Matangi Private Island Resort, which IIRC is not one of the things we usually have articles on. What should we do to avoid biting them? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, Welcome them on their talk page, point out our policies and ask if they would consider an alternative compliant approach.

That said I'm not completely sure if a private island meets What is an article criteria or not. It is a valid travel destination, albeit one that is effectively a standalone business occupying the whole island itself. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Like Andrewssi2 said, welcome them. Another possibility is to leave a note on the guide's talk page, reference and explain the guideline in question, and ask if the author thinks it will meet the guideline. Don't rush to put merge tags (or vfd, unless it's obvious vandalism) on the page, especially if the author is still working on it. Don't treat it like it's a big deal.

At the risk of looking like the old guy at the pub telling stories from a youth long past, one of my first edits was to create a new page with not a whole lot of info and somewhere in the text was "typically a day trip from Vancouver". One of the site's co-founders picked up on it and left a simple note on the Talk page querying if the place had accommodation and whether it should just be a listing in Vancouver. I was on vacation at the time and didn't respond for a couple of weeks. I saw the note when I got back and realized I needed to add more info so I did. And that was it. The fact that no one made a fuss about it helped considerably in giving me confidence to continue editing.

My point of this is relax, provide some helpful pointers and see where it goes. It's not a big deal in this case (or most) if the article hangs around for a week or two. -Shaundd (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure that there is a policy against articles about islands which are monopolies. (Islands which are private and visitors are not allowed is a different matter.) For example we have Lady Elliot Island which is being considered for dotm and Holy Island (Arran). These may not be quite as private, but they both have only one operator of eat or sleep. AlasdairW (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Holy Island (Arran) may only have one operator of eat/sleep, but (AFAIK) it is perfectly accessible to the casual visitor with no obligation to use the facilities offered. This island is more tricky because it seems that the island IS the business and vice-versa. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think regardless of the details of this particular case, it might be good to have a policy page on this issue. Maybe Wikivoyage:Private Resorts or Wikivoyage:Private Islands or something of the sort? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure we need a whole policy page on it, clarification in Wikivoyage:What is an article? is probably sufficient. If we decide Matagi Island shouldn't have its own article, it would be good to point out how it's different than Holy Island (Arran) and Sveti Stefan. -Shaundd (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would strongly suggest removing the merge tags (and did on the article's talk page). Sveti Stefan can not be visited by non-guests, but it's beautiful to look at and certainly deserves its own article. So far as I've seen, the article has not had a touty tone, so I think we should give the article-starter plenty of latitude to fill out the article before making a decision on whether to merge it or not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Our policy against articles on individual businesses does not obligate us to ignore real places that are privately owned. That's why we have Disneyland, after all. Powers ^(talk) 01:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

(starting at the left again) I do think nonetheless that we should clarify our policy on that. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any specific suggestions for improvements in wording? Powers ^(talk) 02:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there is a way to distinguish Matagi Island from Sveti Stefan that would suggest keeping Sveti Stefan and deleting Matagi Island. On the contrary, Matagi Island actually has things to see/do which is a lot more important than a list of hotels which is what Sveti Stefan is, so it would have a stronger case. I'd just leave it be and hope the user adds to other Fiji articles. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Given that the policy has evolved into something quite complex, I think it would be good to have it spelled out on its own page, just like we do for our policy on bodies of water Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Hi! I'm interested in creating a new page on Wikipedia to list day trip destinations that are accessible on the commuter rail here in eastern Massachusetts. Examples would be Salem, Crane Beach, Providence, CapeFlyer, Ski Train, Bike Train, Ayer rail trail, and many more. The target audience would be people who live in the Boston areas as well as visitors to Boston.

Do you think this would be ok to create? If so, do you have a suggested title of the page? Maybe something like "Rail Travel, Day Trips and Attractions on MBTA in Eastern Massachusetts"?

Tjmather (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You write that you want to create a new page on Wikipedia. Do you mean Wikivoyage? If you want to create this page on Wikivoyage, I'm unsure about it and would suggest that you try creating it in your Sandbox first. Have a look at some of the various travel topics and itineraries to see how they're structured and whether any of them are comparable to the kind of article you'd like to create. You also might want to look at regional transportation articles, such as the Bay Area public transit article in progress. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think this is an interesting idea (and I might actually use articles like that). It should probably be structured as an itinerary. Maybe Eastern Massachusetts via commuter rail? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it's an interesting and potential valuable idea, but it doesn't sound like a single itinerary to me; rather, the article as proposed would facilitate various itineraries. That's why it looks like a travel topic to me, rather than an itinerary article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Can anyone direct me to a guideline on how much or little detail should go into a country article? The Switzerland article had a lengthy driving section, including an infobox with a long list of traffic fines. I branched that off into a new Driving in Switzerland article, which i think works well. Looking at United Kingdom, I see long sections on getting around by car and by train, and think they might be branched off, but I want to see what the policy is on doing so before I go ahead. Is there one? I would also discuss on the article talk page before doing anything radical. Ground Zero (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

There are already articles for Driving in the UK and Rail travel in Britain, and I have already been cutting down the corresponding in the UK article itself (per this talk page discussion), but if there are other bits of info you feel are superfluous go ahead and get chopping ;-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's helpful. I would like still like to know if there is general guidance, if anyone knows. Ground Zero (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) There are already articles for Driving in the UK and Rail travel in Great Britain, both already referenced from the United Kingdom article, so can you clarify what would be "branched off"? Typically popular articles tend to accumulate excessive amounts of detail and require some trimming from time-to-time, so rather than creating new articles, in this instance it would be best to just reduce the amount of detail in the country article and ensure that anything removed is covered in the existing topic articles. For the official guidance on when to consider splitting content out into separate articles see Wikivoyage:What is an article?#Exceptions ("A good rule of thumb is that information about attractions, sites, events, and transportation should always be initially placed into an existing article, and only when that information becomes too large and complex (more than 3-4 paragraphs) should a new article be considered."). -- Ryan • (talk) • 15:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

(all the edit conflicts) I realised I didn't answer that part of your question. We have templates for every kind of destination article. The exact specification for a 'Get around' section of a country article reads: "This is a spot to give general information about how to get around the country once you are there. An overview of domestic travel possibilities: air, train, and bus travel, long-distance taxis, ferries, etc. Try to keep the information general, with specifics on distances and schedules between cities in the country left to the city articles." --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think it is not a bad idea at all to have a more focused section in the country guide and if people want to go into details have more detailed articles. This also serves our readers - if someone for instance does not own a driver's license, they would want to skip the "by car" section entirely, and similarly there are people who won't consider e.g. buses or trains for their travel plans. So for each of them, not having to print all of that (to them) superfluous information out is a plus. And if someone knows that they - for example - want to make good use of the superb Swiss train system they have heard so much about, giving them a detailed article with all the information they could ever want also makes a lot of sense. Keep in mind that there is another factor with mobile use as you can collapse two deep headlines (those with == at both sides of the headline title) but you cannot collapse three deep headlines and all the subsections of "get in" and "get around" are three deep, so you'd have to read or scroll through them on mobile. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

(unindent) Just to answer the original question, I don't believe that there are any guidelines on detail level or article length. I guess The Traveler comes first would apply, but that is so broad in interpretation that it could be taken either for more or less detail.

If moving the text to another articles improves both articles then it should be done. I moved a large amount of text in United States about study to Studying_abroad#United_States which worked well. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I had overlooked that there were already articles on driving and trains in the UK. I had moved a fair bit of text from the article that was duplicated in the branch articles, and moved some that was not. I am glad to get a sense of agreement that keeping the country article as an overview is desirable. Ground Zero (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just to be clear to everyone, I do not support keeping country articles as 'overviews' as such, but rather move excessive detail that is better addressed in specific articles is sometimes desirable. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. Sorry if I created the wrong impression. I gather I inadvertently reopened an old debate of which I was unaware by choosing my words badly. Ground Zero (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be useful to have a shortcut to the list of things that are not articles, e.g., WV:WIAANOT. Any objections? Ground Zero (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

There's got to be a better name? WV:NOTARTICLE or something similar? K7L (talk) 18:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sure. That works too. Ground Zero (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

What about WV:NAA? - both sounds like rejection and abbreviates N(ot) A(n) A(rticle). Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

We could create both of those shortcuts. Ground Zero (talk) 00:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

Hello! I was starting to work on Boston/Outer Neighborhoods, and could only find one "Sleep" listing. It's a bad place in a bad area and I do not feel comfortable listing it or endorsing it in any way. That would leave us with 0 sleep listings and then it's potentially not an article. Can I get consensus to give me a "pass" on this one? There will be a decent amount of other things listed here to make it worthwhile (IMHO). Is there an agreed upon piece of text to use for an empty section? Like "No accommodations are available in Location, please see Main Article#sleep for advice on the best places to stay while in town." Or something like that? Thank you for your help! --ButteBag (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

We shouldn't say "there are no accommodations" if there are. I would list it and note your specific concerns with it, e.g., security, cleanliness, Mormons, rather than saying it is "bad". Ground Zero (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Ground Zero: "Mormons"?! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

When we run into something like Nunatsiavut#Natuashish about all we can do is lay it on the line - yes it's a real place and yes there are serious problems. Wikivoyage:Avoid negative reviews does make a bit of an exception for venues which are prominently located, widely advertised or which the voyager is likely to find from other sources - and the one lone, dysfunctional hotel in some place which otherwise has nothing would usually qualify. K7L (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The so-called sleep test being taken too literally is a longstanding (though understandable) problem on this site. Asking the question "can you sleep there?" was never meant to imply that any place without a hotel doesn't deserve its own article - it was more meant to help people weed out the types of places that shouldn't get their own articles (e.g. city parks, bodies of water, tiny "dot on a map" hamlets with no attractions or services). If there's no recommendable hotel in Boston's outer neighborhoods, just say so and carry on with the article (but I would also agree with K7L that in a case like this one, we should feel freer than usual to list lower-quality hotels that we might otherwise prefer not to). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I feel like Andre is on the right track--in principle you couldn't sleep on a rock in the middle of the ocean (well, you could but if you're sort of person who does that, you're not reading a travel guide anyway). We avoid negative reviews but we also give information that is useful for someone's safety. If none of the lodging there is really safe or clean, then simply note that and implore travelers to sleep elsewhere. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

My ancestors might've been crazy enough to colonise a rock in the middle of the ocean. To each their own, I suppose.

Certainly, the "can you eat there" and "can you sleep there" questions have come up often before in a few tiny, out-of-the-way places. For instance, is Cartwright (Labrador) promotable to "usable" if there are few choices available locally after the Cartwright Hotel burned to the ground in 2013? Are any of these tiny Labrador outports promotable to "guide" if a guide article is expected to provide a few good choices and alternatives in each section – and there really is no menu of multiple options in the tiniest villages as they're lucky to have anything locally. For that matter, will the Moon ever progress beyond "outline" until all of the Apollo-era infrastructure is rebuilt or replaced?

There's a distinction between "poor coverage of a viable destination" and "reasonably complete coverage of a marginal destination" that gets lost somehow. We apply (nominally) the same 'what is an article' and 'article status' criteria in a big city as in a remote subsistence fishery outport.

Boston is a different animal, admittedly, from Labrador. If there's nothing in one spot, the next village is a few minutes away – instead of 200km on bad gravel roads with no services under sub-Arctic winter driving conditions. It's easy to say "there's nothing worthwhile in this area other than one bad hotel in a bad location, so try (some other district)". Try that in Nunatsiavut and it's some absurdly-long way away and there's no road. All we can do is lay off the "Achieving euphoria is easy in this virtual Xanadu..." hype and explain honestly and factually why a fun-filled trip to Natuashish might simply not work out as planned. K7L (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I meant like w:Rockall which can just be mentioned at Next-to-impossible_destinations. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ If there are a bunch of decent hotels and a few bad ones, there is no reason to include the bad ones. If there is only one hotel, we should include it, identify its issues, and let the reader decide for themselves. I've stayed in a lot of hotels I wouldn't recommend, but for one night at the right price in that location, it was okay for me. I don't think we should decide for the traveller who wants to stay in a particular location that they are wrong and have to go elsewhere. I considered staying a dive in London - a city with billions and billions of hotels - because what was important to me was staying close to a sick friend (fortunately, there's Airbnb). Give them the info, and let the reader decide for themselves. Ground Zero (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

How much information do we include about that one hotel, if we're just going to indicate that it's bad and send the voyager to some other district? I've been inclined to leave one sentence (enough to explain that there is a hotel and identify the issues) but not a full listing of the style used for somewhere worth staying. K7L (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, this is my main question, and I appreciate that I am talking about the weather here and not the climate. Ground Zero makes a compelling argument, list everything and let the user decide. I don't want to do that in this case, however, because I don't want to list a place where (at least) two rapes were reported in 2013. I think the city shut the place down, but I can't confirm. In my opinion I would "serve the traveller" better by doing what K7L says: mentioning there are no listings, and letting them pick an option that appeals to them from airbnb, vrbo, homestay, homeaway, etc, etc, etc. --ButteBag (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not being able to confirm that is open is another matter. That would be a reason not to list it. There are, unfortunately, rapes even in good hotels, and often more recently than three years ago. We should not be sending any one anywhere. We're not the reader's mom.

If the place were open, I would identify the address, phone, website, and in the content line, something like, "This is the only hotel in the district. Two rapes were reported here in 2013." A lot of cheap, and not so cheap, hotels around the world are used by prostitutes and their clients, and often the clients are not very nice people, so rapes are probably fairly common, even though they may not be reported. Ground Zero (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

We're not the reader's mum, but we are a travel guide. If something isn't worth visiting, we say so or we outright refuse to list it – much like there's no sense putting the traveller on the RMS Titanic if we know the mighty ocean liner is as doomed as doomed can be. K7L (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Probably not a great analogy: if we had known that we could have stopped it with a concisely-worded warning on our web page. ;-) Refusing to list the only hotel in town because we don't think it's good enough is playing mommy. I fully support not listing bad hotels where there are good ones available. We don't know the reader's circumstances and why they might stay in a hotel we say is a bad one, but we should not make that decision for them. As I've mentioned, I've stayed in a number of bad hotels for good reasons, location being one of them. One place, the only one I could afford that night, turned out to be a homeless shelter that had a "travellers' dorm". It was okay, for a night. As long as we report on the conditions factually, it provides useful information for the reader to make their own decision. Ground Zero (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, I tried several sources for finding a hotel in the area covered by the article, and came up with nothing, so I think the scary place is gone. Ground Zero (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah, I totally feel you. It's a bit of a slippery slope once we start saying this place is "bad" but that place isn't. (but that place was legit bad!) It's hard to be impartial when you're trying to rep your set, you know? Thank you again User:Ground Zero for your thoughtful and reasoned arguments. I've added a sentence in the Sleep section now, could someone else have a look and adjust the article status accordingly? Thanks to everyone again for their help. --ButteBag (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

That looks fine to me, but I'm an old-fashioned guy: I'd prefer it if you'd at least buy me a drink before you feel me. Just saying. Ground Zero (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Given the preceding discussion, should these policies be updated to deal with the case where a village's one hotel or lone restaurant shuts down or fails to meet minimum standards?

• Wikivoyage:Usable articles and Wikivoyage:What is an article?#The test for destination-style articles: "The most common and quickest assessment of whether a place merits an article is Can You Sleep There?"
• Wikivoyage:Avoid negative reviews doesn't fully address the case where a village's only hotel gets a lovely review like this.
• Wikivoyage:Article status and Wikivoyage:City guide status: "Has different choices for accommodation and eating/drinking, and information on multiple attractions and things to do" and "Guide - The article would be helpful for the average traveller, such as offering alternatives for where to stay and eat, what to see and do, how to get in and out, etc. and provide enough information for at least a few days there."
• Wikivoyage:Guide articles: "For example, an article about a city must have multiple hotel and restaurant listings, but that doesn't make sense for an article about an entire region" vs. "Not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here"

If we've listed all there is to list for a place (it's all here) but the "eat" section looks like "Bring what you need and leave no trace when you leave. Be bear aware; stored or cached foodstuffs may require bear-resistant containers." is this an article and is it promotable to usable or higher? This has come up before on Talk:Cartwright (Labrador) and again on Wikivoyage:Destination of the month candidates#Labrador as going off the beaten path often means limited or no options. "What is an article?" has also come up for ghost towns... where's the best place to eat in downtown Glenrio tonight if it doesn't have all the amenities of urban Val-Jalbert? Any conclusions from these discussions (or the one above) should be reflected in policy, or the same questions will continue to arise. K7L (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is worth discussing this. The 'sleep test' is a pretty imperfect tool and I'd like to see more direction around grouping a few smaller destinations into one useful article rather than feeling every hamlet/ghost town needs its own dedicated article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would second that. There are way too many almost-empty articles that survive simply because they have one or two sleep listings, or a single visitor attraction. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, policy needs updating here, but I'm not 100% sure how the best way to proceed would look. Maybe we need a standalone policy on WV:Wilderness Outposts or WV:Hamlets? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Just throwing this out there but instead of "Can you sleep there?" the barometer could be:

• Must have at least 10(or whatever number is good) listings combined in See, Do, Buy, Eat, Drink, Sleep.
• Must have enough content to hold a travelers attention for more than 3 hours (or whatever number)
• Must take a user at least 5 minutes to read the entire article (or article must be larger than 100kb, or whatever)

--ButteBag (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely not. Wikis are built from small pieces. Just because we have few listings currently doesn't mean it's a permanent situation, nor does it mean the article is unworthy of its own travel guide. Childs is a guide article that was featured on the front page. Sometimes a rural-area region with listings and no subpages is appropriate, but certainly not all the time! Powers ^(talk) 01:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Actually Wikis grow organically, with the organization and potential merger of articles being flexible. That said it is unlikely we will ever agree on a quantifiable metric that can be used to determine the viability of an article.

One practical example is Jervis_Bay which contains a few small towns within one rural area. It is open for potential splitting in the future, but as it stands it is serving the traveller far better as one article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

As part of growing organically, there's nothing stopping these 'grouped articles' becoming 'ungrouped' (i.e. split back into city articles) over time, if and when the level of information is enough. Wiki or no, keeping hundreds of very sparse articles just in case someone decides to fill them up in a few years, makes Wikivoyage look unprofessional, and I would bet on them putting readers off. They also spoil the chances of any number of region articles ever being promoted to 'usable' status, despite many having enough content to do so on their own merits. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I agree that having hundreds of sparse articles makes Wikivoyage look unprofessional. Just look at Lynnfield and a hundred other pages in Massachusetts alone. I would also argue that "can you sleep there?" is a quantifiable metric. (If there is more than one sleep listing, than it is an article.) I also get that CYST is a rule of thumb and not meant to be taken literally, but it seems like a reasonable number of contributors are making this mistake? That's why I threw out a few suggestions as conversation starters. The question I have about the article Powers linked, Childs, is why isn't it a star? It seems to have a static map and all sections filled out, good images and prose. Nothing seems to be missing. Could it ever be a star? Incidentally, Childs seems to conform to 2 of the 3 criteria I listed, and is very close on the other one. Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes,CYST is quantifiable, but often unenforceable because frankly others object to the potential deletion.

And yes, merged articles can absolutely be split again in future if a contributor with serious content wants to give it a go. The traveler is best served by one good article with good content rather than a skeleton article that is easy to create but expecting someone else to do the hard work is not useful at all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

A group of outer Boston suburbs is one thing — these likely could be grouped or combined as they're fairly close together — but a truly isolated outport like Cartwright is a very different animal. There's nowhere to merge this. We only have eight pages covering all of Labrador, an almost province-sized geographic area, because there's very little out there except sub-Arctic wilderness. A policy that a guide-level article should be "offering alternatives for where to stay and eat" is viable for a big city, but a Cartwright-sized w:Newfoundland outport might never meet those criteria. It's a tiny place, there really aren't "alternatives" locally for much of anything and the next village might be 200km away.

Likewise, the Glenrio Historic District is (a) on a state line and (b) nowhere near much of anything, which makes it difficult to merge into another article. It's not merely a Tucumcari suburb if half of it is in Texas.

Whatever policy we apply needs to handle both large cities and tiny, isolated coastal subsistence fishery villages... unless and until they get to the point of not being worth visiting (or listing) at all. CYST and the "usable city" criteria assume every village with something worth seeing or doing also has a restaurant and a hotel; "guide" assumes multiple viable options. I don't agree with creating empty {{subst:smallcity}} skeletons for points which could be included in an adjacent destination, but at some point we've listed everything there is to list in some of these outports and the result still looks sparse. K7L (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I really don't see a compelling need here to monkey around with a status quo that, in my view, works perfectly well. The flexibility in the current policy is a good thing - it allows Powers to write an article about a worthwhile microdestination like Childs and K7L to have one about a wide area like Rural Montgomery County that's treated as a bottom-level destination, and both of those ways of looking at geography are considered valid on an equal standing. Why proscribe any of those approaches? And, as for the empty skeleton articles that this conversation is really about, I don't understand why people are afraid to take the initiative and plunge forward. Policy already allows us to merge and redirect articles whose information would better serve the traveller as part of some larger article. You don't even have to put them through the vfd rigmarole (in fact, please don't vfd them; you'll only get told for the 5,000th time that real places don't get deleted) - policy states that discussions about redirecting are to be conducted on the talk page of the article itself, but clearly in the case of an empty skeleton that no one has looked at in years that's just a formality, and it's doubtful anyone would object to a user skipping that step. (And I don't buy K7L's above argument that "sometimes there's nothing to redirect to", as with Cartwright (Labrador) - in fact, one need look no further than our coverage of Labrador to find a bounty of creative examples of how to deal with geographically isolated communities that are too small to sustain their own article, such as Nunatsiavut and Port Hope Simpson#Nearby). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I strongly agree with AndreCarrotflower on this. There's no need to make policy more strict or limiting. The flexibility has always helped us. It's true that deleting is usually not an acceptable solution for skeletons, but creating combined articles or redirecting where that makes sense is, in my experience, typically uncontroversial. While this strategy should obviously not be used for larger destinations which simply haven't evolved into a proper article yet, there's wide support to group rural destinations together. The only issue I would like to raise is that when redirecting, we should probably try to include some kind of mention of the redirected destination in the target article, to avoid confusion. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I believe that deleting should be an option if there is truly nothing to list. Toronto (Prince Edward Island) redirects to Cavendish and Rustico Harbour why exactly? That destination article doesn't mention "Toronto PEI" because there's nothing in Toronto PEI - it's a random, empty speck on a map that never should have been created. I recall an incident with one user, a "page creation vandal", adding a long list of various pointless specks-on-a-map in Maine which had one bar, no hotel, less than 1000 population; those were deleted, as were some fictional points.

That said, CYST taken to the extreme could create an outcome like Cartwright NL initially being listed because we need it as a jumping-off point to get to isolated points like Mealy Mountains National Park or Eagle River which have no road. There's little here - a village of about 1000 people - but there's nowhere to merge this as the next town down the actual road is 200km away. The Cartwright Hotel burns down? Well, that invalidates the entire destination. It's not a city any more so it gets redirected to some point that's actually further afield than dumping New York, New York into Philadelphia#Nearby. Frank Sinatra did say NY, NY was "the city that never sleeps" (presumably causing it to fail CYST, even though Glenn Miller did provide a telephone number for a hotel) but at some point this is a stretch. Grouping the six Nunatsiavut villages made sense as they are part of the same native first nation and joined to each other by a coastal ferry. If grouping Cartwright (Labrador) to Port Hope Simpson#Nearby makes no sense geographically (short of creating a bottom-level "large rural area" for the entire east coast of Labrador below Nunatsiavut) then we don't do it... even if that means grasping at straws like "tent camping" in chilly Labrador. I doubt we'll ever have a "guide"-level article for Cartwright. There's too little here. We list what we can and move on. It's "usable" but even that is tenuous. One business closure could knock Cartwright back to "outline" at any time.

The Boston suburbs are obviously an entirely different environment. We have some flexibility to group and bundle them, much like city districts, into articles of manageable size. Does CYST require we draw those lines carefully so that each of the districts lands on at least one decent hotel? We sometimes run into districts like Manhattan/Central Park where there is plenty to see or do, a wide assortment of vendors and food, but nowhere (lawfully) to sleep. I suppose we need a bit of wiggle room, as one size does not fit all. K7L (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the discussion! For me the explicitness really helps, and I've compiled a list of what I learned from these comments. Maybe someone with more experience than me can edit some of the relevant policy pages, (assuming these are even accurate at all) I do not dare.

• A valid (and high quality) article may have no Sleep listings. (examples? Boston/Outer Neighborhoods?)
• Conversely, a location with only one or two places to sleep isn't necessarily an article. See Rowley, or Boxford (Massachusetts).
• The flexibility in the current policy is a good thing - it allows Powers to write an article about a worthwhile microdestination like Childs and K7L to have one about a wide area like Rural Montgomery County that's treated as a bottom-level destination, and both of those ways of looking at geography are considered valid on an equal standing. -- Andre
• Some places, like Glenrio, will remain at "outline" status for years, possibly forever. In other words, articles may be created that even when completely filled out, can never achieve star status. This is desirable and good.
• Although you will see hundreds of them, we don't actually like having so many bare bones skeleton articles on Wikivoyage.
• If you found a skeleton article you know something about, please take the initiative and plunge forward. Policy allows you to merge and redirect articles whose information would better serve the traveller as part of some larger article. -- Andre
• Check out Labrador and its sub-pages like Nunatsiavut and Port Hope Simpson for good examples of how to group content in rural areas. Another good example is Jervis Bay.
• The traveler is best served by one good article with good content. -- Andrewssi2

Hope I made things better, and not worse, thank you!--ButteBag (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad things are more clear for you now, ButteBag, but I'm not sure which policy page you think should be changed or updated based on this list of established practices and personal statements you made. To change policy, you obviously need a consensus, not just someone's comment, although in this particular case it doesn't seem all that relevant as most things are already covered by policy and status quo as it is. @K7L, while it is policy to not delete real places in principle, I think we all agree there is always some wiggle room for specific cases. TTCF always gives us room to make exceptions. Since those instances are rare, I do think it's perfectly acceptable to require a quick consensus, though. Trying to catch these individual cases in quantifiable policy is almost impossible and hardly worth it. In the case of page creation vandalism, deletions should be uncontroversial - regardless of any usual policies or practices. JuliasTravels (talk) 16:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the response! Although I don't agree with all the bullet points I listed above, I guess my goal was to make the status quo of current policy more explicit. The current set of policies evolved over years (I'm guessing), and when a new contributor arrives they are consumed all at once. Since these rules are more "Bazaar" than "Cathedral", you'll occasionally notice a few edge cases that aren't covered perfectly. I guess I was thinking the bullet points above (if reworked by someone with greater domain experience) could be useful as a "tips for n00bs" guide, or the like. I think I've done a not-that-great job of communicating my ideas, so thank you for bearing with me while I learn. --ButteBag (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Going back to K7L's remarks earlier, one change to this area of policy that I would certainly get behind would be to clarify that if we have an article for a small community where there simply aren't any hotels in town to put in "Sleep" (or restaurants/grocery stores for "Eat", bars for "Drink", etc.), but we have already agreed the article merits existence per wiaa, then the article should not be forever stuck at Outline or Usable status so long as it otherwise fulfills the requirements for promotion. I've cited Childs before as the classic example of this; let's look at it again. Wikivoyage:City guide status says all bottom-level destinations at Guide level must "ha[ve] different choices for accommodation and eating/drinking" (emphasis in original). Someone reading policy in an overly strict way would take issue with Tillman's Historic Village Inn being double-listed in both "Eat" and "Drink", and would further hold that double-listing in the same sections a gas station that sells beer and has an attached sandwich counter is an exceedingly weak "different choice", and would likely conclude that Childs should be demoted to Usable. However, we also have Wikivoyage:Guide articles which says "Not only would you not need to consult another guide, you'd really have no reason to want to: it's all here", which is clearly accurate in describing Childs. The fact that we hold the latter specification to supersede the former is evident in the fact that not only is Childs' Guide status designation uncontroversial, but we even saw fit to feature it on the Main Page as OtBP a few years back. Similarly, K7L describes Cartwright (Labrador)'s Usable status as "tenuous" because "one business closure could knock [it] back... at any time", but I feel that it handily falls into the same category as Childs. If there's nothing to list, there's nothing to list, and saying so and moving on does just as much by way of providing accurate information to the traveller as any listings would. IMO there's no point in penalizing an article for that reason. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this too. Most logical, Captain. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, the guidelines for article status assume that there exist a variety of options in a destination. If all of the available options are there, then there's nothing more to add and no reason to demote or resist promotion on that basis.

Re: ButteBag's summary, I don't understand the animus against outline articles. Do we want to appear complete, or do we want to appear as if there are opportunities for the public to contribute? Powers ^(talk) 02:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Totally agree with User:LtPowers, there is nothing wrong with outlines, they're great and invite participation. What I was trying (poorly) to express, is that in my mind, the most beautiful version of WV is one that covers every corner of the globe, without overlapping, and every article is a star. Working backwards from that vision, I thought something like "if it can't be a star, it can't be an article". Then I saw a bunch of regions that (IMHO) could never be star, and got a little frustrated with that. I looked around for policies, or how-to guides, or something. Like a yearly "state of the voyage" address or something, and didn't notice any. (I'm sure something exists, I just didn't see it.) Thanks! --ButteBag (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'd think we would hold a place back from star status if, while it's a real place and you can sleep there, it isn't worth visiting. A "star", much like a featured "destination of the month", is supposed to represent our best work. Expecting every article to be a star is a bit like insisting "...and all of the children are above-average". It just doesn't work that way. If Fort MacKay is an environmental nightmare with little to see or do other than prospect for black gold, so be it. We cover what's there (one local annual festival, a doughnut shop and a few oil sands camps) but it would be lucky to progress beyond "usable". There'd be no reason to nominate it for destination of the month, even if we managed to cover it comprehensively in the future. K7L (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for this context and example! This is extremely helpful! I was assuming articles captured places that someone would want to visit for some reason. And maybe in a hundred years it would eventually have enough content to become a star. The way that I was seeing it, if we know Fort MacKay is functionally complete, and stalls at outline, it might not be considered an article and should eventually be merged into a sub-section of Fort_McMurray somehow. Then eventually Fort McMurray would be complete and perfect and could be starred, and so on. I think I'm pretty alone in this line of thinking, but it might be helpful to include your comment above on the Wikivoyage:Star_articles page or somewhere, for the errant few who see it my way. Thanks again! --ButteBag (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I could not disagree more with this idea. Star status is a recognition of high-quality writing, no more and no less, irrespective of how "worthwhile" (by whose judgment?) a destination may be. Same deal with DotM - if a place is not a massive tourist mecca, it'd probably be better off as OtBP, but you can't just disallow it from being featured if it fits all the other criteria. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

I concur with Andre. Powers ^(talk) 00:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Wikivoyage:What is an article?#The test for destination-style articles currently says:

The most common and quickest assessment of whether a place merits an article is Can You Sleep There? That is, are there any types of accommodation open to the public: hotels, hostels, campgrounds, cabins, wigwams, yurts, space station bunks, etc. If a place, such as a national park, has no facilities, but has rules for pitching a tent in the wilderness, that can work too. On the other hand, while there are numerous hotels and other lodging options in a city like London, you can't sleep in a museum or park within that city; such parks and museums should thus be listed as attractions within an article about the city.

Sleeping isn't all that travellers do, though, and there should be some content to fill out our other standard article sections: content regarding what and where to eat, how to have some fun in the evening, stuff to do, things to see, etc. If you know there really is no place to find food, nothing to do, and nothing to see at a location, it's likely that the article won't meet the criteria established in this policy.

That seems a bit harsh; one blank section and the destination is penalised, no hotel or camp ground and the destination fails "what is an article?"

If that wasn't the intention, would this wording be more appropriate:

The most common, quickest assessment of whether a place merits an article is "Can You Sleep There"? Is there accommodation open to the public: hotels, hostels, campgrounds, cabins, wigwams, yurts, space station bunks, or even a place to pitch a tent in the wilderness of a national park? Sleeping isn't all that travellers do, so the types of places that merit their own articles provide "attractions or activities" (to see or do) alongside basic travel "infrastructure" (some way to get in, somewhere to eat, somewhere to sleep).

While there are numerous hotels and other lodging options in a city like London, one can't sleep in a museum or park within that city; these attractions and activities should merely be individual listings within a larger article about the city. Some types of places typically won't have enough content to fill our standard article sections: these include small city parks, bodies of open water and tiny "dot on a map" hamlets with no attractions or services.

Asking "can you sleep there?" is a guideline. It doesn't infer every community without a hotel will inevitably be relegated to permanent "outline" status or will never deserve an article. Wikivoyagers exercise wide discretion to group handfuls of smaller villages into one larger article or split huge cities into individual districts of manageable size, wherever this best suits the destination. Where no lodging in one district is safe or clean (or there's nothing at all), simply note this and move on.

Comments? K7L (talk) 08:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I do particularly like "Wikivoyagers exercise wide discretion to group handfuls of smaller villages into one larger article or split huge cities into individual districts of manageable size, wherever this best suits the destination." Hopefully everyone else can get behind this wording as well. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The new third paragraph is good (though "infer" should be "imply"). But the changes to the other two paragraphs are not good. The new second paragraph starts by explaining the other side of the Can You Sleep There? test that was introduced in the first paragraph, then continues on to address an unrelated topic: places that do meet the test but still might not be suitable for articles. Powers ^(talk) 22:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I apologize, but now that similar changes have been made, I think it's even worse than the text proposed above. Perhaps we should have hashed it out a bit before plunging forward on changing a policy page? Powers ^(talk) 01:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sure, here's the piñata if you'd like to take a whack at this. I've reverted for now. What wording did you have in mind? I presume we want Manhattan/Central Park (lots to see and do, nowhere to sleep) and Cartwright (Labrador) (with its one barely-there six room motel) as valid but a destination in which most of the sections have no suitable venues worth listing is not a valid article?

I'm a bit uncomfortable about this bit: "Sleeping isn't all that travellers do, though, and there should be some content to fill out our other standard article sections: content regarding what and where to eat, how to have some fun in the evening, stuff to do, things to see, etc". Last I checked, some of these sections were optional for a usable article - if there's no "drink" listing that isn't already part of a restaurant or hotel, so be it. Otherwise, WIAA is actually more restrictive in its requirements than {{usablecity}}. K7L (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

The most common and quickest assessment of whether a "type of place" merits an article is "Can You Sleep There?" That is, is there any type of accommodation open to the public: hotels, hostels, campgrounds, cabins, wigwams, yurts, space station bunks, etc. If a place, such as a national park, has no facilities, but has rules for pitching a tent in the wilderness, that can work too. On the other hand, while there are numerous hotels and other lodging options in a city like London, you can't sleep in a museum or park within that city; such parks and museums should thus be listed as attractions within an article about the city.

Sleeping isn't all that travellers do, though, and there should be some content to fill out our other standard article sections. If there really is no place to find food, nothing to do, and nothing to see at a location, it's likely that the article won't meet the criteria established in this policy.

Nonetheless, Wikivoyagers exercise wide discretion to group handfuls of smaller villages into one larger article or split huge cities into individual districts of manageable size, wherever this best suits the destination.

Asking "can you sleep there?" is a guideline. A particular division of territory into pages of reasonable size might make sense for the destination, but leave one article without a hotel. That's fine. Where no lodging in one district is safe or clean, simply note this and move on.

Comments? K7L (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would join the second and third paragraphs together, and make sure the word "guideline" in the final paragraph is italicized. Other than those minor copyedits, it looks fine to me. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I also wouldn't mind if the sentence "It doesn't infer every community without a hotel will inevitably be relegated to permanent "outline" status or will never deserve an article," was re-added. —The preceding comment was added by LtPowers (talk • contribs)

On second thought? Maybe the introductory "can you sleep there?" blurb in WIAA should remain short and sweet. Article status is an unrelated question to "Wikivoyage:What is an article?" and the various 'exceptions' already in that page. Other project pages discuss whether a city or district is "usable" or "guide". K7L (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Let's leave well enough alone instead of trashing the wording we've so painstakingly hashed out. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Swept in from the pub

I was wondering if there was a policy about specfic organisations.

In the UK , The National Trust is a major operator and owner of a number of heritage sites ( already listed in region/city/town articles.)

Would policy allow for a specfic article on them and the top 15 or so major sites, they operate?

Naturally they produce their own listings for members. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

My own opinion is, as a general principle, that it is the sites that are interesting rather than the organisation operating those sites. And one can get into "challenging situations" when it comes to focusing on organisations. e.g. the National Trust has it's controversial/political aspects and create an article about them as an organisation and you start needing to ensure balance (which means the "good" and the "bad" and that can get harder to achieve). PsamatheM (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think that an article on a specific National Trust would be against the spirit of the policy, which says that companies don't get their own article. I also think that both organisations have two almost separate types of properties - historic homes and countryside which would make it harder to have a travel topic that covered them.

However the properties in the care of the NT / NTS should almost without exception have listings in the relevant city articles, and the organisations could be mentioned in the relevant country articles (currently only done on Scotland and England). Also remember the other National Trusts, e.g. in New South Wales. AlasdairW (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

You could do an article on stately homes and castles in the UK, which would cover properties owned/managed by National Trust, English Heritage, CADW, Historic Environment Scotland and others. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

True, Historic properties in the United Kingdom would be the most appropriate title for the stately homes I think, and would be in keeping with the unoffical naming rules used elsewhere. That said the National Trust does A LOT more than Stately homes, they own quite a lot of Senic Landscape as well.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maybe create the page in user space so it has plenty of content before creating just a "stub" ? PsamatheM (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply