Français
ItalianoChange status requirements?
[edit]Have the requirements ever been discussed, or were they just written down when it was decided to have such criteria?
The current status table:
| Status | Name | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stub | An article with little or no information, or not formatted even close to the manual of style. An otherwise-valid article without an article skeleton template may hold this status briefly; adding an appropriate skeleton promotes the article to "outline". A page which has little or no prospect of becoming an article (or being redirected to an article) would be tagged for speedy {{delete}} or nominated for {{vfd}} if what little information it conveys does not meet Wikivoyage's goals. |
| 2 | Outline | Has at least the normal introductory paragraph (this can be as short as a single sentence describing the region or endpoints of the itinerary) and a template outline laid out for the article. Some of the sections of the template may have content, but not all of them. |
| 3 | Usable | Has at least complete Understand and Get In sections, and a complete point-to-point listing of the itinerary's stops. |
| 4 | Guide | It describes each stop and how to get there. In addition, it suggests sights or side-trips along the way. Listings and layout closely match the manual of style. Should have a custom page-banner. |
| 5 | Star | Has a map showing the route of the itinerary, identifying landmarks (such as cities) along the way. The format either matches the manual of style exactly or is the exception that proves the rule. Prose is not only near-perfect grammatically but also tight, effective, and enjoyable. At least one good-quality photo accompanies the article; preferably 2-3 showing famous or important attractions. |
I think for getting outline status the page should tell what the route is about, not only region or endpoints.
Usable requires "complete" Understand and Get in sections. I think itinerary writers should first concentrate on the itinerary itself. A complete Understand shouldn't be required before star status, and if the endpoints are places that have articles, Get in is not essential. I added Prepare and Stay safe.
I added "informational" and a sentence on issues in "guide".
So what about the following:
| Status | Name | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Stub | An article with little or no information, or not formatted even close to the manual of style. An otherwise-valid article without an article skeleton template may hold this status briefly; adding an appropriate skeleton promotes the article to "outline". A page which has little or no prospect of becoming an article (or being redirected to an article) would be tagged for speedy {{delete}} or nominated for {{vfd}} if what little information it conveys does not meet Wikivoyage's goals. |
| 2 | Outline | Has at least the normal introductory paragraph and an Understand section telling what the itinerary is about. If the itinerary has an established name, the name is stated, as are the endpoints or the region the itinerary passes through. There is a template outline laid out for the article, although all sections need not have content. |
| 3 | Usable | Additionally: The Understand section clearly tells what the itinerary is about, including why somebody would like to follow it and what means of transport the writers have had in mind. Prepare mentions any non-obvious measures that are needed. The Get In section tells how to get to the endpoints from cities for which there are articles, and links those. There is a point-to-point listing of the itinerary's stops. Any essential non-obvious hazards are mentioned in the Stay safe section. |
| 4 | Informative | Additionally: It tells whether the itinerary differs from the region in general regarding lodgings, food etc. and discusses any special issues. Prepare discusses any essential preparations. Get in at least briefly describes the typical ways of getting in. There is some discussion on at least the main stops and main attractions along the itinerary. |
| 5 | Guide | It describes each stop and how to get there. If there are any issues with lodging, food, tickets, fuel or the like, these are described and solutions told. In addition, it suggests sights or side-trips along the way. Listings and layout closely match the manual of style. Should have a custom page-banner. |
| 6 | Star | Has a map showing the route of the itinerary, identifying landmarks (such as cities) along the way. The format either matches the manual of style exactly or is the exception that proves the rule. Prose is not only near-perfect grammatically but also tight, effective, and enjoyable. At least one good-quality photo accompanies the article; preferably 2–3 showing famous or important attractions. |
There is a problem in changing status requirements, in that some articles will not meet the new ones (unless no requirements are tightened), requiring all to be checked. I don't know how to do that rationally, but I don't think the status table needs to be changed. I didn't touch the star status, which have had some more discussion through the nomination process. I also assume that any FTT candidate already covers the additional requirement.
–LPfi (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- A map is pretty important basic info for an itinerary. I really think it should be required earlier in the process (perhaps even to be considered Usable).
- I don't see anything about photos. I think we would want at least 1 to be usable, and 2-3 to be guide. (I get really irritated when I look at the Related topics block at the bottom of articles and see the blocky graphic instead of a nice thumbnail that represents the topic). Mrkstvns (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Itinerary status
[edit]I think the itinerary status criteria need tweaking. See Wikivoyage talk:Itinerary status#Change status requirements?, where I got no response.
Currently, usable status for an itinerary requires complete Understand and Get in sections, which I think is odd, to say the least. I think the author should concentrate on the itinerary itself (the Go/Drive/Walk part) before worrying too much about Understand, and Get in is usually adequately covered (for usable) by just linking the endpoint cities. Generally, I think no section should need to be complete for a guide to get usable status.
Prepare and Stay safe – which are essential in some itineraries (and a "No special measures are needed" would be enough in some others) – aren't required at all.
Even for star, no general completeness is required in the current criteria, only (implicitly) a "complete point-to-point listing" for usable and "describes each stop and how to get there" in guide. Those criteria are open for interpretation, and as they are not repeated for star, it seems you just need to tweak the wordings to get to star from what is required at lower levels. A "take road A5 northwards for Bushville, which is a nice small town" would satisfy the guide requirements, but is woefully inadequate for star in my opinion, even with perfect lively language.
Changing requirements obsoletes the current status designations of many articles, so there should be consensus on the criteria changes before changing statuses – but I think most of the suggested changes are important.
(One more issue: on hikes where the stops aren't cities or other significant settlements, Eat, Drink and Sleep become essential. These can be included in Prepare, but I think they should be mentioned in the template and the status criteria.)
–LPfi (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- I agree very strongly on the Understand bit – I've never understood why you need an Understand section for an itinerary to be usable and not the route itself. All the more so when it is the only type of article that requires an Understand section for usable. //shb (t | c | m) 09:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- Agree. The route is basic info. Personally, I think that should imply that a map is also provided. Doesn't have to be complete or show pins for every POI, but should at least give an idea of the extent of the route and major points. Mrkstvns (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think the point of the ==Understand== requirement is to explain why you would want to follow this itinerary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- If these changes are accepted, an alternative to revisiting all itinerary artciles would be to:
- Amend {{template:usableitinerary}}, giving it an additonal parameter which, if present, will have the effect of adding the text "This classification was made before XXXXX" where XXXX is the date on which the new crteria takes effect.
- On the same day, a bot will run which will change all instances of {{usableitinerary}} to {{usableitinerary|XXXX}}.
- When editors revisit any itinerary articles, they should reasses the article against the new criteria, reclassify the article if neccessary and remove the date from th template.
- Martinvl (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good idea. But let's get a stable version of the criteria before doing it. –LPfi (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Or we could ...just not worry too much about the labels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- The reason to worry about labels (such as "usable" and its criteria) is that people often want to make an article usable, guide or star, and then of course look at the criteria, not only at how the article could be improved in general. I think its good that we have such criteria, directing efforts where they are most needed, but for that to work, the criteria need to make sense. –LPfi (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ah! You mean that whether the label align with current criteria is less important. It may not be critical, but it is confusing and undermines the system, especially if one gets the impression that there is little correlation. –LPfi (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- At most, I would support adding a note to Wikivoyage:Article status#Changing status that says sometimes the tags are outdated. It already says that if you see one that's wrong, you should plunge forward and update the tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but there are 229 usable itineraries per Category:Usable itineraries – unless multiple users actively review multiple articles at a time, it will take at least a year for the tags to be up-to-date. //shb (t | c | m) 02:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think that's a problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but there are 229 usable itineraries per Category:Usable itineraries – unless multiple users actively review multiple articles at a time, it will take at least a year for the tags to be up-to-date. //shb (t | c | m) 02:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- At most, I would support adding a note to Wikivoyage:Article status#Changing status that says sometimes the tags are outdated. It already says that if you see one that's wrong, you should plunge forward and update the tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ah! You mean that whether the label align with current criteria is less important. It may not be critical, but it is confusing and undermines the system, especially if one gets the impression that there is little correlation. –LPfi (talk) 08:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- The reason to worry about labels (such as "usable" and its criteria) is that people often want to make an article usable, guide or star, and then of course look at the criteria, not only at how the article could be improved in general. I think its good that we have such criteria, directing efforts where they are most needed, but for that to work, the criteria need to make sense. –LPfi (talk) 08:01, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Or we could ...just not worry too much about the labels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good idea. But let's get a stable version of the criteria before doing it. –LPfi (talk) 06:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- But I think you can make the argument for any other type of article as well. I would make it a requirement for guide articles and above only. //shb (t | c | m) 23:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but itineraries are the only category, except topic articles, to require completeness. I wouldn't remove the Understand requirement from usable topics and countries. I would add Understand criteria for parks. Current Understand criteria:
- Travel topics, usable: "at least a good overview of the topic"; stricter requirements for guide and star
- Countries, usable: "Information about the country's […] culture is included."
- Cities, guide: "A brief general overview allows the voyager to understand why this destination is of historic, geographic or cultural interest."
- Regions, guide: "all the standard sections have well-developed prose."
- Parks: no Understand requirements, even for guide, other than that the section needs to be there.
- Airports: no Understand requirements, even for star; the section is non-mandatory.
- For itineraries, I would keep some Understand criteria, from my proposal (but I don't think I thought very hard on the specific Understand criteria):
- Outline: "an Understand section telling what the itinerary is about."
- Usable: "The Understand section clearly tells what the itinerary is about,"
- –LPfi (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but itineraries are the only category, except topic articles, to require completeness. I wouldn't remove the Understand requirement from usable topics and countries. I would add Understand criteria for parks. Current Understand criteria:
- Yes, the Understand section is to a large extent about why you'd want to go there, and that's a reasonable requirement for guide status. But for usable, I think it is enough that somebody who wants to go there can use the article to do so. And even for guide, the Understand shouldn't need to be complete, whatever that means (other than for topics, where completeness in some sense is needed for a good article). –LPfi (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- I forgot about topic articles, but I can get behind that. //shb (t | c | m) 07:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Itineraries for historical routes like Silk Road, Lewis and Clark Trail or El Camino Real need some explanation of the history. For some this might be given in the intro, but most will need an Understand section. Pashley (talk) 12:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, but it doesn't need to be complete. My suggestion (in the thread linked in my first post above) was, for usable, that "the Understand section clearly tells what the itinerary is about". I think that would cover it to some degree also for historic itineraries. Do you think a stricter criterium is needed for those? –LPfi (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Explore the world
United states
New York
Japan
Tokyo
Singapore
Singapore
