User talk:Wrh2/Article status

We might be opening two separate cans of worms here
First of all there is the raising the requirements for usable and outline status which I very much approve of. And than there is the cementing of the policy that results in only one star region, no star country and only a handful of guide regions and countries each. And than there is the problem of us having to demote the status of a region immediately upon subdividing it or linking another destinations, because we now link a lower status child. I would very much like featuring regions or countries, but currently we can't. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * For now I'm not proposing any changes as I don't want the responsibility of having to try and shepherd a discussion through the consensus-building process. This page is mainly just an effort to try and think through options for addressing some of the issues raised at Template talk:Needsimprovement and elsewhere - in particular, I think tagging empty (or nearly-empty) skeletons as stubs would go a long way towards addressing my own concerns.  I have no strong feelings about region/country article status, but insofar as current policy states that those articles cannot be promoted until their child articles are of a certain quality it seemed to make sense to make that clearer; I'm happy to leave those changes off if/when any change is eventually proposed. -- Ryan &bull; (talk) &bull; 20:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * okay. Though I think consensus was to not let "other destinations" hold back the status of a good region or country article Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)