Wikivoyage talk:Guide articles needing attention

This is completely useless. I see eg. every single Singapore article listed here, but in my humble opinion they're the best articles in the entire goddamn Wiki -- what about them needs attention? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:01, 6 Feb 2006 (EST)


 * As I understand the status system, all articles marked with are supposed to listed in this article.  Not defending it, mind you.  Just sayin... -- (WT-en) Colin 22:55, 6 Feb 2006 (EST)


 * Here, lemme snap my fingers and get a complete list: (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:57, 6 Feb 2006 (EST)


 * I think the Singapore articles are some of the best articles in Wikivoyage (a significant cut above the coverage of my two home towns, San Francisco and Montreal). They're information-rich, they've got great photos, and they've got well-made maps that reflect the contents of the guide.


 * I have two reasons I don't think that the Singapore district articles are "stars". The first is that many of the listings aren't in our rather strict Manual of Style format (name in bold, then address, then phone number, then URL, then opening hours, then a description, then expected price, yadda yadda).


 * That really comes down to a style issue; some types of travel guides have set "slots" and that parts of the listing go in, and some have more prose-y listings (Further down the street, you can try the great fried carrot cake at the Ah Sook stand. Expect to pay S$2-3 for a good meal, not including beverage.) I think Frommer's and Fodor's are like the former, as well as Lonely Planet; if I recall correctly Rough Guides are more like the latter. I don't think either style is intrinsically better, but we've had this rigid format since way back when as part of the MoS.


 * (Actually, that's not 100% true -- I think the rigid formatting makes it easier to find the information you need about a restaurant, bar or museum at a glance. I think it also keeps the writer honest; a lot of listings in prosey style books leave out important information like addresses, prices, and phone numbers.)


 * The second reason is that some of the information for the listings just isn't there. I realize that there are many, many restaurants and bars around the world without telephones or set opening/closing hours, and that most stands in hawker centres aren't going to have a Web site, and that there are plenty of hostels without any kind of numerical street address. But if the information is possible to get, we should have it.


 * Is that nitpicking? Probably so. I don't think there's a substantial reason these district pages can't become stars really easily. The hard part is done; the tedious crap is all that's left. I tried doing some MoS work on Singapore/Chinatown; I'll take another swing at it. --(WT-en) Evan 23:19, 6 Feb 2006 (EST)


 * I've bitched about this before, but it is indeed "tedious crap" to start manually enforcing adherence to the minutiae of the MoS. I would be happy to pilot Singapore for Japanese-style template-formatted listings, but I really think it's necessary to create the add new/edit existing wizard-buttons before this can be adopted wholesale for Wikivoyage.


 * And oh yes, my original comment wasn't meant to be interpreted as the anguished howl of a wounded ego (although it of course was), but more as a plea to record what is wrong with the article if listing it here. (WT-en) Jpatokal 23:37, 6 Feb 2006 (EST)