User talk:Ikan Kekek/Bad region articles

Egregious cases of bad region articles

@Ikan Kekek, Ground Zero: A massive thank you for both of your help in improving these region articles and/or proposing mergers! It will be a monumental task to fill out every region article with empty sections, but every region article improved as a result of this mini-expedition is a net benefit to both us, the site, and most importantly, travellers.

One of the things I've particularly noticed when filling out User:SHB2000/outline articles/regions is that many egregious cases of bad region articles tend to be one of the following:

• Brazilian region articles categorised under a state article
• More remote Brazilian state articles
• Italian province articles
• Articles for places that aren't usually on the average Western traveller's bucket list (e.g. Sudan, Yemen, Senegal, Bolivian Highlands, etc.)
• Some US county articles

The common trend seems to be that there are enough blue links to sustain a region article (number of blue links alone shouldn't determine whether a region article is feasible or not – take Lower Darling, for example, which only has four blue links, but has enough content in almost all of its sections), but not enoughcontent in other sections. Unfortunately, this is almost the case in most of our region articles, but it's certainly something to consider. I'm not sure if it would be necessary to prioritize the Italian provincial articles and/or Brazilian region/state articles crying to be rescued, but a discussion should probably be held at Talk:Italy and Talk:Brazil respectively.

(side note, what's a better way of celebrating my 70,000th edit than on a collab that almost certainly will be one that's memorable?)

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Should we also consider proposing an expedition similar to Wikivoyage:Regions map Expedition, but instead for improving region articles? It definitely would make a good expedition. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favour of merging regions where an enthusiastic editor has created articles for the sake of having an article for every administrative unit, especially where those units may have little or no relevance to travellers, e.g., Italian provinces and US counties, but will doing so just create larger bad region articles? I don't think we need to nominate such regions for mergers if there has been little or no activity on them -- just go ahead and do it as you see fit. Ground Zero (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "will doing so just create larger bad region articles" – yeah, we don't want a case of a region article with not just empty section headers, but also one that could potentially be a long list. I still like to start a discussion, even if it's a tiny region that almost certainly will be merged, purely because I don't feel comfortable doing any major regionalization change without a second opinion. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Improved articles?

Should they be struck out (current practice) or removed? I fear keeping the improved ones will turn this list into a long one. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Showing progress on a project is a way of maintaining interest in it, but they could be moved to a separate "completed" section instead of being struck out. Ground Zero (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  That works; I didn't think of that before. I'll do that right now. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

  Done. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)