Wikivoyage talk:District article template

Should the "cope" section be included in the district article? I say yes, especially after thinking that.. alright, use myself as an example... I wanted to go to church for the past couple of weeks, plus get my hair fixed up. Problem is Warsaw is so huge I really don't know where to begin. I don't want to list off a couple of churches and salons I come up across for the entire city under the cope section for Warsaw. Personally, I think it's best to have options and give more listings for churches or hair salons under the district articles. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 20:20, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

First, I just wanted to point out that your comment was exactly 666 characters. Second, I think the reason why we've been keeping cope listings in the main city article is that anyone looking for religious services is looking for a specific denomination/religion. So they can quickly scan the list for what they need and then see whether the listings are nearby. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 20:42, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Ok, had to take care of point one first. That was weird, if it was true... I didn't bother to count. Responding to point two, alright but can what about the other example – hair salons or whatever else? Scanning is nice, but again Warsaw, my example, is again huge with just under 200 sq miles. Let's say, someone gets stuck in one of the non-touristy districts or areas then listing off just a few places that are easy for everyone else isn't very helpful to the person in the northern districts, which are so off the beaten path I've forgotten their names. -- (WT-en) Sapphire • (Talk) • 20:57, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

Whoops, I meant bytes, not characters. And I see your point, although I'm hesitant about adding this section to the template, i.e., requiring a cope section per Project:Manual of style. My feeling is that there will be times when this type of information would be useful in some situations, in others tedious and unnecessary. But I guess you could say that about the "Sleep" section too ;) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 21:35, 19 September 2007 (EDT)

If the Cope listings in the main city article are centrally located, then we're fulfilling our obligation to the traveler, because while they may not know how to get from non-tourist area A to non-tourist area B, they probably know how to get to the tourist area - cities make that pretty obvious. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 17:55, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

Get out

I'd like to add the Get out section to this and to the template itself. I think it's always useful to have a few one liner suggestions for other neighborhoods (inside the city and in the suburbs) that would also be of interest to a visitor. We did this for every Chicago district and I think it was helpful. Any objections? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 00:13, 21 January 2008 (EST)

As long as it's optional. Some cities have so few districts that "Get out" would just be a repeat of the main article's "Districts" section. (WT-en) LtPowers 13:52, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

Ah yeah, this is an old comment of mine ;) I prefer to leave it off, since the I believe the majority of our districted cities—particularly those done without input of experienced contributors—would not really benefit from it. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:18, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

Format

It looks like we're still giving examples of merely bulleted listings without listing templates and footnote-style links. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)