Wikivoyage talk:Star nominations

Hold off on nominations?

This is a great idea, but can we hold off on the actual nominations? Evan and Jpatokal were working on templatising the listings at Project:Listings. When it comes out, I suppose using that template should be mandatory for star articles. We'd have to go through the nominations procedure all over again. — (WT-en) Ravikiran 10:57, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

For now I'm just running an article (one I built) through the processs as an alpha-test. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:16, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

Determining consensus

How do we determine when an nomination actually translates into a Star? Do we wait for some minimum number of editors to "support", wait some number of days and upgrade it if there are no objections, or some other process? - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 11:35, 15 May 2006 (EDT)

I'd say 14 days; with at least three people in support of making the article a star; if someone does object the issue must be addressed (If the issue is addressed and is inconsistent with MoS, or just doesn't work, then two more people must vote (A total of five people voting) in favor before the votes pass). If we go with this Isle Royale National Park can officially be a star. -- (WT-en) Andrew Haggard (Sapphire) 16:11, 27 June 2006 (EDT)

If we change the "at least three people" et all suggestion to just "a consensus is reached after 14 days with no outstanding issues" would that be sufficient? That would be similar to what is done elsewhere on the site. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:35, 18 November 2006 (EST)

I'd like to have a way to say that, if I made some objections, I'd like a chance to review to see if they've been met. Also, it would be great to have a way to put more of the editorial discussion on the Talk: page for the article, rather than having it way over here on this page instead. --(WT-en) Evan 11:22, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Star Nominations

We have nearly 12,000 Wikivoyage articles now, but as of today there are only six that are star status - by my math that's 0.05%. I'm not sure why the percentage is so low, but I suspect it's one of the following:

1. We've set the bar very, very high, and it's exceedingly difficult for an article to become a "star" article.
2. People hate making maps.
3. Not enough good articles are being nominated.

Hoping that the issue is item #3 above I've added two more articles to the nomination list, and would hope that others might be able to find a few good articles to nominate as well. If the two nominated articles fail, hopefully we can clarify what the exact status criteria are in item #1 above and more clearly spell that out on the Project:Article status and Project:Star articles pages. -- (WT-en) Ryan 14:30, 4 November 2006 (EST)

Star de-nomination process

A lot of effort goes into selecting and vetting Stars, and I don't think any single user — (WT-en) even the Dear Leader — should have the right to unilaterally strip that away. I suggest two alternative approaches:

• The Star is granted for a specific version of an article, and can't be taken away. The Star template is modified to go up top, state the date and provide a link to that version.
• A Wikipedia-style review process is instituted to review whether an article still deserves a Star.

Discuss. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:05, 20 December 2006 (EST)

So this doesn't apply to what just happened necessarily, but... what about 'protecting' Star Articles, and changes to the article be proposed on its talk page. That would help with articles that are deemed Star not to take a turn for the worse by inexperienced editors... if there's no objections to the new info then someone can add the info that's very familiar with the MoS. Surely someone will object to that since it's slightly anti-anyone-can-edit-a-page, but just a thought... (WT-en) Cacahuate 12:17, 20 December 2006 (EST)

So I did what I should have done before, actually looked at the link you provided... I think the Wikipedia process there is quite good... denominating should follow a similar process to de-nominating... by consensus, and I think what you're saying is to put a destar or some sort of template box at the top saying it's been voted for destarification, please discuss 'here'. OR - the box could say that the article has 2 weeks to 'recomply' with the MoS or risk destarification... (WT-en) Cacahuate 12:30, 20 December 2006 (EST)

As I'm fond of asking, "what problem needs solving here?" The present two controversies aside, most of the de-Star actions I've seen taken (and I have taken several of them myself) result from someone unilaterally proclaiming an article a Star, then someone else coming in and saying "whoa! we haven't followed the process!" Any move toward a formal de-nomination process should be done in such a way that the de-starring of such unilateral declarations not be impeded, else we're going to be inundated with things that are unilaterally, even capriciously, proclaimed Stars, but require more consensus and effort to fix than to screw up in the first place. Given the relative frequency of the two classes of problem (maverick applying a Star versus unilateral removal of Star), I'm not sure this fix is really needed; let's see if a solution can be reached on the Dalian and Berneray issues and only then decide whether to proceed with this. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:32, 20 December 2006 (EST)

I'm just bringing this on the table for discussion. But unilateral starring is not in scope here, slapping an ad-hoc Star is out of order and can be destarred at all. (WT-en) Jpatokal 12:52, 20 December 2006 (EST)

I think it is. Adding a "star" template is no different from adding any of the other status templates. It's neither permanent nor does it require any special permissions. My understanding of this nomination process was to catalyze the great review process that happened with Penticton (see Talk:Penticton). That is, someone who thinks an article is a "star" can solicit the opinion of the many people intimately familiar with the MoS. --(WT-en) Evan 11:29, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Everyone who has ever said "this article is a Star right now" has been wrong. There is always some little nit to fix, and this improves the quality of our Star articles. Anyone and everyone is welcome to nominate the star, and two weeks for the review and fixes is just not too much to ask. If we start getting Star-quality articles which require no changes during the review then we could revisit this issue. Also, we want an article to get to Star status while a contributor is actively working on it. If this process is bypassed, it could be weeks before someone notices that an article is a star, reviews it, and then takes the star away. With this process, we all work together on the problem while the contributor is still here and paying attention. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:35, 22 December 2006 (EST)

I think the star nominations process is an advisory process, not a binding vote. The article status system is not a prize awarded by a vote, but an objective set of criteria. There are clear criteria for making an article a star, and if the nominations process fails to meet those, it's a problem with this process, not with the wiki nature of our project. If we want to decide that certain parts of Wikivoyage articles -- the status tag -- are un-editable, I think we're going down a dangerous path. --(WT-en) Evan 12:33, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Who's saying they're uneditable? We're simply discussing how to handle the situation that just happened in the future, before admins get in to rollback wars. And I think a process for destarring an article should be similar to starring an article. I would say now is the time to work this out or begin to, the traffic on this site will be really huge at some point and this issue is bound to creep up again, no? Anyway, to further the thoughts above, maybe the 'docent' for a particular star can be in charge of MoS'ing new edits to it... sort of how Jpatokal is so on top of the Singapore edits... (WT-en) Cacahuate 12:43, 20 December 2006 (EST)

Eh, I really don't like getting into any Special Person X is in charge of Y stuff... I hope Docents-ness never gets confused with "in charge of"-ness. That's a dark and slippery slope indeed. (WT-en) Maj 17:06, 20 December 2006 (EST)

i agree, but i don't mean 'in charge' in the sense of being it's ruler or that their word is higher than anyone elses, i'm saying if someone knows a place (and hopefully the MoS) well enough to list themselves as a docent for that area, maybe part of docent-ing can be cleaning up any new additions to match the MoS. just trying to think of ways to keep a star article a star article without saying "don't touch because it's already perfect". (WT-en) Cacahuate 01:01, 21 December 2006 (EST)

I am not advocating this, but if an article goes to hell why not just revert it back to the day when a consensus was reached that the article was a "star?" -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 13:56, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Well, if you're not advocating this, why not? :-) Seems like an entirely appropriate response that makes a formal process for de-starring unnecessary. I repeat: what problem needs fixing here? -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:54, 22 December 2006 (EST)

Bill and Sapphire, that solves new bad additions, but what about new good additions to a star article that don't match MoS immediately? My hope would be that whoever comes across it and knows the MoS well enough to say "this is no longer star status" would just fix it instead of starting a conversation about why it is no longer a star. (WT-en) Cacahuate 03:39, 23 December 2006 (EST)

I didn't want to throw a bunch of caveats at this since I'm not particularly interested in this discussion, but that should be expected, I think. If it's beyond repair then we should discuss "de-starification", but that's a highly unlikely scenario (We do have the CotW process and the "history"). I don't understand why people are thinking so much about this. If the only reason people are so worried about an unlikely scenario is because of the wording, then whatever, let's say "Star status is not permanent." -- (WT-en) Andrew H. (Sapphire) 03:47, 23 December 2006 (EST)

I agree that it's not exactly the most important thing going on, I'm personally concerned with it because I think it's sort of fun to give articles the final push they need to become "perfect", which I've been doing with Berneray and Flores. But it involves a lot of effort, that I wouldn't be so willing to give if I know that it could just go to hell a short while later, and then admins/experienced editors come across it and say "hey, it's not a star anymore" and strip it away instead of just fixing what's wrong. I agree that any status shouldn't be permanent, but being that the current way to make an article a star is through significant effort on the part of several people, I just agree that it should take more effort than a simple changing of the status back to "guide". As said above, maybe placing a box at the top that says something to the effect of "This star article no longer matches the MoS and may be destarred in 2 weeks if not corrected" or something. But again, my hope is that anyone willing to place that on the top of a page would instead just fix whatever has changed. (WT-en) Cacahuate 05:24, 23 December 2006 (EST)

There's another possible scenario, which I'm afraid we've just encountered, which is where someone looks at an article that's been declared a Star and says, "Um, no it's not, and it never really was, so I can't roll it back, and the problem is missing info, so I can't fix it myself." I'm sorry I missed the original discussion (been really busy), but I was just looking through the articles that got starred while I was away, and found that Dalian quite simply does not meet the criteria. (Only one of the district articles is actually "guide" quality; the others range from "usable" to "non existent because you probably wouldn't go there"!) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 05:41, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Dang! Todd's got me. I think de-starification is a real option, in that case, and should probably be formally brought up somewhere like a Project:Nominations for de-starification. I think it should operate to the similar to the votes for undeletion page. -- (WT-en) Sapphire 14:32, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Why not make it work like Star nominations. Just say what's wrong with it and if we're lucky people will jump in and work on it and resolve the outstanding issues. And if the article is not fixed in the judgement of consensus, then yeah remove the star. So yes, I support having a page for nominating stuff for de-starring. -- (WT-en) Colin 14:48, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I don't think it's going to happen often enough to need its own page. We could just run an article back through the process here, with the consensus determining whether it's a Star or not. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:51, 13 February 2007 (EST)

Works for me. Plus the people interested in evaluating articles will have just one page to look at. -- (WT-en) Colin 21:29, 13 February 2007 (EST)

That all sounds great. So who's got the (WT-en) balls to put Dalian on here and make it the first de-star nomination? (WT-en) - Cacahuate 17:02, 15 February 2007 (EST)

I've got the conejos for that. (Practising my dyslexic Spanish) :) - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 18:30, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Docents?

Quick thought that passed through my head while I was debating whether to nominate Ann Arbor as a Star candidate: Should Star articles have at least one Docent? I think there's a case for it; without a Docent we're not really providing full service to the traveler. I wouldn't de-nominate existing Stars for lack of Docents, but maybe for the future, it should be considered. (BTW, Ann Arbor does have a Docent.) -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 12:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk pages

In addition to the archive/slush process, I think it might be useful to keep a record of starnom discussions on article talk pages. Anyone object to adding that to the process explanation on this page? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 20:20, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

I think this is a good idea...it's useful to have the article and the starnom discussion in the same place. I think though, as it's an archive, maybe it would be a good idea to lock that specific discussion on the talk page so that no one can change it...just a thought. (WT-en) Asterix 15:54, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately, it's not possible to lock a specific section. I usually just put any new comments to archived discussionsunder a line (----). --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 17:04, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

That would work too. (WT-en) Asterix 18:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

You could also do it as a sub-page like Talk:San Francisco/Star nom with a banner on top noting it's an archive and not an open discussion – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 00:55, 21 August 2008 (EDT)

That could also work...from what I have seen people will change everything and anything on this site, sometimes intentionally, and other times completely by accident — I've done it myself! It can be a pain to revert the edits, and I see that some of them never get corrected, so whatever is easiest and effective I'm in favor of. You'd probably have to include any de-starify info when applicable too. (WT-en) Asterix 18:56, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Thoughts on Star nom process

Star articles: Last minute checklist Is the article complete — See definition above. Grammar and spelling must be near perfect — See definition above. Imagery: does it have a map and several good quality pictures Listings should be in alphabetical order — geographical order is also acceptable if it is deemed better. No duplications...a listing should appear under one section only — if there is ambiguity, put it under the section that it most applies to. Time and Date: Use: M,T,W,Tu,F,Sa,Su — "...daily" not "Daily..." — "midnight and noon" not "12AM and 12PM" — — "AM PM" not "am pm" Examples: "M-F noon-11PM" and "9AM-9PM daily" Section introductions are not mandatory but should be present when they serve to improve a section. Use "—" (mdash) for breaks in thought. Use abbreviations for addresses...St, Ave, Ln, Blvd.

I was just wondering lately about how to improve the level of consistency in the Star nom process. For example, imho, the version of San Francisco/Fisherman's Wharf that received a star here....[1], was not actually a star. I know that I am probably shooting myself in the foot here, because I wrote 90% of it, but I have to be honest and say that I think that it was still just a guide article even after passing through the star nom process. Here is a shortlist of what was still wrong with it:

• It was not complete — Over 12 million people come here every year and the article only gave them one budget hotel to stay at and two budget restaurants where they could eat for under $10. It was also missing some key festivals, Bars, Coffee shops, and "See" stuff as well.

• Other than the "See" section, all other listings were not in any order...geographical or alphabetical.

• It lacked section introductions (verbage), and looked more like just a long laundry list of items.

• It definitely had a lack of quality pictures

• It lacked balance in a lot of areas, eg. given their importance, Alcatraz and Angel island listings were too short.

• No "Get out" section

• Lots of MoS issues: "Daily..." instead of "...daily"

— "12AM 12PM" instead of "midnight noon" — "Avenue and Street" instead of "Ave and St" — "ndash" instead of "mdash"

Anyway, after a bit of work it is improving and I think the current version is probably approaching a star by now, but, using this as an example, I wonder would it be helpful to put an info box on the Star nom page that serves as a checklist both for people nominating and people critiquing. It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of everything that an article should have, but a shortlist of some key ingredients and common pitfalls in articles. I think that it might promote more consistency between star articles and also embolden new users with information to encourage them to join in on a critique...after the last nom of San Francisco/Golden Gate, to be honest I was left wondering why bother writing these things at all if no one is going to read them...only one person read it...Not cool!!!

It would potentially go alongside the star nom article under the "Nominations for Star status" section. Something like the one above? Anyone agree or disagree? (WT-en) Asterix 13:40, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Oooh...now I feel bad, since I was the one who nominated Fisherman's Wharf. :P Anyway, I think having a shortlist like that is a great idea. But perhaps we should re-visit (or at least broaden) some of our definitions. For instance, on Project:Article status, the first criteria for star is "The article is essentially complete." What do we mean by "essentially complete"? How can we show new members (or even experienced members, wink wink) how to recognize an "essentially complete" article when they see one? (WT-en) PerryPlanet 14:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Don't worry about it...I agree though that the defintions need nore specificity, as does the process itself. (WT-en) Asterix 15:55, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Shame on us then for not catching all those (especially MoS issues)! I like the infobox. Two quick things: 1) Get out sections for city districts are definitely not mandatory. For cities with lots of districts (like San Francisco) they are nice, but would be pointless for a city with 2-3 districts, for example; 2) Section introductions have not been mandatory in the past, but I would be happy to include that in the criteria (at least for those sections that would merit an introduction). Lastly, monitoring the "complete" aspect is really tough. We only have a small pool of users who contribute to the star-nom review process, and we'll probably never have a better understanding of whether it's complete than the article author. Not to say it should be dropped as a criterion, though! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:48, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

The purpose of my edit was certainly not to apportion blame or shame on the person who nominated, nor those who critiqued it, so "shame" is definitely the wrong word. I was just upset that so few seem to get involved...now that the fabled "50 minutes" are over, I see that indeed no one else did jump in, making it a record low for any star nom...a solitary one person! A Lot of work went into that and I think I have a right to be pissed...that's lame!

Going forward though, the only important thing is how to improve the star nom process, so let me make my proposal a bit clearer...

• Include a info box as mentioned above. The one above is only based on my personal experience, other people can add to it as well. Also, if it's at all possible (from a technical standpoint), a check box beside each point in the info box would allow the article to be broken up. One person could check it for MoS issues, another for grammar, and another for duplications etc etc. This will allow people — that don't have huge chunks of time to read large articles thoroughly — to still chime in on a critique if they have only 10 or 15 mins to spare.

• As PerryPlanet mentioned above, the definitions of Article status lack specificity. For example, how many photos is enough/too many. I think that these need revising as well.

• Instead of placing the extra burden of reminding everyone on the nominator, how about just making the Star nom process more visible to users. Why not put another heading under the "Featured Articles" info box on the Main Page informing everyone that there is an article under review for a star and asking them to join in. If possible (from a technical standpoint), it would have an auto-updating banner saying "Three days left to comment!" If we don't advertise the nom process better, then it's always going to have a limited pool of people who participate, as mentioned above.

• I agree that the period should be extended, but I think that 20 days is uneven and 30 is a bit too much...it's hard on the nominator to forecast what they'll be doing for the next month. I vote for an even 21 days/3 weeks.

• I think that, unless it is part of a continuing discussion, no one should be allowed to post new "objections" in the last 48 hour period of a nom. It's unfair to the nominator to expect them to be maintaining a vigil right up to the last few minutes.

• Given that the period has been extended one week, anything that goes over the three weeks, without addressing the major objections, should be "slushed." (WT-en) Asterix 19:42, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll disagree with the last two points—I don't think there's ever a good reason to slush an article that clearly is going to become a star. If someone finds something wrong towards the end of the timeframe, post it, and let the author make the needed corrections at their leisure, and make it a star once its done. Once slushed, there's a whole lot of pointless archiving and renomination that would have to be done to make it a star—I don't see any benefit in that. We slushed O'Hare International Airport, for example, and I don't think anything was gained from doing that. If this is not what we have written at the top of the project page, then we should fix that. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 19:59, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

That's OK, I can however think of a couple of reasons why having a tighter nom process would promote better articles. However, it seems like that would be quite a debate, so perhaps another time. For now I'd prefer to work on the more actionable points that we appear to have agreement on, between the three of us at least.

1. I've added the info box. Feel free to edit it if appropriate. I wonder, for the reasons I mentioned above, if adding checkboxes instead of just "*" is feasible?

2. Are we in agreement then on the 3 weeks, if so this needs to be changed on the nom page? Also, imo, the following statement is ambiguous. I think it should also be changed, anyone agree?

"After fourteen days of discussion if a consensus is reached that an article is a star then its status can be updated. Note that a consensus means that any outstanding issues should have been addressed; if issues remain then the discussion should continue or the article should be added to the slush pile."

3. In regards to expanding/clarifying some of the definitions on the Article status page, I think that the hardest, and most pressing one, is to define the word "complete." So, in the interests of having a first tentative stab...

"For the purposes of this guide, complete means that circa 85% of all "relevant listings" should be present. In sections where there would be an abundance of listings, relevant listings pertain to the more popular and unique listings. In sections where there is a distinct lack of available listings, all listings become relevant."

4. We're in agreement then that something should be added to the Main Page to indicate that there is a new star nom? From a technical standpoint is it possible to have that auto-updating banner to indicate to people how many days are left to vote? I also think that as part of the process the nominator should also post a note at the Travellers pub.

5. If all of the above is agreed on, we will need to change the instructions on the nom page also to reflect the change in the process. (WT-en) Asterix 15:17, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

To my knowledge, checkboxes are not possible. 3 weeks sounds good, and I've updated that. I like the ambiguity, but not the vagueness of that statement, and have tried to tighten it—does it look good now? For me, "complete" means nothing relevant is missing—anything that someone who really knows the area would expect to see, and everything that a tourist should know about, within reason should be included. Articles should also not be bloated with less relevant listings, and we should probably indicate that in the star status criteria. I like #4, but we should discuss it first at Talk:Main Page, since not everyone who cares about main page display is reading this discussion. An auto-updating banner would require a bot, and I do not know how to make one.

Pub would be a good way to publicize star noms. We might also want to mention on the project page that you don't have to leave a detailed critique to vote on the star—feel free to just voice support for the hard work someone else has done. It feels good to get those responses, and that's a good impetus for people to create star articles in the first place. It's disheartening when only the authors comment! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 17:47, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I've added an extra step to the process for publicizing at the Pub. Also, I couldn't agree more about the "impetus" bit, and I agree that the explanation you worked on looks better now. I think though that from this persons point of view a slightly more well defined process would help, so I added the phrase "... in reasonable time." I did so because I think that not everyone can forecast what they'll be doing in 4 or 5 weeks time, and if they don't have slightly more defined timeline that might also take away from their "impetus" to go through the process. Feel free to revert though if you disagree. As regards point #4, I have left a note on the main page's discussion page. No responses yet... I'll leave it another while before further discussion here. Overall though, I think the star nom page is coming along nicely since we've all tackled it...it seems much clearer now... at least to me anyway!(WT-en) Asterix 13:42, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

Ok, so there is still no response from the main page on point #4...I think it's been about a week. I'll leave it a bit longer but it looks like there is no strong opinion there. So, if we are still in agreement that something needs to be done about this, I wonder what is the best way to do it? We could just add a new heading under the "Newest Star Articles" like the following:

Star nominations—Vote!

Under this would be a link to the article(s) itself. I guess that the heading above would stay there permanently and the individual article links would be added, and removed 3 weeks later by the nominator as an extra step in the nom process. Anyone think this is OK, or have any alternative ideas about it? (WT-en) Asterix 13:28, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

I think a main page change is too much of a big deal to go forward without support. I'd recommend giving a statement that barring objections over the next two weeks, you'll add the message. Personally, I think it would be much more useful than a long list of "newish" stars. Heck, Chicago's been up there since March! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 13:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Just a quick point, on the example of specifying how many photos is enough/too many, that's actually something I don't want to be more specific. Wikivoyage has tended to avoid making that one a strict rule, and I think that's good because different places are going to give you different photographic opportunities. 8 photos is good for any San Francisco article, but might be pushing it somewhere else. I'd rather leave that as a sort of "however many photos you feel are necessary" kind of thing. There might be other things I feel shouldn't get too specific, but I just wanted to jump on that one really quick. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 21:12, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Process time

Could we perhaps extend the process time for star nominations? Maybe 20 days? I really like going over top-quality articles and leaving thoughtful critiques, but I tend to miss the deadline, since I need a good open chunk of time to really look over the article (and I don't always have such chunks).

I don't know if a longer period of time might also help get more people chiming in, but if it did that would be an added bonus. Leaving something like a "last call for votes" comment on the star nom page itself can also be helpful. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:57, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Absolutely. Heck, I say let's make it 30 days! Stars are a big deal, we should give ourselves plenty of time to look over them. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 16:17, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

lack of star.noms

Why is there such a lack of nominations for star? I mean it's depressingly low! Only three! I think one of them will be gone soon because I believe it's been given the right to be a star. I don't get it. Personally, the only ones I truely feel comfortable nominating is one's that I've worked on in places I've been (so I know what's missing). So why don't other people nom? I don't get it. From my eyes, some look like they're ready-but I'm not sure due to the fact that it's not a city I've been. Is it because no one even wants to work up to star-if so, that's just a smidge sad. Seriously ,I don't get it. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 16:21, 13 November 2008 (EST).

• Stars are a lot of work. To call an article a "star" is to essentially say that it's complete, barring changes in the destination that need to be reflected in the article. I would rather have Wikivoyage full of guide-level articles and no stars than have a few stars and the rest just usable. (WT-en) LtPowers 17:23, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Understandable to the everydetail. But, wouldn't you want a large amount of guides and stars than lots of usables and guides? I'd like to see at least 10 more in the next year, but it'd probably creep barely to 5 more. To me it just seems that no one seems interested. I know its a lot of work-I'm working on my own currently (Edmonton/Central) but I just don't get it. Stars only get updates for new listings, delete listings, and minor edits and pictures. Usually. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 17:31, 13 November 2008 (EST).

Perfect articles definitely do not grow organically; like LtPowers mentions, it takes a lot of work to turn an article into a perfect article. On the other hand, pretty good articles (e.g. guide articles) can grow organically and therefore are relatively easy to create; basically you just put a stub out there and users will add information to it, and after a while (e.g. a few years) you'll have a guide article.

These are two very different ways of creating good content, and no-one is forcing users to do one or the other. The content on Wikivoyage is written entirely by volunteers, so users work on whatever they want to work on. If users would rather make a lot of articles pretty good than make one article perfect, then we won't have a lot of star nominations. This is a Good Thing, however, as the content will reflect what users want.

(Note that my experience in writing perfect articles took place on Wikipedia, not here, but I'd imagine that what I've written above is still reasonably applicable to Wikivoyage). (WT-en) JYolkowski 18:34, 13 November 2008 (EST)

I understand all your points, but I just don't see why people aren't motivated! Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 18:37, 13 November 2008 (EST).

Personally, it's because I prefer breadth over depth. I don't have the patience to get an article perfect, especially when I could spend the same amount of time and get a bunch of articles "pretty good" (as JYolkowski says). (WT-en) LtPowers 19:01, 13 November 2008 (EST)

• Teaching English was nominated a while back, did not make it. Project:Star_nominations/Slush_pile#Teaching_English It could be our first star travel topic. Have a look. Maybe re-nominate it, improve it, or comment on talk page on what it still needs.
• Likely there are others in the slush pile that are close. Some might be good Cotm nominess. (WT-en) Pashley 19:18, 13 November 2008 (EST)

You know ee, when I started I was actually a bit like you in this sense. I was obsessed with the idea of making the perfect article and made a few stars. It probably gave me a bit of credit to my name, but after a certain point I realized I could probably do more good by making a whole lot of "guides" rather than a few "stars", which broadened my focus since I didn't have to zero in on making a single article a star. (WT-en) PerryPlanet 19:32, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Things in the slush pile shouldn't be renominated until all of the concerns from the previous noms have been fixed, and the article has been significantly improved. It's definitely easy to get swept up into "star" article madness, but as said above, it's much harder than you'd think, and, not really all that necessary. I think "guide" articles are way underrated around here... a guide article is just that, one that is comparable to any other guidebook company's coverage of the destination. A "star" article, at least as far as I'm concerned, exceeds pretty much any other guide out there. Think about that... it's saying that the destination is covered better than lonely planet, rough guide, etc... and that's sometimes a tall order. But we'll get there, one destination at a time, and there is no rush, better to take time making quality articles than rushing to get a shiny gold star on your chart – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 13:41, 15 November 2008 (EST)

Good points. But in my opinion, Wikivoyage is better than lonely, etc. because it is updated more and the a lot of articles have so much more info here. The Edmonton guide on lonely is dull and doesn't go through half the stuff on here! To me, a lot of travel guides on here ARE better than the rest. Keep smiling, (WT-en) ee ^talk 13:44, 15 November 2008 (EST).

Walt Disney World

Hi gang. Now that the Walt Disney World Resort nomination has been slushed, I'd like to continue the conversation -- some great ideas in there -- on the talk page. Please join me over there to hash out some issues -- in particular, the issue of how big this guide should really be. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:16, 20 November 2008 (EST)

Style Guide/Templates matching..

There is a current nom that doesn't exactly match our templates or listing style. I thought this would almost go as far as to prevent the nomination. There are articles out there that are marked with the style template for using $ signs for price ranges, and merging sections. I see the point of Star article not being to reward an article, but rather to present our best articles as examples for people to copy and develop on. If there are some articles that have to remain forever guides, then so be it. If the style is wrong, then someone will be copying something wrong. How can we ever justify making a change back to a standard style if there is a star article that does? Am I missing the point of a star? Am I overrating the importance of a defined style guide? --(WT-en) inas 19:12, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

I haven't stated my opinion on this particular nomination yet (since I want to first read through the article carefully), but the dollar sign issue is absolutely a show-stopper. (The see/do header is used elsewhere, and might merit additional discussion.) Project:Article status makes it clear: It follows the manual of style exactly or is the exception that proves the rule. The $$$ signs clearly violate our manual of style and will have to go for the nomination to pass. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 21:02, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

What, then, is the exception that proves the rule? (WT-en) LtPowers 21:28, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

I agree on the use of $$$. Listing a price or price range is the policy, and even if the park guides list things using dollar signs, I don't really think it would confuse people to have real prices instead. I thought the "See and Do" thing was already a policy... I do think that there are a lot of places that may not have one of these. On that, I'm not sure which is best. Combining "See and Do" is not conforming to the policy BUT on the other hand, having a "See" section that says in so many words "This location has nothing to see." would make a page look unfinished. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 23:47, 8 July 2009 (EDT)

If "See and Do" is a good idea, we should simply gain consensus for that and change the policy. If a Star can't fit the policy, then there must be something wrong with the policy. --(WT-en) inas 00:07, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

Well, not everything we do or have decided on has been written into policy. Sometimes to do so would leave the policy article overwritten, diluting the essential with the esoteric. Other times we're just lazy or forgetful. A good example is "get out" sections for district articles. Marc and I developed those for Chicago, discussed them briefly here, and now, while they are not mentioned in any policy article, are present on star articles and are recommended for other cities with a large number of districts. I view the "See and do" thing in the same light—it's been done, it's been held up in discussion (including in this instance), and it occasionally the optimal way to deal with an article. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 12:14, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

You are basically just saying that policy and consensus develops in multiple ways, sometimes by doing first, and developing consensus, and sometimes by discussing first and then doing. I don't have a problem with any of that. But we should update the article templates doco with the results. I get the absence of Get Out on districts - make sense. However, I don't necessarily understand where and when we allow non-standard or merged section headings. If I don't get it, then there are bound to be others..--(WT-en) inas 18:22, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

I wouldn't be opposed to adjusting the policy, but it would have to be done carefully. I mean, we can trust the Disney article, because the site has a lot of information written about it, and there are many people who have travelled there who can verify it. The DotM nomination Arusha[2] however, is a good example of when we really have to trust the contributors. There is very little about this city online to look up and verify that there is nothing else in the city, and none of the regulars seem to have been there, so we can only operate under suspicions that it does or does not offer more. (I've actually wondered this about star nominations in general. If someone added content to an article like Kabale, would anyone be able to verify that the article covers every area of the city? That's probably beyond the scope of this discussion...) (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 01:15, 9 July 2009 (EDT)

This discussion should probably be moved to Project:Small city article template, but in the meantime: which version should be used for combined section headers, provided that we do use them (I found another star article where we do)?.

1. See/Do
2. See & Do
3. See and Do
4. one of the above, but with the second term not capitalized. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 14:31, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

#2.... I think it's fairly rare that we need to do this, but there certainly are times when it's the best/only way – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 17:01, 12 July 2009 (EDT)

Inas voiced a preference for #3. Though I can't say I actually have an opinion either way, I'll toss my lot in with #3 as well. Since it's a minor issue, would Cacahuate mind switching his opinion for the sake of expediency (especially to avoid holding up a current starnom)? We can add this discussion to Project:Article templates once we've concluded. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:38, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

And just to jump in, I'd like to throw in my vote for #3 as well. (WT-en) PerryPlanet ^Talk 15:46, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

I was leaning towards #2 (I've used it on Epcot for the time being) but I have absolutely no problem with #3. (WT-en) LtPowers 19:22, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

Same here, I'm fine with either, if others feel strongly, enshrine 3 into policy :) – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 19:29, 1 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm leaning #2, merely because I think it looks better. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 07:23, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

Might want to toss that coin again Fitzgerald – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 14:36, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

I was thinking #3, but really, as long as 1 and 4 are not chosen, the other two are both okay. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 14:57, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

Heh, the least important issues almost always attract the most (and most intractable) debate. Does anyone know of a way to do a public coin toss on the internet? --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:19, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

As a #3 advocate, I can send you a email via your talk page containing one of scissors, paper, rock. Stefan as a #2 advocate can do the same. You then declare the "winner", and the objects selected. --(WT-en) inas 18:21, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

2 and 3 are both fine by me. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 19:05, 2 August 2009 (EDT)

Any objections to the rock/paper/scissors game? I'm serious ;) I'll publish their choices here, and thus declare the winners. It would be best for both to specify a "second choice" if the first round is a tie. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:51, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm game too :) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 16:59, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Aaaaand email sent, You're up Inas ;o) --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 17:03, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Should "Rock Paper Scissors" be mentioned on here: Project:Consensus. Good old Japanese policy-forming strategy. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 17:48, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

I'm not comfortable with a rps game, ever since Cheney's rock crushed some scissors and sent us into Iraq. But i would be ok with a coin toss. We'll have to decide which kind of coin though.... I vote for the now defunct Yugoslavian Dinar – (WT-en) cacahuate ^talk 18:21, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Done (I've sent through about 10 rounds, in case of a challenging series). --(WT-en) inas 19:08, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Ian's won it:

1. Inas -- paper, rock
2. Sertman -- paper, scissors

I'm content to call this a wrap, and acknowledge that fate has chosen #3. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 21:01, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

Indeed, and it is. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 22:50, 3 August 2009 (EDT)

I've adjusted the Hollywood Studios article accordingly. Anything else holding up this nomination? (WT-en) LtPowers 13:58, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

Doing the promotion

What's the protocol on promoting an article to star? With Big Bend National Park, I noticed that the 21-day period had expired with nothing but support for promotion, so I marked it a star and archived it. Hollywood Studios is now at about 6 weeks with, as far as I can tell, no outstanding objections, but I feared it might appear uncouth to promote it myself. Is that considered kosher, or should I wait for someone else? (WT-en) LtPowers 11:24, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

No, please go and do it yourself! I've found it feels kind of nice to add a star to an article you've worked hard on—enjoy your reward ;) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 16:16, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

Okay; I assume a wrist-slap would be forthcoming if (in the future) I did so prematurely? (WT-en) LtPowers 17:14, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

It's tardy, not premature ;) --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 17:30, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

Star status criteria for Dive Site

Wikivoyage criteria:

• Covers the topic fully.
• Layout and listings either match the manual of style exactly or are 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 or illustration accompanies the article.
• If practical it has a map identifying relevant destinations.

Diver criteria:

• A diver competent to dive the site but without any local knowledge should be able to plan a safe and enjoyable dive using the information provided (in conjunction with a regional diving guide if applicable.)
• Conditions during the dive should come as no surprise.

Checklist:

Leader paragraph

• The site is named
• Type of site specified
• Geographical location given in general terms
• Nearest City
• Country.
• Reason/s why one would choose to dive the site.

Get in

Access

• Adequate directions to reach the site
• If appropriate, A map showing the position and layout of the site in some detail, preferably to scale.
• A map or aerial photo indicating the position of entry/exit areas (only for shore entry ).
• Sufficient text for a person who has no local knowledge at all to find the site and identify any access areas with confidence.
• Photos of the standard entry and exit points if applicable.

Position

• GPS position for the site. Should put a diver at least somewhere on the site, specify where if possible
• Alternative range and bearing or cross bearings to well defined and reasonably close landmarks. Photos of landmarks desirable.
• distance from launch site or harbour for boat access (km or N.miles)

Understand

Name

• Optional image of whatever the site is named after
• Explanation of origin of the site name, translation if applicable.

Depth

• Maximum depth to be expected on the site
• If applicable, shallowest point of the site

Visibility

• Range of visibility to be expected when conditions are generally considered suitable for diving.

Topography

• Description of the layout of the site
• General idea of slope, profile and rugosity
• Description of major feateres and landmarks
• Condition of wreckage if applicable

Geology

• Only for rocky reefs
• Type of rock, (geological age, name of formation optional)
• Strike and dip optional if applicable

Conditions

• What weather conditions will result in good diving conditions.
• Any specific weather conditions which will result in unpleasant or hazardous diving conditions.
• Any special oceanographic or weather conditions the site is known for. (sudden offshore winds, upwellings, currents, plankton blooms, thermoclines etc)if applicable
• Information sufficient to allow a reasonably competent diver with a moderate understanding of the local weather and climate to forecast conditions during a planned dive over a short period (3 to 4 hours) when on site.

Facilities

• Generally only for shore access dives
• Facilities must be in close walking range of parking area or entry points
• Facilities appropriate to divers and accompanying family only.(parking, ablution, fast food, dive services, picnic areas, security, beach, shade, etc)

See

Marine life and/or Features

• Photos of at least three organisms or features one may reasonably expect to see at the site
• Description of what a diver may see during a dive

Photography

• advice on photographic equipment (macro/wide angle, need for external lighting) if appropriate.
• photographic opportunities that may be expected or hoped for if applicable.

Suggested Routes

• generally at least one suggested or recommended route, with an indication of what the diver may expect to see. This may be a drift dive if applicable. "Follow the divemaster" is not really a route and will only be accepted if there are really good reasons, which are adequately explained.

Stay safe

Hazards

• Site specific hazards of any kind, including access hazards if applicable. "No site specific hazards known" is null default.
• Comprehensive listing of site related hazards (not regional hazards already in regional guide, ordinary diving hazards nor obvious sea/weather condition hazards). Advice on mitigation is optional.
• security problems and land based hazards may also be mentioned if applicable. (theft/mugging risk, animals stealing food etc)

Skills

• Skills or competence required for diving at the site, if any.
• Skills recommended for diving at the site, if any.
• "No special skills required/recommended" is null default.

Equipment

• any equipment beyond the standard equipment listed for the region in the regional guide, either reqired or recommended for the site for safety of convenience. Reason should be specified if not obvious.
• "No special equipment required/recommended" is null default

Starnom help!

Swept in from the pub

Just a plea for more comments at Wikivoyage:Star nominations#La Macarena. La Macarena is a fairly short, and dare I venture rather interesting article, so it shouldn't be too painful to review. The star nomination got way off track, and won't get back on it unless more people get involved. In general, our starnoms have just sort of idled in recent years, despite my hopes that our renewed vitality as a WMF project might turn that around. I do think it's ready for a star, and it would be our first Latin American star, which would be a worthwhile milestone to achieve. --Peter ^Talk 21:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually there are worthy nominations even older than your pet project that need to be promoted first.

For example, the promotion of Wikivoyage:Star_nominations#Retiring_abroad has been outstanding for nearly two years now - despite the primary authors dealing courteously, promptly and constructively with criticism. -- Alice^✉ 00:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That one's already passed. Pashley could put a star on it whenever he wants, but it is tradition to let the nominator/main author be the one to do it. --Peter ^Talk 00:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting to know - but will be puzzling and confusing to our many new users, including me. Perhaps you would be kind enough to document this tradition in the appropriate place?

Is this a tradition you intend to follow with La Macarena ? -- Alice^✉ 03:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not a set in stone rule, but it's generally considered polite to give the honor of granting the star to the one who worked so hard to get the article there (which is usually the person who nominated it). Making it a strict written rule would be silly, since you never know when someone might have to take a break from Wikivoyage and is unavailable to grant the star. It's just one of those little unwritten customs that have developed over the years. We're also pretty lax about clearing away star nominations - the important thing is that they're up for a certain minimum amount of time, but there's really no maximum limit we try to enforce. Like Peter Southwood said below, we usually like to wait until the nominator feels comfortable moving forward. PerryPlanet (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Its not a policy, so does not need to be documented on a policy page. Do we even have a place to record traditions? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Order of promotion depends on when the article is agreed to be ready, which depends on getting enough people interested enough to review and comment, and as there is no obligation on anyone to do this, it tends to be somewhat unpredictable. When the nominator thinks things are going a bit slowly it is customary to ask for comments in the pub. I also just noticed that the Starnom page was off my watchlist, so have put it back. I think it got lost in the migration, like one's baggage when flying. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter writes "Pashley could put a star on it whenever he wants, but it is tradition to let the nominator/main author be the one to do it."

Fascinating. I wasn't aware of that tradition; in fact I figured that as the main author, I should hang back a bit, wait for someone else to do it. I suppose I'll do it now.

Is it like VFDs, where the nomination & discussion should be copied to an archive and/or to the article talk page? Pashley (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll read it more thoroughly later, but it looks good at first glance. I would value some more "Go Next" information: when there's not a whole lot of places nearby, then let there just be a few a bit further away. For me, when planning, the Go Next section is very important. However, I have to ask right away: what's with that little banner right on the top saying "This page was reviewed and found accurate by trusted editor Pbsouthwood on 26 October 2012."? Is this something rare, or have I mysteriously missed out on those templates on other articles? I clicked through a number of stars just now and don't see it anywhere. I find it ugly and think no article should have a single editors name right at the top. I get the reviewed article-idea, but I think that should have a smooth little icon somewhere, like on WP - not a banner.. There's also no link or anything that leads to the template itself. Can someone point me to any discussion about it? JuliasTravels (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That is an experimental template, added by Peter Fitzgerald on the 14th March and backdated to 26th October last year, probably as a demo. Somehow it got labelled with my username, I don't know how. Possibly a bug? A trivial inspection of the page history will reveal that my only edit was a spelling correction, done after the reviewed template was added.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a bug. The magic word REVISIONUSER used in the template displays "The username of the user who made the most recent edit to the page, or the current user when previewing an edit." Shit happens, no big problem, but template will have to be changed. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the template so that it only displays the signature of the actual reviewer and automatically provides datestamp. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've commented on the template at its talk page. I'll repeat here though, I would like us to pick another test case article to see and discuss the working of that template. I find it very unfortunate really to have it in a star nominee article.. It's an experiment, it can be on any article, right? JuliasTravels (talk) 09:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that is possible, but give it a few hours so Peter F can comment. I guess he used it there to give it a bit of visibility. If so, it worked. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I put it there before it was a starnom, and just a page for a very obscure little destination. The real reason for using it as a test case is just because it's so useful for that destination. Information about La Macarena is nearly non-existent on the web aside from that article, so it's virtually impossible to update from afar. --Peter ^Talk 15:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I get the idea that it's useful, but surely we have another article for which the same would be true. And by the time we reach consensus about if and how that template should be, and what it should look like, it can always return. As there's plenty of concerns about it now though, I still think we should test it elsewhere. Let's hope La Macarena will not count as "low-visibility article" anymore, once it's a star :-) JuliasTravels (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of a better article to put the template in, given the star nomination for La Macarena. But the trick is, there is a star nomination because I've been over the article with a fine toothed comb to make sure it's all accurate and up-to-date. --Peter ^Talk 13:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Pagebanners

With the growing implementation of Template:Pagebanner, is it reasonable to suggest that new Star articles should use the template? LtPowers (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and to suggest that the people at Wikivoyage:Banner_Expedition and others should try to put them in all existing stars. Pashley (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the next collaboration scheduled for the expedition. And yes, I do think it should now become a requirement. --Peter ^Talk 22:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Maps

Hi!

I was just wondering whether a page that included a dynamic map, but not a vectorised, handmade one could become a star article? I'd very much like to nominate Altrincham that Altfish has put a lot of time and effort into, but I don't feel I can at the moment without some custom cartography.

--Nick ^talk 23:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If there is a working link to a static map for when the reader is offline or the server goes down, I don't see why not - most of our readers are well used to the way that Google and Bing maps work and our good ones will feature all the points of interest... --118.93nzp (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Does the link to the static map have to be WV style? i.e. Could I just take a screenshot of my dynamic map and upload it to WM? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously that would be best, but if it's a screenshot, it certainly needs to be centred appropriately, have a useful zoom level and use the best layers for the destination. @LtPowers: will probably have something to write on this topic I should imagine... --118.93nzp (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I just checked guidelines again and it states that a WikiVoyage style map is required.

Illustration: the article should be appropriately illustrated with pictures and a Wikivoyage-style map, with all attractions marked.

I think we need to progress the (difficult) conversation about the direction of Wikivoyage maps before we can discuss changing the requirements for Star articles. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it's static or dynamic, the map currently present on Altrincham is not star-quality. Icons are overlapping text labels, as well as each other (sometimes unavoidable), and there's an awful lot of extraneous detail that travelers don't care about (like the location of the grammar school). Powers ^(talk) 17:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

For more than a hundred years, it has been usual for maps (as opposed to location diagrams) to be comprehensive (within the limitations imposed by their scale). This convention means that many travellers are likely to be puzzled by a "map" that does not show such large and distinctive features as schools and tax offices (even though they are not of touristic significance in themselves) and wonder if they are really in the right location as depicted. --118.93nzp (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That's so wrong I scarcely know where to begin. Maps are, and always have been, tailored to their purpose. They show what they need to show, no more and no less. We do not need, nor should we present to our readers, comprehensive street maps. They don't need to know the name of every minor cross street or the location of every laundry and barbershop. (And even if they did, the map in question omits (at the default zoom) several other schools while showing only the one grammar school, so comprehensiveness is not one of its assets.) Powers ^(talk) 23:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was this cultural difference between the US and the rest of the world. Or is it just a vocabulary/variety of English difference between what I call a "map" and a "diagram" or schematic? Obviously a drainlayer's diagram or a telephone engineers schematic will be very different to a map available for general use. In any case, one of the intrinsic advantages of on-line dynamic maps is that you can toggle on and off various layers of detail and overlays of features like footpaths, terrain, etc... --118.93nzp (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Only if one is online, aware of the functionality of the map interface, and both willing and capable to put in the time to look for such details. A good map presents the most relevant details right up front. And the location of a grammar school is not a relevant detail on a travel map. Powers ^(talk) 18:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we all know that a good static map has advantages - especially if you're printing the article and obviously a dynamic map is next to useless when you're offline. You're just plain wrong about the "Grammar School" question. Not everybody has GPS and if I was using a "Map" that had huge blank areas (most schools occupy large areas) I might have doubts about whether I had located my current position accurately. Many countries don't have adequate street signs and when I'm driving, that's exactly the sort of large scale feature I'd use as a landmark or waypoint.--118.93nzp (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Your argument makes sense, but there are numerous counter-arguments that have been presented, including the fact that tools like Google maps have replaced printed maps to a great extent, and anyone printing a map from an online source will customize it to their needs prior to printing. That said, we've beaten this to death and at this point it is clear that opinions aren't going to change, so I don't think there is any value in continuing to try to convince each other. Instead, I would suggest the next move is to either try to find some middle ground, or if there is no middle ground to be found then we need to figure out a way to move forward that makes clear whether we are striving to create the best possible static maps, or the best possible dynamic maps. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to evaluate these dynamic maps using the same standards we've been using, but the impression I'm getting is two-fold: maps are "too hard" to create (harder than writing a star-quality travel guide?), and the interactive features of dynamic maps are worth sacrificing aesthetics and proper cartographic design principles for. Is this accurate? Powers ^(talk) 19:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't derail this discussion like you did the one on image sizes by linking two disparate points, Ryan. It is completely unnecessary to create a false and unnecessary choice between static and dynamic maps. Each have their advantages and disadvantages and there is no reason that I have seen why they can not co-exist on the same page. I do hope that those few who are able to draw good customised maps will continue and, for the majority that can't, we're excited about the developments in dynamic mapping - despite the temporary glitches. --118.93nzp (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the argument is less that they are "too hard" to create (although they are more work than dynamic maps), but that years of using them here have shown that they don't lend themselves well to collaborative development and tend to get outdated, while dynamic maps are better suited for collaborative development - they update automatically whenever someone changes a listing, the OMS data changes, or a software change adds a new feature on the map server. To the second point, I disagree that we are making meaningful sacrifices - if icons overlap one another in the default view then anyone who has used the internet in the past ten years knows to zoom in to a more appropriate level. An equally important argument in favor of dynamic maps, and this might be what you mean by "interactive features", is that dynamic maps give users the ability to customize the map to their own needs, so if someone needs a map of the larger region they can create it, if they want topographic features they can add them, or if they just want a tiny area of downtown showing a few hotels they can generate that view; while File:Loop map.png is a beautiful map and a great tool if I plan on only visiting that specific area, it is not useful for determining what else is nearby, how to get there from my hotel, what walking paths are available, etc. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Exactly! Usually those advantages mean that each destination article should have one (and one only) dynamic map frame, but if our cartographers are able to highlight and customise static views of more than one area or visitor purpose there is usually no reason why those static maps can not co-exist happily on the same destination page.

I do suggest that static maps do eschew the use of Arabic numerals for their points of interest in future so as to avoid confusion with the (changing and) incrementing numbers generated on the dynamic maps and in the listing texts when successive points of interest are added/removed/re-ordered. Upper and lower case letters and Roman numerals should provide enough scope for static map makers, yes? --118.93nzp (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if you would refrain from casually mentioning radical but tangential new proposals such as that one in the middle of conversations.

Ryan, if those maps would be useful, we should be providing them. Offloading the responsibility for properly framing and designing a map to the reader is a disservice, especially given the poor quality of the generated maps. Powers ^(talk) 22:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

As noted earlier, both sides in this debate fundamentally disagree, and at this point no further argument appears that it will resolve that disagreement. The challenge now is to see if there is any middle ground that will help to resolve the question of how (or if) the two should co-exist on the site, and despite 118's protests to the contrary I don't see that anyone has proposed a workable solution to address that question. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nick, perhaps I could do the Altrincham map for you but I would say first of all, the article needs to to improved. I'm afraid but it's certainly not near to star status right now. Some of the listings lack descriptions while others are quiet short. In my opinion, this article is not near to star status right now. --Saqib (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

At Wikivoyage:Article_status I read: "Star - The article is essentially complete. It meets all of the above criteria. It follows 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. It has appropriate illustrations, such as photos and a map...".

Where (if anywhere) does it currently say that a Star article can not have a dynamic map or that it must have a static map? Surely all policy is currently silent on this topic of whether a good dynamic map qualifies an article for Star status?

(It's only the bullet point summary that states "

• Illustration: the article should be appropriately illustrated with pictures and a Wikivoyage-style map, with all attractions marked."

and I'd argue that our specialised dynamic maps are "Wikivoyage-style maps".) --118.93nzp (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You asked where. The answer is Wikivoyage:City guide status has the following for Star city guides: "Has a tourist-style map, in Wikivoyage style with modifiable vector source, showing how to get around the destination, with major attractions, restaurants, etc. that match the listings in the guide.". I think when that was written it meant a static map, although you might argue that open street map is a modifiable vector source, but I won't because it is on a different site. AlasdairW (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that quick and helpful answer, Alasdair. I see that Evan made the map requirements more specific about seven years ago and before we had the facility to use dynamic maps here. It's clear that particular text disqualifies any article that only has our current style of dynamic map from qualifying for Star status.

Do you know of any other places where the text needs to be changed, please?

Incidentally (and I hate to be a party pooper) it's clear that text does need to be changed urgently since, with the introduction of our new listings templates that generate auto-numbered points of interest, NONE of our current articles qualify for Star status since at least one of their points of interest (major attractions, restaurants, etc) will now no longer bear a number that matches their static map that was drawn before the new listings template was rolled out! --118.93nzp (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe I raised that issue when we first started auto-generating numbers on listings, but the change went forward regardless. That said, there are plenty of articles that don't have listings coordinates yet, and they still qualify for Star status per this criterion. (example: Walt Disney World) Powers ^(talk) 13:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Idle

The page says "if issues not be addressed in reasonable time, the article should be added to the slush pile" and majority of candidates are not touched for months. I wonder if until when, we going to keep this nomination's page packed with old candidates? --Saqib (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we please put the hold on adding new nominations. We've already too many old ones still lingering around. --Saqib (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

So slush some. But frankly I can't fathom seeing a large number of star nominations as a problem. Powers ^(talk) 01:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The ideal solution would be for more editors to share input on candidates and, where necessary, to tweak content. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever a good idea to suggest we refrain from making star nominations (unless they're obviously not ready, like when countries were being nominated). It seems very counterproductive and discouraging to users if we tell them to stop nominating cities because our editors are not interested in reviewing them. As Andre says, the problem lies with our editors or lack of them. Star articles are something we want MORE of, so we should always encourage nominations of articles that are legitimately perceived to be star-worthy. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you that I'm suggesting something that could discourage our editors but I find it quite better and convenient if we go with only few nominations at a time. Too many nominations on the page will not going to produce good results either. When a new article is nominated, people start focusing on it and forget to improve and fix the previous ones. --Saqib (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Your point is valid, but a lot of the current nominations have been stagnant for months already. In the ideal world, we would have enough people reviewing nominations that it wouldn't matter, and those familiar with nominated cities or at least the country would be critiquing and helping to fix any issues mentioned. We don't have that now, but I think we still have enough people willing to critique when they have time. If someone is committed to improving a nomination that has been stagnant, though, they can always contact editors who have previously commented or post it on the "Request for Comments" page (and they should always give an update on what issues they believe they've solved). Much of the stops in evaluations occur when it no longer appears that anyone is working to improve the article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, that was just my suggestion. I've no strong concerns about it. --Saqib (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe we have advice somewhere that new starnoms should be advertised in the Pub; that would help stimulate conversation if it were followed with more diligence. Powers ^(talk) 17:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Moribund

We need more star articles. We have pretty good articles, and I think there are two reasons why I think they are not getting nominated here. First is the map situation. It's in a flux. There isn't enough clarity on what types of maps - static or dynamic - are needed or are acceptable. Secondly, it's the state of this page. We are leaving articles in a state of limbo for years together. I know that smart people are working on the first problem, but let's also work on the second problem. If we think there is enough consensus to promote, let's promote. If not, let's slush. Neither decision is irreversible, so if someone cares enough to disagree, they'll reverse that decision. I'll start with O'Hare. — Ravikiran (talk) 13:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Dumaguete may be close, see Talk:Dumaguete#Star.3F, but I'm reluctant to nominate it because most of the recent edits are mine so I'm not objective. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Sheki is tagged as having been nominated for demotion to Guide status, but I don't see it in this article. Anyone know what the deal is with that article's status? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

"You need to post a note"

In the "Nominate" section of the Star nominations page, it says that you must post nominations to the Travellers' pub.

No. It's up to other people to do that, it shouldn't be required. Let's change this to say that you may post it, not that you must. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Why would it be up to other people? If you want more participation in these things, you should be in favour of posting a note to the pub. I support the status quo, though know for a fact that it isn't followed, so would advocate putting the text in bold. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

What I mean is that it should be the nominator's choice if they want to publicize the nomination, and where they want to publicize it. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll go further than SelfieCity - I propose that the whole sentence be replaced with: "You may also post a note at Requests for comment to publicize your nomination."

Requests for comment is exactly the correct place for it. The Travellers' pub is not the correct place - see the 4th bullet point in the Welcome to the Pub: "If you'd like to draw attention to a comment to get feedback from other Wikivoyagers, try Requests for comment." Nurg (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Yep, sure. I'd agree to saying that. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 01:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I also agree with Nurg's proposal. Ground Zero (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Done —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Star nominations are back!

Swept in from the pub

Hello, all. In case you are unaware, there have been three new nominations for star articles in the last couple of months on a page that had for a long time been dormant, but not many opinions offered. Your opinion is valued, needed and requested. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Star nominations

Swept in from the pub

Anyone interested on voting on the latest star nominations, Windsor (Ontario) and Calgary? People sometimes don't realize there are new nominations, so I'm posting this here in case there were any interested people who didn't know about these new nominatons. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:02, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Star article criteria

Swept in from the pub

Recently there has been an effort to revitalize Wikivoyage:Star nominations. We currently have a "Last minute checklist" with criteria an article should satisfy before being nominated for star status. However, this list is very thin, and thus not very helpful. I therefore took the liberty of creating a list of criteria I think a city article should meet in order to qualify for star status. Hopefully it can be used not only as a bar to star status, but also as a source of inspiration to editors who want to improve an article, but aren't sure where to start. What do you think of the list? Is it too demanding? Is there anything I've missed? Should we adopt anything similar as an official guideline? Or is the list to similar to our article templates to bring anything useful? MartinJacobson (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I think this places a lot of restrictions on articles. I think the checklist, as it is, is fine. Otherwise we will find ourselves ruling out articles for star status based on bias (e.g. "I think this article ought to include information about this, and if it doesn't we shouldn't nominate the article"). The star article criteria (as opposed to a short checklist) would also make all our star articles similar in their content, etc., and I'm not sure if we want to do that either. The problem with star nominations is that we need more attention paid to them and more places nominated; with a long list of criteria for a star article before it is even nominated, star nominations will become an even more difficult process. We need to be simplifying the process, not making it more complex. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 23:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the star nominations need some more attention, and that we should make the nomination process as simple as possible. However, I also believe that a checklist could make the nomination process easier, rather than more difficult. In my experience, giving the detailed kind of feedback needed for a starnom vote is quiet time consuming. I think that this is one of the reasons why people are reluctant to get involved in the starnom. As a voter, I don't want to spend my time assessing an article which is obviously a far way from star status. I want to focus on the details making the article optimal, not on the more obvious gaps which could have been dealt with before the article was nominated. With our current system, most articles go from nomination to feedback to rewrite to new feedback and so on, and making sure that the article don't have any obvious faults before the nomination would, I hope, make the nomination process simpler and not more difficult.

As for biases, I think that our biases is already reflected in our feedback. Creating a checklist could be one way of making them explicit, and perhaps to assess which which requirements are valid and which ones are not. For example, I usually point out if a starnom lacks information about eating out as a vegetarian or vegan. But perhaps the community disagree with me that this is not really a necessary condition for stardom. Hopefully, creating a list would make it easier to see, and come to an agreement on which requirements are valid and which ones aren't. When discussing individual nominations we could put more emphasis on discussing whether the article meets the critera, rather than discussing what the criteria should be. It would bring "rule of law" to starnom.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I think that this would help editors trying to get articles to star status. I've improved Uppsala extensively over the last year with a long term goal of it reaching star status, and I surely would have needed a list like this. In particular, it helps you counteract the "what you see is what there is"-cognitive bias. (I.e. it is easy to improve the information which is already in an article, but it very difficult to know what you might have missed mentioning. You can see errors but you can't see gaps.) MartinJacobson (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Historic Churches of Buffalo's East Side

Swept in from the pub

This article is very close to star status in its nomination, and it would be great to get just a few more votes to put this nomination clearly in a particular direction (one or the other). Please feel free to go to Wikivoyage:Star nominations and cast your vote, either for support, oppose, or not yet. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I actually said somewhere that star nominations shouldn't be promoted in the pub, but I think this is an exceptional case. We are very close to getting all the discussions completed, with only two left. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 12:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Also, I have added a pagebanner. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 13:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

two months not enough?

I feel like two months is not enough here. There's no harm making it to 3 months and we have entries that have one support/opposes as well. Anyone else agree with 3 months here? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Successful and unsuccessful nominations alike have been on here for far longer than three months before. I'd say the biggest problem with Star nominations is lack of participation. If after three months only two people have voiced any opinion (which is true of the majority of cases), you can't call that a consensus.

I never know whether the mass shunning of this page is because people can't be bothered (unless a candidate article has some obvious glaring faults that disqualify it, it takes quite a long time to go through and pick out areas for improvement) or because the page just isn't on people's radar / watchlist, or because they just don't consider star status that big of a deal.

On French Wikivoyage, whenever a new nomination is posted they do a mass message to all active users on a list from which you can voluntarily opt out; the number of responses is never huge, but it's always enough to form a consensus. That might be worth trying here, though there would probably need to be a general community discussion to allow them.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't been there on fr.wikivoyage long enough. As far as I can tell, Wikivoyage:Star nominations#Tourist Drive 33 is probably one of the worst ones here with one vote (myself excluded) and some feedback. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

But can we have one of those announcements here? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to have some sympathy with people not wanting to look deeply into articles about places that they cannot visit at the moment. Due to Covid, I think that it is unlikely that I would be able to visit anywhere in Oceania this year and maybe not next year.

Looking at the archive is quite common for articles to take over a year to go from nomination to consensus on star. AlasdairW (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand individual editors have changed their priorities during the pandemic, but the general lack of participation here isn't COVID-related, as it's a longstanding problem. As you say yourself, these nominations typically take over a year; by contrast, the Nobel Prize only takes eight months.

I posted a proposal for mass-messaging in the Pub, if either of you would like to comment there.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 01:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Prompted by the thread in the pub, here are some quickfire suggestions from me, someone who is not interested in Star noms. You want more participants, obviously, and the messaging is one idea. I don't watch the Star noms page but I do watch Wikivoyage:Requests for comment. Currently there are 3 noms but two of them are not on the RFC page! The one that is on the RFC page is Stratford (Victoria), with no mention of what country, when there are numerous places in the world called Victoria. If the country was mentioned, it might just (unlikely, I know) pique someone's interest.

If we assume that you're still going to struggle for participants, you need to look at the process. TT says, "If after three months only two people have voiced any opinion ..., you can't call that a consensus." But if only two people are interested enough to comment, and they both think it deserves a star, that's enough. Why deny a star to an article that deserves just because not many people comment. There is no quorum mentioned on the page. I wonder whether people are hung up on the word 'consensus' and the point "Consensus is not created without participation". But star noms are not about policy changes or contentious changes to major articles. Just proceed, as long as there is no consensus that the article is not worthy of a star. Let's look at some examples. York was nominated and after 3 weeks had 4 editors in favour, no opposition, and never even had any suggested improvements. It should have been given a star after those 3 weeks, not 4 months after being nommed. Ok, let's take a less clear-cut case: the nom for Tourist Drive 33. After 3 weeks it had 2 supporters and no opposition, so should have been given a star, in my opinion. Now, belatedly TT came with a needed improvement. No problem, the improvement was made. But what if someone came late and said, "apologies, I should have commented earlier, but that article is well short of star standard", and say no-one was able to bring it up to standard in a reasonable time. Just de-star it. No matter a false step was made, as most of us don't care enough to even participate. I would go so far as to say that even if no-one other than the proposer comments, there is no opposition, so give it a star.

I don't think you need to extend the 2 months period to 3 months. If an article has deficiencies that can't be remedied in 2 months, it isn't close enough to standard. Just relegate it to Category:Star potential. If it does take only another month (or whatever), then re-nominate it. Just make all the processes smooth (starring, de-starring, relegating) so that no article hangs around for more than 2 months. Nurg (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I see. It now makes more sense to me. Thanks for your response and time though. It turns out that more people are not interested in it rather than not being aware of it. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

So it means, at this rate, it will be granted star status on the 14th which is in 6 days time. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Nurg: Thank you very much for taking the time to write this. Most of your suggestions make a lot of sense, and we should rewrite some of the guidelines on the nomination process in kind. Yes, I think we have been "hung up on consensus is not created without participation" but since it does just seem that most are not interested in pitching in (including users who have submitted their own articles in the past), we'll just have to roll with it.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Nurg: Per what you have written above, I have added my nomination to the RFC page so a consensus can be achieved with more people leaving comments and feedback. 82.3.185.12 13:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with what was written above, that two months should be enough. The Star nominations page says that if the issues can't be solved in two months, the nominations will be moved to the slush pile. The slush pile page says that "Articles in the slush pile can be renominated if the criticisms from the previous nomination are addressed." Personally I think two months is fine, as nominations can be submitted again. 82.3.185.12 13:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for mass messaging

Swept in from the pub

Hey friends. For several years, Wikivoyage:Star nominations has suffered from a lack of participation from the wider community, especially in comparison to votes for deletion or user rights nominations. This means that each article's nomination drags on for months, sometimes years, and most nominations are only successful based on the views of a tiny, unrepresentative proportion of our community.

By contrast, on the French Wikivoyage, each time a new article is proposed for Star status, MediaWiki message delivery sends a m:MassMessage to the talk page of every user on this list. The list is opt-in by default for all reasonably active users, however any user may voluntarily opt out with just a couple of clicks. The positive result is that, despite a much smaller and overall less-engaged community than English Wikivoyage, every single star nomination on fr.wikivoyage receives enough votes to reach a consensus within two weeks - yes weeks, not months or years.

Should en.wikivoyage steal this idea of a mass-messaging list, and if so should we opt in users by default? I conceive that the list should contain the user names of all active auto-patrolled users by default, and that each user may subsequently opt out of receiving the messages at any time, either by removing their name from the list, or by adding their user talk page to Category:Opted-out of message delivery (currently red-links, but works on other wikis e.g. W:Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery).

Thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that participation is sadly lacking, but I don't like the idea of "spamming" users. If your idea is implemented, it should be opt-in. And those who would choose opt in likely already have the page on their watchlist. The reason I haven't participated in the discussions is that I don't find most of the nominated articles to fall within my realm of interest. Nelson Ricardo (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Opt-in by default" sure sounds like "opt-out" to me. I don't favor this. For my part, I don't participate in these discussions often because it is so hard to judge whether an article should be considered a star, it requires really close reading, and there are others (for example, User:LtPowers) who are much better at noticing when details that would make an article much closer to perfect are absent or small blemishes are present. I would opt out. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It would hardly result in "spamming" users. We get maybe five or six of these nominations at most per year. It's fine to choose to opt out, and I'm not asking people to say individually whether they would opt in or out (although somehow I knew that Ikan would opt out!), but the point of opting everyone in is to attract users who may not otherwise think about taking part to think about it. Such as users who maybe don't even take part in Pub discussions that often, let alone any other community pages.

I get that assessing star noms isn't for everyone, and participation in any part of WV is always voluntary, but when someone (and it usually is just one editor) who has put in hours and hours of time preparing an article to reach a certain level, solicits general feedback and all they get is one or two replies out of an otherwise very active community, it's embarrassing. And the result is a nomination process that's generally slower than the one undertaken by the Nobel Prize committee. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Can't speak for the others who've put effort into a star article but I agree with Jamie's statement

"but when someone (and it usually is just one editor) who has put in hours and hours of time preparing an article to reach a certain level, solicits general feedback and all they get is one or two replies out of an otherwise very active community, it's embarrassing"

It's taken me 6 weeks to get it TD33 to that level, and it was rushed. And a lack of participation is also not very good and may be disheartening for the writer. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 05:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I would also be concerned about making it opt-out, just because there are quite a number of inactive users who probably have very little interest. I agree it'd be nice if they got more attention, though. If you could narrow down the field of opt-ins to active users somehow, it might work better. Powers ^(talk) 00:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, user:LtPowers, the proposal is for active users, as stated. Usernames would be added manually (probably by me), so it wouldn't be difficult to distinguish active from inactive users.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I saw "auto-patrolled" and missed the "active" qualifier. Powers ^(talk) 02:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd support such a proposal for TT's reasons. I'm not fully comfortable yet with the star process, but I'm studying it and striving to leave helpful comments even on articles I might not be "interested" in (featured content processes on any project depend on people who might not be subject-matter experts participating). Star nominations shouldn't be hanging around forever. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely needed. Not only do we have lack of participations but for some of them (e.g. TD33), there's only one vote excluding myself. Lack of participation is a problem and many end up going into the Slush pile. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 01:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not much interested in Star nominations so I say make it opt-in, to save people like me the trouble of opting out. (As an aside, there seem to be problems with the Star nominations process. I could probably make some suggestions, but not sure how welcome they would be, given that improvements to the process would still not lead me to participate.) Nurg (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Please give us your suggestions. I'm not going to judge you. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 04:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I don't often comment on star nominations because I find it hard to evaluate the star criteria at Wikivoyage:Article status if I don't know the destination. —Granger (talk · contribs) 06:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I also do not support mass messaging, other than as opt-in if there are people who think it would be useful for them personally. I do have the page on my watchlist, but like others I don't think I'm the best person to judge the articles, and seldom take the time to read an article thoroughly enough to have an opinion, when it is not about a place I have a special interest in.

I understand the concern, and I think it is not the mass messaging that makes the French nomination succeed, but a culture of participating on that page. Nothing hinders us from posting a reminder in the pub every now and then, but I suppose the key is people like me not to trust others handling the process, but taking the time a few times a year – which really isn't that plenty.

–LPfi (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, that would be nice. There are lots of processes on this site that various people could claim lack of expertise in and therefore not participate, but in general people chip in regardless of experience, to keep the site ticking over. You don't need to know a place intimately to judge its article, and in fact sometimes it helps because you ask questions that the person who wrote the article would never have thought of. Most experienced editors know what really excellent Wikivoyage articles look like, because we've written them ourselves.

Those of who you have been kind enough to comment here, thank you. It would take a fraction of the time it took you to write your comment to remove your name from the list.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No. If anyone opts me into anything without my explicit consent, I'll be furious. I have star nominations on my watchlist; that is enough.

If you feel one is not getting enough attention, you can mention it in the pub or on the RFC page. Or message individuals who have edited the page substantially, or tag them in a comment. Pashley (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't have any qualms with an opt-out system. As I was an active Wikipedian before I was an active Wikivoyager, I'm very much used to receiving numerous automated messages about everything, some of which are useful and some of which are not. It's easy to "unsubscribe" when the messages get annoying and stale. With regards to star articles, I've hardly participated in the process or with the DOTM candidates. Most of my content work involves improving bad articles to a medium level of quality (solid usable or low-end guide) rather than going further to a high-end guide or star suitable for DOTM. But I would like to turn my attention to it one day. Gizza ^(roam) 09:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pashley: - Usually the one who nominates it is the one who edits it substantially. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No. One of the drawbacks of email is that it has become too easy to send marketing mail. When suppliers has to print and pay postage on their "news" they were much more restrained and I was more likely to read what I received.

I would be ok with an annual Wikivoyage email which said what had changed in the past year, and could include a list of the star nominations, but more than twice a year would be annoying. I don't think that we should use mass mailings for this or any other single issue, but I would not object to a very occasional mass mailing to keep in touch with editors who may not have been around lately.

Emails or talk page messages to editors who have contributed to nearby destinations would be fine - telling those who have edited Southampton about Eastleigh's nomination etc. AlasdairW (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not an emailing list. It's a proposal to message you all on your talk page.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if @Pashley also thought it was an e-mail system, instead of a normal note on your regular User_talk: page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No, I did not think that.

To me, unsolicited talk page messages would be worse than email spam because I don't have filters set up, there's no one-click delete & the admins are not likely inclined to discipline the spammer. Pashley (talk) 22:59, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

One click delete = rollback. If you ever used rollback on a message mass-sent by me, I would have removed your name from the list. However, rest assured that your name won't be going on such a list to begin with; you've made your feelings quite clear.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Options

It turns out that work-me thinks about this kind of problem all the time. Rather than telling you that you should all seriously go over to mw:Talk pages project/Notifications and look at mw:Topic:W6arauh4qaelmgpb to see the work on being able to subscribe, cross-wiki, to a single thread on a busy talk page (oh, oops, I accidentally told you anyway! ;-) ), let me tell you what this looks like at a higher level. We've got options.

• First option: Do what we're doing now.
  • Results: Star process is dominated by a few editors. New editors don't learn that it exists, so they don't participate. Reviews are slow. Seeking help means posting here or on the RFC page, where only the "in-group" core community will see it (69 active editors for this page, 22 for the RFC page, and substantial overlap between the two). We might use words like narrow, undiscoverable, (somewhat) ineffective, and insular to describe it.
• Second option: Always tell (almost) everyone.
  • Likely results: In this option, you don't have to take any action. When an article is nominated, all eligible active editors will get notes on their own talk pages. The process will get some participation from a larger number of editors, with a significantly greater proportion of new editors (who are likely to provide short or general comments, rather than an in-depth, line-by-line review). Reviews will be faster overall. New editors who participate will learn something about what a process can be. Seeking additional help should be unnecessary. Instead, however, we'll have to maintain the list. Making the list is easy: Special:ActiveUsers gives you the list (505 editors at the moment; about half might be excluded for making only 0 or 1 undeleted edit). If you get one of these messages and you don't want any more, then you tell the system to leave you alone. This is not difficult; it might mean putting something like w:en:Template:Nobots on your talk page. Or, if the list is short enough, we might just make a note to remove a couple of people's names manually before sending messages. We might use words like broad, discoverable, open, and welcoming to describe this.
• Third option: Tell people they can tell you if they want to be told.
  • Likely results: Not very different from what we have now. In this option, you have to first discover that Star nominations are a thing and that you can sign up to review them. Then you have to sign up. Inertia works against us; it'll be like setting up your retirement savings accounts, which you'll get around to ...one of these days, probably. Also, we'd have to either post messages on everyone's talk pages or run some sort of regular reminder so that people would know that the list was a thing they could sign up for, which means that even if you don't sign up, you'll be seeing notices about it, and (since there are so few star nominations per year) it might even ultimately be more work than just putting a "skip me" note for a bot on your talk page and thus getting to forget entirely about it. In practice, the people who would discover and follow this process would be the people who are already involved and the people who would respond to a one-off request for comments if it were posted on this page. We would not get newcomers or occasional contributors involved. Words like narrow and undiscoverable still apply, but it might be slightly more effective than what we've got. I'd also add complicated to the list of descriptions.

Given all of this, my recommendation is to try out option 2 for a year, and to include the "leave me alone!" directions in every message. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

For the 2nd option, the process may get some participation from a somewhat larger number of editors. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say for opt 2, when a user's account is 30 days old and has a minimum of 500 edits, they'll be automatically subscribed? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 23:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You'd say that, but so far, consensus seems to be running against it. I'll try to look at some starnom articles, but it is time-consuming, and I'm not that confident in my thorough judging skills. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

In my not-inconsiderable experience, a system like this does result in more participation. Whether it produces the "correct" kind of participation is more doubtful, but, so far, every time I've sent personal invitations to 100+ active editors, I have received more responses than if I didn't send those invitations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree with you here. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 06:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Star nominations

Swept in from the pub

There are multiple nominations on this page, it would be helpful if some users could leave comments on them. 82.3.185.12 19:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Prohibition on self-promotions?

Is it really necessary for us to stipulate that the primary author and/or nominator is not allowed to promote an article to star status, or can we count on everyone not to try to pull a fast one again? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll add that the following policy is dangerous and was abused in the recent action: "After three weeks of discussion, if a consensus is reached, then that article becomes a star, and the discussion should be archived." I think we need to specify that a consensus requires but is not limited to clear support for promotion from at least five users. Because let's say I am busy and don't participate in star nomination discussions for two months. That should be a basis for hasty promotion due to some more or less positive remarks from 2-3 people? In this case, I'm in the last week of a 17-day vacation, and that was used to override my comment that the copy could be further tweaked and not to hastily promote an article. That is a terrible way to handle nominations for articles to be considered virtually perfect. It should be very hard for articles to be promoted to star status, not easy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

One support and one "let's wait a bit" is not consensus. Regardless, requiring a specific number of explicit supports might make the process clearer, but let's not forget the "all outstanding objections should have been addressed and dropped". I understand the frustration about articles hanging around here for many months, but that must be solved by more participation. –LPfi (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

LPfi, there were two supports (nominator votes have been included based on previous noms); Wikivoyage:Consensus and m:Consensus don't state how many support !votes are needed before an article is promoted. There just needs to be multiple – and how many is multiple? At least two. I appreciate that you understand the frustration, but as I've experienced with my Mungo NP star nom., they will eventually never be promoted. If they're never going to be promoted, it does make me question why I (and others who write star articles) should spend hours, if not days putting the effort in for something that's simply going to be slushed or lost in discussions because a community couldn't get its act together. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Your support was implicit, sorry for not counting it. But I don't think 2:1 is consensus, so better have the explicit number as IK suggested. For the Mungo star nom, there were problems that should have been fixed before the nomination, which is one reason for the nomination to take time. You cannot expect others to fix problems in the article "in a timely manner". Perhaps it should have been slushed right away, but then it wouldn't have developed as it has during the process. –LPfi (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I never mentioned it in the Mungo NP star nom but I did proofread and copyedit the article several times after Ikan made that remark, but I cannot do anything if Ikan doesn't mention where it needs proofreading. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Your new proposed policy will just mean we'll almost never have another star article because five is too many for a wiki of this size. For anyone that's unaware of the likely reason why we're even having this discussion, see Special:Diff/4507213 and I will reiterate that it was NOT my intention to deliberately promote this while you were on vacation. I know I sound senstitive to this, but I don't appreciate being falsely accused of deliberately promoting this while Ikan was on vacation, not once, not twice, but thrice. No-one has had an issue with the current policy until you all of a sudden came in and weren't happy with the fact that Canberra/Hall was promoted, even though all issues had been fixed (and I and tt! did copyedit the article so it was NOT dismissed nor overridden as you claim). I will also add that it's usually an honour for the nominator and/or main author to promote it, often due to hours, if not days of hard work put in, and are you really proposing we get rid of this honour just because of this one event? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Two against one doesn't constitute a consensus, because consensus doesn't mean "simple majority" (equally, it doesn't have to mean "unanimity"). It would have been better to wait for a reply from Ikan to confirm whether or not our copyedits had satisfied his concerns. If he had kept us waiting for months, and there hadn't been any further opinions offered by others I'd have more confidence that there was indeed consensus to promote, but it was only three weeks.

That said, it's unfair for Ikan to make accusations of underhanded behaviour due to his being on holiday; much more likely is that SHB forgot about the holiday in question (as did I, as soon as it became clear I wasn't invited!) and didn't realise Ikan was unavailable. Let's not fall into the trap of believing our minor life events are on anyone else's minds at all.

At first thought, five support votes seems a bit high to be realistic based on participation figures on this page, though I'd have to check the archives to verify if that is indeed the case. It's not fair on articles or on the people who do participate to insist on an arbitrary number of participants, when we know that enthusiasm for this process is fairly low at the best of times. Instead of relying on a number, it's better to simply require a clear consensus, which - I repeat - Hall definitely didn't have when SHB promoted it.

I don't want to exacerbate a confrontation, but I think it would be better to de-star Hall for now as not having passed with a clear consensus. However, I would prefer it if SHB recognised this fact before we do so.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!: Thank you for your balanced point of view. I am happy to unarchive Hall's nom., but I'd like more input on this page before unarchiving it; if there are no further comments past 13:00 UTC today (Aug 24), then feel free and unarchive it and revert Special:Diff/4507207 (and I'd prefer it if you or some uninvolved user did it (i.e. not myself, Ikan or LPfi). However, Ikan Kekek did not do this, but instead unilaterally removed the star, calling my edits as "unilateral" and "arbitrary" and along with the several false accusations, it was why I was exasperated by their actions. I do agree that two isn't a whole lot, but it is not "dangerous" as Ikan calls it. Again to reiterate, I'm okay with unarchiving it – and please do so after 13:00 UTC, and thank you for your neutral and balanced POV in this discussion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems LPfi jumped the gun and unarchived it while I was composing the above message. But to confirm again, I do recognise this fact and am willing to have further discussion the right way. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I tried to check the nom discussion, did not find it and checked the history. I think it is better to have the nom discussion available during this discussion, and yes, I was a bit agitated at that point. As a principle, status quo is to be preferred during discussion, which was what I was thinking about (in addition to having the discussion available as reference). I did not edit the article status and won't touch it, leaving the decision to others as prompted above. –LPfi (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I will add that I stand by all my remarks. SHB2000, you are a great contributor, but I do not think you are a great writer, so any article for which you are the primary author needs to be edited by others with a fine-toothed comb to have the possibility of being a star article. Maybe this article has been thoroughly edited already, but the rush to promote it over my remark that the copy could be edited more and it should not be promoted yet is unacceptable. And making it almost impossible for other articles to be promoted to stars is a much better policy than making it easier to claim an article is essentially perfect when it's not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support no-nominator-promotion. Oppose 5-!vote requirement. I oppose a requirement for there to be any fixed minimium number of !votes as I don't think consensus depends on a quorum in this context. But I support that the nominator should not execute the promotion; the latter doesn't depend on the size of a wiki. On the issue of the current status of the promotion process that gave rise to this discussion, I advocate that it continue so that Ikan Kekek's objections can be evaluated/addressed, but they should be made concrete (what is lacking?). Twsabin (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The last time I looked at the article, I had not looked through it in its entirety with a fine-toothed comb and had edited only part of it. We should not rush to promote any article to star, but should instead require that it have impeccable writing style, clarity, usage, grammar, syntax, etc. I'd also want to lengthen the initial evaluation period to 2 months except in cases of unanimous approval by at least 5 users. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll add that if this isn't sufficient detail to address your question right now, you should look at the history of the article to see what I've already edited. I don't have time for more right now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

By the way, why did I not object to current policy before? Because in practice, unanimity and a determination that an article was written in the most impeccable style, syntax, grammar, usage, etc. was required to make an article a star. Shorter version: there had never been a fast promotion before, nor a promotion without everyone being satisfied that the article was the best it could be, nor do I remember any push to speed up the process before SHB2000 has tried to do so in several starnom threads. This time, he followed through when I didn't object a second time "in time", because I have been busy while I've been away from New York. We need to slow down and remember what "star article" means. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I support having a minimum of two months, perhaps plus two months if there is no consensus (and the nomination isn't slushed) at that point. That would lessen the expectations on having a quick promotion and thus the frustration about slow advancement. I also think five (or four) explicit supports could be required. A consensus of two does not guarantee that the article reaches the threshold we aim for. Not getting more supports (nor critique) either means that several regulars happened to be busy or that the article is felt to be hard to evaluate. There might not be any real problems, but if people aren't confident in giving it the star, perhaps it doesn't need to get it. Participation in the noms hasn't been active, but I think that when there is consensus, and there aren't any such issues, it wouldn't be hard to ask people on the pub to make a last check and add their support vote if they find the article worthy. (I think that if we add the requirement on numbers, we should only count supports from established Wikivoyagers, not to allow trolls to disrupt the process). –LPfi (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. I might allow some of the support to come from established editors on other wikis - eg regular editors of the WP article about the destination.

Maybe there should also be a requirement for articles to have been Guide for 6 months before they are nominated? This gives some time for a reader to have used the article and report any major issues, and for editors of nearby destinations to discover the article. AlasdairW (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)