text:
Wikivoyage talk:Country article status

Outline
The outline wording as it stands isn't accurate where a country article is defined as an outline because the articles linked to it aren't usable. -- (WT-en) Beardo 00:32, 9 May 2006 (EDT)

Subarticle status??
This article seems to be missing the rule that others have where in order for an article to become "guide" all sub-articles should be "usable", and to become "star" sub-articles should be "guide". Is this intentional? Obviously it will be a lot more difficult then to make a country a star than for a city, but perhaps it should be that way. On one hand I would almost say that the country would be the last in the chain to become a star, once the country is fully covered - but on the other hand i would disagree with myself. We have great articles like Finland that just became a star, but only one of its region articles is a guide, one usable and the rest outlines. Should a country article be considered a star because it's complete and comprehensive, or because the coverage of the country in most/all subarticles is also comprehensive? What say? (WT-en) ::: Cacahuate 12:15, 21 January 2007 (EST)

OMG, why didn't someone just point out sooner that I was retarded and blind rather than just not responding? It's already written in there, good news! Except for Finland, which doesn't meet that requirement (WT-en) - Cacahuate 21:01, 19 February 2007 (EST)

 * I think that the Country article status needs to be polished. Here's what I propose -

(WT-en) Upamanyuwikivoyage 08:12, 4 March 2007 (EST) P.S. Cacahuate, what does OMG mean?
 * MoS
 * The phrasebook(s) of the language(s) spoken in the country should be complete.
 * The regions should be usable and at least half the linked cities should be guide and the others usable (saying that all region and city articles should be guide is setting the bar too high)
 * There should be a good map of the country with all linked destinations
 * The factbox must be complete
 * There must be a minimum of 3 good photos

 * Oh my God! — (WT-en) Ravikiran 08:15, 4 March 2007 (EST)

 * I'll concede that the current standards for a country's region/city articles may be too high. The intent was to make sure that we didn't spotlight a great-looking country article that turned out to be inadequate in actual use, because when you drilled down to the city level there weren't listings for places to eat and sleep, or the only city adequately covered was the capital.  The phrasebook requirement is a good idea; I'd suggest "usable" as the standard rather than demanding completeness.  I agree with the quickbar/factbox requirement. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 09:39, 4 March 2007 (EST)
 * Ya, what I mean by complete phrasebook is a phrasebbook with enough info for a traveller to speak some basic phrases and make himself understood, in other words - usable status+ — (WT-en) Upamanyuwiki • (Talk) • 10:05, 4 March 2007 (EST)

I don't really think they're too high Todd... I think it totally makes sense that a Guide country article has usable or better subarticles, and a Star country article has guide or better subarticles... otherwise we're just rushing to put star labels on countries that aren't even that well covered. Especially considering that it stipulates that this is for articles linked to from the country page, which would only be 9 cities, and maybe 9 "other destinations" for some countries... I don't think that's unreasonable. And it makes just as much sense for the "regions" to be only one step behind the country status as well, otherwise it's just isn't usable I think overall... I think we should just keep taking the upper statuses slowly and help them retain their value, so to speak... (WT-en) - Cacahuate 03:23, 7 March 2007 (EST)

The standards required for sub-articles directly linked from the country page should be strict. 1 usable country with 20 usable city articles behind it is worth a lot more than 1 star country with 20 outlines behind it. There simply is no rush to make star articles. Having said that, I'll even support the requirement for complete phrasebooks, thereby putting South Africa (my origional star nomination) with it's 11 languages right at the back of the queue for becoming a star. --(WT-en) NJR_ZA 03:56, 7 March 2007 (EST)

 * Me too, regarding the phrasebook, that's a good suggestion Upamanyu... I think it should follow the standard - phrasebook should be usable status or higher if the country's a guide, and guide status or higher if country's a star (WT-en) - Cacahuate 04:18, 7 March 2007 (EST)

 * Ooh, and shall we stipulate that this requirement is for the country's official languages phrasebooks, so as not to get tooo crazy? For instance, India has a zillion languages, but I would personally apply this only to the Hindi phrasebook, since it's the "official" language (WT-en) - Cacahuate 04:22, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Usable status too strict?
Currently, Canada is listed as a guide article, but according to this standard, it should be an outline! Why? Because guide status -- and useable status, for that matter -- requires all linked regions, cities, and other destinations to be at usable status, and Ontario is only an outline. Why? Because its Golden Horseshoe subregion is only an outline. Should Canada really be demoted to outline because Golden Horseshoe isn't yet to usable status? (WT-en) LtPowers 20:31, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Hmmm, I think it's OK to require guide level countries to have all sub linked pages to be at least usable, the status here should not indicate the quality of the article itself, but the overall level of the country in question - at least in my book. But that Canada can't be usable does seems a bit silly. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 20:50, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

 * I'd be ok with changing the "usable" requirement to all linked destinations at a minimum of "outline." (I think I've already been operating on that criterion by mistake.) We could do that for region guide status as well.

 * I've now changed it. If there is disagreement, revert and discuss. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:40, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Ah, I see I already did this for region guide status . --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:44, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

 * I strongly disagree with making any change to this policy that makes it easier to promote articles.... we've demoted many a guide article and even de-starred country articles on these grounds, it's a very established guideline. A country builds up slowly, and is made up of much more than the overview article... the coverage below it is paramount. In my opinion, Guide articles are those that are comparable to any other printed guide out there such as LP... while our Canada article(s) are coming along nicely, I don't think we're competing quite yet. There's no rush to get it to guide status, and if there is, then well, write a good article for Golden Horseshoe :) – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 01:34, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Cacahuate, I think you might have misunderstood. First, I changed the "usable" requirements for region guides a while back, because otherwise there would be an extraordinary chain of outline regions. One single county article at outline status, for example, would render the USA an outline—it would be impossible to ever get the country guide above outline status. So the Golden Horseshoe article is actually irrelevant to the Canada article, unless we were to change the region guide requirements for usable status.

 * Second, we're talking about usable status, and only usable status. I don't think a guide truly needs well developed region articles to be usable by a traveler—all that's really needed are usable city and other destination articles, plus outline region articles for navigation. Certainly that should satisfy the article status requirement (An adventurous person could use the article without recourse to other information sources. For most articles, this means they could probably get to the destination, eat, and sleep with just this information. It would probably enable them to find at least the most prominent attraction there). Guide status, on the other hand, denotes a really robust travel guide to a country, which should absolutely entail region articles with well developed general prose + a further level of city, region, and other destination guides. I'm not proposing that we change our guide-status requirements at all.

 * Lastly, I've already introduced a nuance here—linked city and other destination articles need to be usable to consider the country article (or a region article for that matter) actually usable. Perhaps it would be a good idea to change the criteria for both the country and region-level guides to reflect this (e.g., "all linked city and other destination guides must be usable status; all linked region guides must be at least outlines.")  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 04:55, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Perhaps I've misunderstood the intent of the requirements for usable status. It sez: "Has links to at least a couple cities and/or region guides (usable status or better),".  My reading of that is that all linked destinations should be usable status or better, but it could be read that at least a couple of linked destinations should be usable status or better.  Which is it supposed to be?  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:02, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

 * The practical interpretation has been that all linked destinations (meaning, all linked articles in the cities, regions, and other destinations lists at the top of the article) must be of at least usable status. The "at least a couple" phrase is supposed to mean that there cannot only be one linked city article. Does that clear things up? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 08:10, 4 May 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, but that seems counterproductive to me. A country with an incomplete regionalization scheme can be at usable status as long as all of the regions that do exist are usable, but if someone completes the regionalization with even just one new region that's only an outline, we have to demote the country to outline?  We don't want to discourage development, and I think it's hard to argue that the latter is a worse article than the former.  (WT-en) LtPowers 08:52, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

 * I'm going to side with Cacahuate and take a hard line here. The tags are meant to denote how usable the article is for travel, not reward contributors. If a country has an entire region that's just a contentless outline (and the region split is sensible and agreed on), then no, it's not usable as a whole. (WT-en) Jpatokal 09:13, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Why would a contentless outline subregion make the parent unusable? If usable = [A traveler] could probably get to the destination, eat, and sleep with just this information. It would probably enable them to find at least the most prominent attraction there. It seems fairly clear to me that a region article is usable provided its linked city & other destination articles are of usable status. In any rate, I suppose it's not the end of the world, provided this strict criteria is applied only at the country level. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:31, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

 * And Jani, in this case specifically, Ontario is hardly a contentless outline. Do you really think Canada, which is actually a pretty good article, should be listed as just an outline?  (WT-en) LtPowers 12:56, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

I've just demoted the USA to outline, per this strict criteria. A very big problem with the criteria as written is that usablecountry and guidecountry status are effectively the same—the U.S. has two outline regions; when they are bumped to usable status, the U.S. will go directly from outline to guide status. There is no in between, and this criteria is looking less and less well thought out to me. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:18, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

 * I essential point here, is the one Peter raised above. A region doesn't need to be detailed to be usable.  A region can be usable if just just directs to usable city level articles.  Perhaps we just need to look at the requirements to make a region usable?  --(WT-en) Inas 18:29, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Put yourself in the traveler's shoes: you're going to region X and have no clue what to see or do there. Is the article really "usable" if it just has a list of cities? (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:16, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

 * All that's needed is to click on the nine maximum cities to find out, provided they are usable. Add one-liner descriptions to the cities list and then it should be even more clear. Besides, the country level article, to be usable, already needs to have the relevant sections filled out, telling the traveler what to see and do there. A I think we should differentiate between usable and guide country articles, but the current requirements barely do that.

 * Almost any country article I can think of would never be at usable status—they would all go straight from outline to guide. That seems to me like a straightforwardly broken article status system, and I don't think this was ever thought out very clearly. Examples should make this pretty clear—do you really consider the USA guide as it stands to be unusable? That it does not satisfy the basic usable status description quoted twice above?  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:08, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Imposing a restriction on both a guide and a usable country on subregions being usable has unintended consequences, as Peter shows. If we are going to have a hierarchy, then we need s standard method.  All subs to be outline before outline, all subs to be usable before usable, all subs to be guide before guide, and it needs to apply to country, region, and city.
 * The current system on making a region becoming usable dependent on a city becoming an outline, is just as odd. A bot could make a city guide outline, and making a region's usability depending on having an outline with no information at all doesn't make sense, if you consider actual usability from a traveller's perspective.
 * I think we have two alternatives. Make the hierarchy consistent, and all lower articles meet a level before higher level get the status.  This will mean that a guide country will be a nirvana, and even usable may be a fair way off.  Or, we drop the hierarchy requirement, and judge each article on its own merits.
 * I'm inclined to favour the latter approach, and judge each article on its own merits. That way people looking through the categories can find an outline article they know something about, and set about improving it.  With the hierarchical system, they could go to improve it, and it might be complete already, just awaiting some obscure knowledge about a little visited part of a region.   I can see the advantages in the former though, and making all parts of a country be a guide before the country itself can be a guide adds impetus to gather information on those esoteric corners of the country that might otherwise be ignored.  --(WT-en) Inas 01:48, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

 * I don't think those are the only two approaches. The current approach, where guide status requires sublevels in the hierarchy to be at least usable, is perfectly reasonable.  The problem occurs because usable status has very similar requirements to guide status when it comes to linked articles.  (Obviously the article itself should look very different for those two statuses.)
 * Inas, you raise a good point that an outline is hardly worth much at all. I would agree that requiring outline-status or better is too trivial to base a status upon.  My preference, then, would be for usable status to require not all linked articles at usable status, but at least a couple linked articles at usable status.
 * As it stands now, a country article could be usable if it had only two or three regions, as long as each of those subregions was itself usable. Adding another region to fill out the regionalization of the country would drop the country article to outline until the new region was brought up to usable.  That's counterproductive.  Having an outline region is demonstrably better than no region at all.  Changing it to require at least a couple of linked articles at usable status would alleviate that anomaly and provide a clear progression from usable to guide -- if you want it to be a guide, you have to get all of the region articles up to usable status.  (And we should add an additional criterion to guide, that the country be fully regionalized without overlaps.)
 * -- (WT-en) LtPowers 08:13, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

I just did an audit of our country guides, and as I suspected, not a single one meets the current criteria. The only exceptions are Pitcairn Islands (guide) and Singapore (star), both of which don't have subregions. (Singapore should be de-starred per our criteria too, as it contains one usable district.) I don't think the current criteria makes sense, and the idea that our USA guide isn't good enough where An adventurous person could use the article without recourse to other information sources is to me laughable. I'll make a proposal for new criteria below, and hopefully those objecting will be willing to reconsider? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:12, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Proposal:

 * Usable — Has links to the country's major cities and other destinations (usable status or better), a valid regional structure, and a Get in section describing all of the typical ways to get there. Information about the country's currency, language, cuisine and culture is included.  At least the most prominent attraction is identified with directions.

Does this seem reasonable? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 09:16, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

 * It's an improvement. I'm not sure I like requiring all of the linked destinations to be usable or better, but certainly at least some of them should be.  And making a destination article "usable" is a lot easier than getting a whole region to "usable", so it's probably okay.  If it satisfies Jani and cachuate's objections, then I'm fine with it.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:45, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

 * Sorry, forgot about this conversation and just rediscovered it! I do admit in my initial haste I didn't realize we were just discussing usable status. I see the points being made, don't have much of a problem with Lt's and Peter's last suggestions. I don't have a whole lot of interest in the difference between outline and usable.... overall I do think that articles will spend the vast majority of their time at usable status, and think that the leap to guide is one that should be taken quite seriously. I think "guide" is what we're really striving for here, and then eventually, when and article exceeds all expectation and puts its competition to shame, should be nominated for star status. I think at a point we had let "guide" status lose its luster, and that's what I'm interested in continuing to restore :)

 * RE the initial exchange above, I was saying that Canada should be demoted to usable until all its regions were usable, but definitely not outline, same with USA, etc – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 00:51, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

 * I support Peter's proposed edit above, although the other country status ratings should probably be given similar grade mechanics. For example:

 * Guide — Has links to the country's major cities and other destinations (guide status or better), a valid regional structure with region-level maps, and a comprehensive Get in section covering visa information and the full range of transport options. Information about the country's currency, language, cuisine and culture is included, as are the country's most prominent attractions. The Respect section contains at least seven broad generalizations and causes for offense.

 * I haven't worked much on country articles, so please fine-tune that further. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 01:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Heh heh. I'd make the guide status more strict though—requiring all immediate subregions to be at usable status, and for all standard sections to have meaningful content. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 01:25, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Agreed. GJ, Aretha's about to break out a can o whip ass on your respectless self. Oh, what about the talk we had a couple years ago in above section where we were leaning towards phrasebook being included in the mix of "must be's"? – (WT-en) cacahuate   talk 02:23, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Oh, I also propose moving " At least one good-quality photo accompanies the article; preferably 2-3 showing famous or important attractions" from the star requirement to the guide requirements... this is pretty basic. A star article would of course have multiple high quality photos and a detailed map noting at least every linked article – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 02:27, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

 * There were objections much earlier in this conversation, but it seems we're approaching something of a new consensus? Any objections before I give the status criteria an update as suggested above? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 02:08, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Updating status templates
I have just seen that Germany was demoted to outline status from Peter as a result of this discussion. The general Germany article needs hardly any more information. I tried in the last weeks to reduce the nonsense in this article because instead of more information this article is overloaded. I understand the argument that the sub-articles need improvement but everyone who sees that status will add more in the general article instead of the sub-articles. Would it be an idea to add on the country pages, that actually the main article is ok but due to sub-standard regional articles it is not further upgraded? Because it is very tiresome to rewrite all that stuff user continiously add in the German stay safe and history part. And this doesn't help the sub-articles either. An other option maybe: Could be made a box for countries stating the article level of the subs so that users get the message that the regional articles are the issue and not more nonsense on the main country page? (WT-en) jan 06:07, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
 * That's not a bad idea. (WT-en) LtPowers 10:13, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

 * the countries that were at guide status should have been demoted to usable, not outline. I don't think the outline template needs changing, but we could do with changing usable and guide for the country templates to something that is more specific and helpful, this is a good point. Something likeThis country's coverage is considered usable. It has information about the country and for getting in, a few usable region articles, as well as links to several destinations. An adventurous person could use these articles, but please plunge forward and help them to grow!. I'm sure we can do even better than that, ideas? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 17:01, 4 June 2009 (EDT)
 * It might actually be useful to have two different templates, one that says "this article needs more work," and one that says "this article is pretty good, but we've marked it 'usable' because its subregions (or cities or districts) need more work". (WT-en) LtPowers 22:29, 4 June 2009 (EDT)

 * A new category, for country articles that are guide quality, but whose subregions aren't. But a country can't be guide quality unless its subregions are, I thought? --(WT-en) inas 00:33, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

 * Mates, might we give this a test drive in the Germany article? I don't know how to create a box that could indicate the status of the main and the subs. Do we need to adapt the template? (WT-en) jan 04:49, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

 * That sounds complicated.... I really think all we need to do is fix the wording a bit to make is sound less like "add more info this page" and more like "help fix up the region articles too".

 * @ Inas, no, a country article can be at guide status if the country article is guide quality, and the linked articles are at least "usable". Essentially, an article can only be 1 step higher than its linked destinations – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 22:06, 5 June 2009 (EDT)

Usable status still too strict?
In a usable region, only the most important linked destinations must be at usable status. Why is a country different, with all linked destinations required to be usable? There are still only two usable countries (the guide/star countries are microstates that don't have regions). China is our second largest article, but is still at outline status, which seems silly to me. – sumone10154 ( talk ) 02:23, 11 September 2012 (CEST)

 * I don't understand the reason for the last sentence in Country guide status:

 * At least the most prominent attraction is identified with directions.

 * And we want directions to an attraction in a country-level article because? The logical thing is for directions in country-level guides to be only for how to get into the country and how to get around it, not detailed directions for how to get into specific places: That's what local guides are for. It seems like it would be good to delete that sentence from Country guide status. If not, please explain why, because I don't understand why it was included in the first place. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 * I doubt it was ever intended to involve detailed directions (from where?); maybe they just meant to identify the location within the country? Powers (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * There has to be a clearer way of expressing this. How about "The general location of at least the most prominent attraction is indicated"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

 * It looks like this discussion was never resolved. Any comments, anyone? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 * To be honest, I don't think usable destinations are too much to ask. Micro-countries excluded, I don't see how we could honestly suggest our country guides are "usable" for a traveller when not even the 9 most prominent cities are usable. The requirements for a destination article (like a city or park) to be usable are very low - we're not talking "guide" here. Any city can be made usable in 15 minutes. Occasionally one of the other destinations may require a little more effort, since we sometimes link islands or regions, but I wouldn't say those rules are too strict. For a region article it's acceptable to only have the top destinations usable, but for a country? Imagine you buy a printed travel guide to the USA and there's not even a usable article (so, 20 lines with a place to sleep, a place to eat, basic directions and the most important attraction) for Boston or Miami. Nothing keeps us from being flexible for a small or rural country, or for places where a single (more complicated) destination is the issue. As for the attraction, this feels like a solution looking for a problem. Common sense would be that the location is simply always mentioned, and in case we have no usable article for that location/destination, we include some directions. Just my two cents. JuliasTravels (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I don't disagree on that, but can we please at least edit this to be clearer:

 * At least the most prominent attraction is identified with directions.

 * Please read my remarks about this above. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Sure, leave the directions part out, if you prefer. I don't think anyone ever interpreted that line as requiring "detailed" directions anyway, but I have no objections to bringing the letter of policy in line with practice and common sense. I don't even think we have country level articles with only one attraction (which is a bigger problem in this exact line, for me ;-)). JuliasTravels (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I think you're right. So what do you think of "The general location of the most prominent attractions is clearly indicated" or something like that? Or please suggest a better phrasing if you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd simply go with "The most prominent attractions are identified", but perhaps I'm too liberal in such things... JuliasTravels (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

 * I think they need to be not only mentioned (identified) but also placed within the country (e.g. "Times Square in New York City"). Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course users should be able to easily find the location; that seems so obvious to me that I find it an unnecessary addition. In fact, leaving the "how" out of policy allows for editors to leave the town away and just link directly when the town isn't as famous (and thus provides no real information on location unless you click it anyway). E.g., your Times Square example makes sense since everyone knows NYC and, since our NYC article has districts, you'd be linking two different articles. In case of the Keukenhof in Lisse (one of the main attractions in the Netherlands) however, you'd have to click the link anyway, because most foreigners have never heard of the town (and probably not even of the Keukenhof itself...). Personally, I prefer the way it is now in that case, with just a link tp Keukenhof, to avoid text clutter in the See section. JuliasTravels (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your example. I agree with leaving the "how" out of it, but since I've seen so many articles (though usually well below country level) in which attractions are simply mentioned by name, with no indication whatsoever of where they are, I still prefer some form of words that requires some kind of indication of location. How about this? The most prominent attractions are identified and their general position within the country is indicated? I'm struggling with the second phrase, but I think "general position" is good enough, as in "The Alamo, in San Antonio, is a historic fort" or "Uluru, in the interior of the Northern Territory, is a unique large rock that is sacred to local Aborigines", but I agree with not giving examples on the project page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't favor hiding location information within a piped link, as the information will be lost if the article is printed. Powers (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point about piped links. If there is no objection to my proposed rephrasing within a day or so, I'll replace the sentence in question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In most cases, including general directions changes little with regard to piped links. For the large majority of non-US travellers, "The Alamo, in San Antonio" still means nothing unless you click the link. I don't think it's a major issue on country articles, though. Anyone who wants to use a printed version will have to decide beforehand which underlying articles to also print anyway, as the country articles have no detailed information about most practical things. I still think leaving the "how" out and using common sense on a case to case base would be best, but I will not object the change. It changes nothing in practice, I think. I've never encountered a country attraction with detailed instructions on how to get there, in any case ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Edited accordingly. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Require that guide country articles need to have at least 70 per cent of destination articles usable or higher?
I'm aware that the criteria to get a country to guide status is already very hard, and it explains why there are only five countries that are not overseas territories or pages formatted as a city/park article at guide status. However, a country article is not really "guide" if only the main country article is detailed but if its destination articles are mostly outline articles. Theoretically, a guide to Canada is not "guide" if most destinations of Manitoba were outlines, a guide to Australia is not "guide" if most destinations in Tasmania were outlines, a guide to the United States is not "guide" if most destinations in the Midwest are outlines. Getting an article to usable is not very hard – it only around takes 30 minutes, maybe more if there isn't a lot of online information, and this has been done before. It's hard, but getting a country article to guide status is supposed to be hard. After all, it's a COUNTRY – does LonelyPlanet write a good guide to Italy in one week? This will mean that there will be fewer country articles at guide status, but this will mean they are truly near-complete, accurately depicting what a "guide" should look like.

What does everyone else think? -- SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 09:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Right now: "All immediate subregions must be usable status or better" for a country article to be at guide level. Please explain why your proposal wouldn't weaken the requirements for guide status at the country level. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly, but this guideline would be an additional requirement on top of the existing requirements. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the listed "Cities" and "Other destinations"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, every single destination article breadcrumbed underneath it, not just "Cities" and "Other destinations". I know this makes it maybe ten if not twenty times harder, but getting a near-complete guide to a country is supposed to be hard. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So every single article about anyplace in the U.S. would have to be usable for the U.S. article to be a guide, for example? I don't see how that's reasonable or even enforceable, because it means that every time someone starts a new article about someplace in the U.S.A. that's a stub or outline, the U.S. article would suddenly not longer be legitimately a guide. OK, so it has to be 70%, not 100%? Do you want to total up the number of articles about places in the U.S. and keep stats on all of them? I don't see how that's a great use of anybody's time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Remember that a guide article is essentially "complete". Now, it's almost impossible to have a "complete" guide for a country, but a minimum of 70% is reasonable – this has been done before for Canada and Australia so it's not impossible. Maybe for the US, India or China it may be hard, but I'm not sympathetic because these are large countries and it's supposed to be hard.
 * If I wasn't clear enough, when I meant "every single destination article breadcrumbed underneath it", I meant that it applies to all destination articles breadcrumbed underneath a country, not just those listed in "Cities" and "Other destinations". My rationale for 70 per cent was do if someone creates an outline, this would not suddenly affect the article status.
 * As for the number of articles, if you're not aware Ikan, there's a good tool called Petscan that I use. So per Petscan, there are 4008 outline articles out of 6508 total articles. That means that only 39 per cent of articles breadcrumbed under United States of America are usable or higher. For another example, India has a total of 1314 articles breadcrumbed underneath it, but 1060 articles are outlines, meaning only 19.4 per cent of articles are usable or higher. If this was to be done by manually counting, I would have never proposed this from the start. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't know, but maybe in a small country like New Zealand or the Bahamas, each article is more important than a bunch of articles about tiny towns in Montana are for the guide to the entire U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * NZ has 227 articles breadcrumbed underneath it, of which 109 are outlines, compared to 72 articles under Montana (40 outlines), but even for small countries that aren't city-states or microstates, there's a lot of potential. My thought is that this would generally apply to countries that have at least one level of regions (e.g. North Korea or The Bahamas as you mentioned, which has exactly one level of regions). For a country like Palau where the regions are just city articles, each article is important, but the already existing policy also applies too. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think our current requirements are enough. I don't think any travel guides cover every corner of the countries they describe, and it is not reasonable to require us to do so – or even 70% of places. If we cover the main destinations of the country and the main destinations of each region, isn't that enough for guide? The problem with a percentage (in contrast with "the most important") is that it will get worse by somebody adding a new outline or splitting up an existing article (if not all parts get up to usable). To avoid lowering the country's status, it's main contributors may hesitate to do such things, even where they would be improvements (the same is true now for important destinations, but it is more likely that you work them up to usable again after the split, and the requirement to do so is reasonable). For a country just above 70%, there will also be a non-desirable yo-yo effect as articles are added and improved. –LPfi (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Wikivoyage talk:Country article status


text:
Wikivoyage talk:Country surgeon Expedition

Highlights for a location / Decide where to go
Swept in from the pub:

I've been using Wikivoyage now for quite some time to get info on the places i travel to, and every now and then i post some recommendations in terms of things to do, see, eat or sleep.

But now i'm trying to get some ideas for say a short week of vacation this summer. This is however rather tedious to do; this place has a lot of info about a lot of places, with good recommendations left and right. If i just open the pages of some countries that spark my interest for this short trip i'm up to my neck in stuff to read, let alone decide upon.

So what if i just want to get ideas what's cool to see and do in say a country or city? Maybe it's an idea to have a 'highlights' paragraph to turn to for just some info?

How do you guys decide on your next destination? (WT-en) Peymora 15:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Well, a fully developed article will tell you the highlights in the See/Do sections, and in the introductory paragraph or "Understand" section; I'm not sure we need another section for highlights, we just need to improve more of our articles to do what they're already designed to do :)

 * As far as deciding where to go, first think about what your interests are, or what you're in the mood for at this moment. There's endless things to do and see, and if you're like me then you want to do them all. So stop paying attention to the whole, and follow something fun and random that sparks your interest. Do you feel like scuba diving for a week (or learning how to)? Want to sit on a beach, or hike in the mountains? Where are you coming from? Ever been to a Muslim country? How about Cairo, explore the city and the pyramids? – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 00:12, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree with the fact that it should be in Do & See, however: a country page doesn't have these paragraphs! My Lonely Planet Croatia (i'm on an internship now here) start with some highlights troughout the country. No details, just: mountain here, old monestary there, beautiful city there. And with page-numbers so i can look them up.

If you could have a summary listing like that of the not-to-be-missed spots on a country-page with links to the appropriate cities etc that would really be helpful in finding cool places to go to. So, a --highlight-- paragraph? (WT-en) Peymora 04:08, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

 * Calendar of events and festivals can also be a good starting point, though it does not get the attention it deserves and should contain a lot more detail than it does --(WT-en) Nick 04:49, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

 * You're right, my mistake! Make that "cities" and "other destinations"... where we list up to 9 cities and 9 other destinations that are the highlights of that country... (and we link straight to those destinations, rather than using pesky page #'s :)). I know you may not see what you're looking for exactly on a lot of the country articles, but it's more because they aren't fully developed yet, rather than a problem with the article formats. California does a decent job so far of giving you highlights via the opening paragraph, and the cities and other destinations sections. I'd vote against a "highlights" section because you'd be duplicating info that should already be located in those 3 areas – (WT-en) cacahuate  talk 19:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah, then i get it, so it should be in 'cities' and 'other destinations'. Okay, maybe we should make that more explicit in the template for country articles? Right now the examples and description for cities are clear, but it says for 'other destinations' that it should only be the independent articles. Maybe include that direct links to interesting things to see/do in that country (wherever they are listed, city/region) are also requested (up to 9). (WT-en) Peymora 05:02, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

In highlighting some Greece destinations I changed the heading of Other Destinations to Major Destinations, as a way of answering exactly this question of what most people will want to see. In retrospect I realize that maybe it's against policy to change the heading, but no one has complained yet. I think Major Destinations is a much more informative heading, and I'd like to see it allowed or even have the template changed to it. After all, "other destinations" could be anything. More generally, I agree with the desire to mark major sights more clearly, even if there won't always be total agreement on what they are. Most travel guides do this, and most readers find it very useful. For instance, the first time traveler to Japan, confronted with the bewildering array of attractions in that country, will be very glad to have a list of top things to visit including maybe the three or four major temples in Kyoto and in Nara, the Hiroshima Peace Museum, Himeji Castle, performances at the Kabuki-za in Tokyo, the Great Buddha in Kamakura, Takayama and the Japanese Alps, and Nikko. The point isn't whether this is a perfect list of the best; it's that it's much better to have such a list, whatever its defects, than to not have any list and so miss some of these things because you didn't realize how important they were. (WT-en) Sailsetter 12:04, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Country surgeon Expedition
Swept in from the pub:

Our "See sections" on country articles tend to be empty, despite being potentially the most useful section for giving people an idea of how to spend their time in the country. I think Iraq is a decent example of how useful this can be (and I wrote that with just a couple hours of research and nearly no prior knowledge). I've organized a (WT-en) list of countries that need see sections, or at least better developed see sections, which could serve as a checklist, in the same manner as we do at the Project:Regions map Expedition. We have been discussing this issue at Project:Collaboration of the month.

So in short, I'd like to start the Project:Country surgeon Expedition! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 18:15, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Full support from me. Critical to the success of this venture will be clearly defined guidelines as to the presentation of the country See and Do sections. The Iraq see section is beautifully written, and as the attractions are all in similar theme (bar in the final short paragraph), it works as several blocks of prose with no headings. For countries with a larger variation of themes, I think sub sections make sense. I have started along that route at Indonesia for example (unfinished).--(WT-en) Burmesedays 00:24, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

 * Good project. Large countries like Indonesia will always require subsections in the See section as there is so much to see. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 15:51, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

 * I took a stab at re-writing New Zealand's See section. I wouldn't mind some feedback on length/content/etc. I find this kind of writing hard so I wanted to practice on a place I'm very familiar with before trying others. There's probably more scenery stuff to add, but I'm not sure if it will make it too long. -(WT-en) Shaund 01:33, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Good idea, I did the Netherlands before and Suriname now. Perhaps I'll do a few others later. Why are some countries bold? Are they considered more important?
 * Also, did you talk about those guidelines for see and do yet? The Suriname article has a bunch of natural reserves under "do", but I included the main natural sights also in see. Frankly, I'm wondering if those descriptions under "do" aren't copies from elsewhere, considering the limited content of the rest of the Suriname article and the fact that highly similar text can be found on other websites. I guess there's no way to find out if they got if from us or if someone copied it here, right? (WT-en) Justme 07:12, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

See and Do
One of the challenges is dealing with the crossover between See and Do, and to a lesser extent Understand. For example, it is difficult not to repeat information from a Natural Attractions sub-section of See, in a Trekking sub-section of Do. The Culture sub-section of Understand likewise has crossover with Cultural Performances in Do. It's tricky. --(WT-en) burmesedays 09:35, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Yes, when trying to write See in Europe, I quickly got to a kind of history section, so it's definitely not easy. The same goes with trekkings in Thailand, describing cultures in See, while those cultures would often be visited as part of a trekking (which would need to be in Do). I guess we just have to try and be creative for each country and get more experience in how to write these sections over time. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 11:25, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

 * National Parks are definitely a little tricky. I tend to think the major parks themselves should be mentioned in See, but any well known treks, rafting, etc. (activities) within should be in Do. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:29, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Actually, when writing, I find that crossovers with the "cities" and "other destinations"-listings are just as much a problem. It depends heavily on the size of the country, the number and kind of attractions, of course. For at least some of them, like Latvia, the most prominent sights are towns and town centres that are mentioned in those listings, be it somewhat differently formulated and with different levels of detail. I don't really see any way around doubling info then, is there? I guess it's less of a problem to have the main attractions listed double. (WT-en) Justme 19:16, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * I don't think that overlap is a big problem. The OD list is mostly a list for navigation, while the See and Do sections are supposed to be prose, and can be a lot more detailed. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 19:25, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

 * I think it would be particularly tough to write both the OD list and See section in one sitting. But if the OD list is already written, you can just make a point not to look at it while writing something else more original ;)

 * Since we already have a good idea of what a See section should contain, the task may simply be to define what belongs in the Do section at the country level. Glancing at the USA article, there is music, sports, and festivals—all easy and useful things to discuss at the national level. The parks information as written in that section looks like it might have a better home in the See section (where the information is largely duplicated, and better written, already). --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:30, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

Brazil
I have started on a See section for Brazil, but it is not complete yet. Brazil is way bigger than the Netherlands, and I'm not sure how it would be possible to write a single succinct paragraph for each subsection, so I am doing bulleted points in each subsection for now. Let me know how you think it looks. Looking forward to your comments. (WT-en) texugo 03:42, 10 September 2011 (EDT)
 * I added a Natural wonders section, which I definitely think should be one of the sub-sections. Possible other bulleted points (i.e. Peaks:Pão de Açucar, etc.)?
 * I know that beach listings usually go in the Do section, but I'm wondering, in the case of a country (where we are giving a more general overview), whether it might not be better to put them either in their own See section or under Natural wonders, leaving the Do section to give an overview of the activities themselves.
 * I think the "colonial architecture" blurb I recently added should be expanded to a Colonial heritage subsection to include some things not directly related to architecture, get into a little more detail about what things to look for and answer some common questions (e.g. "What is a pelourinho?).
 * The Oscar Niemeyer blurb I recently added can likely be expanded into a third section of Modern architecture or Modern cities, to talk about not only his works but give examples of other important structures/buildings as well.
 * Any other suggestions?

 * I don't think we have to keep it to a single paragraph per subsection. I noticed Burmesedays has two or three paragraphs in each subsection for Indonesia. I'm proposing to do it the same way in New Zealand. I think each of the bullet points (waterfalls, Pantanal, Atlantic Forest, etc.) could be turned into a paragraph and that would be fine.
 * That's a good question about the beaches and I was wondering the same thing. I'm leaning towards keeping them in Do, just for consistency with city articles (but very amenable to reasons to put them in See).
 * I'm struggling quite a bit with how much detail to include. My initial thought is details and answers to common questions would be good material for infoboxes or the Understand section, but I'm not sure. It's a good question. -(WT-en) Shaund 15:24, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

 * There is a discussion on beaches here. I think WT has got this one wrong and needs to make that distinction. That may be because the guideline was formulated by urban-leaning folks who are used to beaches being a playground rather than a natural attraction in their own right.--(WT-en) burmesedays 21:03, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

 * On bullet points, I think we should try to avoid them altogether. Rather, well organised, succinct prose should be the aim.--(WT-en) burmesedays 21:05, 10 September 2011 (EDT)

 * I'd avoid the bullets as well. Texugo's current work is very good prose on its own, and the bullets could be easily removed without needing to change the content. But the presence of bullet points generally attracts lazy one word or broken phrase contributions further down the line. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:38, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

 * I wouldn't want to dismiss bullet points all together. It's a matter of taste, I guess, but I for one like them in places where there's lots of prose. Something to decide per case, I think. Frankly, for huge countries I'm expecting extensive see-sections. I could even imagine a bullet point-highlights table on the side, just to give people a first glance at the best stuff. (WT-en) Justme 04:21, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

Featured region
One of the more successful things we did with the country region maps was to feature a certain region and all focus on finishing it, so that we could tackle the world piece by piece. I'd like to do that here too, once we've finished cutting our teeth on the countries we all personally know best (or are simply most interested to start writing). Maybe in a week or so, we could try featuring a specific region. Any suggestions for which one? --(WT-en) Peter Talk 03:44, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

 * I think maybe we should do the countries in bold first. And there are some countries I'd like to see bold (like South Africa and Malaysia). --(WT-en) globe-trotter 18:49, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

 * By all means, bold away! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:31, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Agree with doing bolded countries first. -(WT-en) Shaund 23:04, 11 September 2011 (EDT)

 * Yep, me too.--(WT-en) burmesedays 00:00, 14 September 2011 (EDT)

National parks & World Heritage Sites
Another question I've been running into. Somehow, it seems to me that World Heritage Sites and National parks should generally all be mentioned. There are a few obviously most impressive examples but for the rest it seems.. presumptuous to choose between world heritage sites. However, for places like France or Italy the lists are long and we want prose, not bullet points. I've been struggling to find a balance, also for national parks. Could I name a few and then refer to a list of heritage sites or parks elsewhere? And if so, where then? (WT-en) Justme 04:31, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
 * I don't think all should be mentioned, just write some general prose about what you can see and give the best examples. Like write about jungle in Indonesia and name the most important World Heritage Sites as examples. The rest should go in the region articles. --(WT-en) globe-trotter 04:48, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

 * I'd say every country article should have a line like this one from China:
 * China had over 40 sites on the UNESCO World Heritage List, as of 2012.
 * Make the link go to the appropriate section of the list in each case. This is lower maintenance; if new sites are added by UNESCO, we only need to add them once here.
 * In some cases, this might be the whole "Other destinations" section, but I think that would be rare. Pashley (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Ideally, we'd want overview articles for all national parks per country too, I guess, and work in the same way. Honestly, the more of these see-sections I write, the more I feel we're lacking clear boundaries for what should be there, what should be in the intro and what in other destinations. The information always doubles, in part. If we want the see-sections to allow travellers to quickly scan through the main sights, it seems better to have a highlights section-like thing at the start, instead of an intro (which should also be inviting), a destinations-list, a see-section ánd a do-section. But I guess that's not the kind of discussion we should have here :-) JuliasTravels (talk) previously User:Justme 07:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Palestine a "Top Priority"?
I'm just curious as to why exactly Palestine is considered to be a "top priority"? I imagine it as one of the lowest priority areas, seeing as it's a bit dangerous and not even a real country. How did it make it up there over Ireland, Ukraine, Jamaica, Ethiopia, etc.? Even in its own region, I would consider Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the UAE all to be of greater priority than Palestine. Is there a reason or did it just get slipped in there without anyone noticing/caring? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 04:37, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I agree Ethiopia, Nepal, Sweden, Chile are all quite popular destinations that should be a higher priority than Palestine. Peter included Palestine when he added the high priority list . Of course, the list is subjective and everyone will have different opinions. There are quite a few historical sites, though, and I think a lot of people include the West Bank with a visit to Israel. (WT-en) AHeneen 22:31, 29 October 2011 (EDT)
 * I put it there because of the holy sites. In terms of sights that need describing, I would consider it a higher priority than the countries you listed. Just my subjective opinion, though.  --(WT-en) Peter Talk 21:54, 30 October 2011 (EDT)

See-sections
Totally cracked me up. --(WT-en) evanp 10:12, 31 January 2012 (EST)

CotM

 * Swept in from the pub:

I just wanted to plug our new Collaboration of the Month: a project to create meaningful see sections for all country articles. We have three people on the project; three more would mean that we would make real progress quickly. If you already are familiar with the country, it doesn't take long to write up a see section. If not familiar, this is a great exercise for learning about travel in parts of the world new to you.

This is all to say that this is a fun CotM—join in! --(WT-en) Peter Talk 17:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

"Countries"
Looking at the current list, it includes "countries" like French Polynesia, Western Sahara, & Puerto Rico. Should territories/dependencies like these be included in the expedition? If so, then what about territories/dependencies like South Ossetia, Jersey, or Martinique? AHeneen (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In principle anything could be included that has all the typical country features, functions as a distinctive destination for travellers, and has a de facto separate government. However, I'd like to suggest to first finish the expedition as it was set out, before adding more "countries". Unfortunately there don't seem to be many enthusiast left, except for myself. To be honest, making the list longer instead of shorter will not help at this very moment ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of my remark was actually in the hope that the list would be trimmed of non-countries and thus shorter. AHeneen (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh haha :-) In that case I'm all for it! ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! --Peter Talk 20:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Palestine remains so as not to get politics involved. Plus, it is full of sights and definitely a high-priority region to garner a decent see section. AHeneen (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good. Actually, although I don't really mind, I find it strange to have Palestine as a high priority. Sure, it's full of sights, but so are many other places on the list. For me, it's the popularity of the destination that makes it a priority. Rating "sights" is always biased and a matter of taste. But okay ;-) JuliasTravels (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing see sections for countries
I'm quietly celebrating a bit as I've just finished the last of a long list of missing European country See-sections. Other continents are not as far yet though. A few years ago, Peter started the Country surgeon Expedition in order to provide usable see sections for our country articles. Strangely, that whole section was not part of the template during the first so many years, resulting in underdeveloped see-sections all around. Despite the wide interest in the beginning, and quite a few contributed sections in the first months, the expedition seems to have been forgotten. From time to time, I try to get back to it and get a few more done. So here's just a kind reminder and a call for even a little bit of help, as I'm finding it hard to stay motivated too :-) It's a really good goal, I think, and just picking a country is the kind of easy project you can do if you have a couple of hours to spare. Most of the high priority destinations have been covered now, and we're not necessarily after great content. Just a short, usable section for Jamaica or Gabon would be appreciated too. Next time you're bored (which I know is not often on Wikivoyage..) just consider it :-) Cheers, JuliasTravels (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Wikivoyage talk:Cultural Expedition

So, I have kinda mixed feelings about this idea. My first feeling about this is that the information about culture should be in the country, region, or city guide. After all, culture is an important part of what you need to know when traveling to a place.

Second, I think that there is a place for culture guides that don't map directly to a geographical region.

I think we should try to map cultures to locales wherever possible. I think we should only have separate culture guides when:

 * The culture spans so many geographical areas that it would be tedious to cover in each and every area.
 * The culture is a minority culture with no specific geographical area attached.

So, I'd think that information about Catalan culture should go in the Catalonia guide, but maybe information about Gypsy (AKA Roma) culture might go in a separate Gypsy cultural guide, since its a culture spread all over Europe. Information about Asian immigrant culture in England may go in an British Asian culture guide, since it's a culture that's an important part of British life, but isn't localized to any one place.

This is probably what you're saying, though, Dhum Dhum.

I think my main worry is that we get to a point where we have two guides for any one place. Like, a Morocco guide, and a Moroccan culture guide.

Another possibility is having an Arab culture guide that provides a resource for someone working on the Morocco page; they can add relevant culture information there.

It's an interesting project. I tend to be pretty anal about keeping information pretty close to geographical points, though. Anyways, I guess I need to brood on this a while. --(WT-en) Evan 10:19, 7 Dec 2003 (PST)

I notice that the expedition page contains no links to actual guides, that it has not changed in over a year, and that this page has not changed in three. Am I right in assuming the idea is dead? If so, I don't think I'll mourn. If not, I'd like links to the guides. (WT-en) Pashley 08:13, 8 November 2006 (EST)\

VFD discussion, 2009
I am bringing this up because of postings on the talk page that were rather unenthusiastic (and posted years ago). Even if it is kept, perhaps calling attention to it here will at least get some other opinions about whether this is a dead idea (which then should be deleted) or whether it is a good idea that just needs more attention. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 21:27, 14 July 2009 (EDT)
 * Even if we do declare it dead, I would recommend simply "deactivating" it rather than deleting the content. We can list it on Project:Expeditions as defunct or inactive.  (WT-en) LtPowers 10:16, 15 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Delete. I'm not yet a card-carrying member of the everything on the wiki muct be kept for posterity club.  This expedition has had no significant updates since it was created, no activity on the actual expedition.  It never took off, was probably never a good idea, has no useful content, and we should blow it away, and move on.  --(WT-en) inas 00:07, 29 July 2009 (EDT)

 * Delete. I agree with Inas, and besides the current format obviously is not working, if resurrected, it would need to be reformulated anyhow - besides the only expedition that really sees any sort of activity is the map making one. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) talk 15:26, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

 * My thought on it is that if we keep it around as inactive, it will better facilitate learning from previous mistakes. If someone goes looking to start a cultural expedition in the future, they can see there once was one and that it had problems, then take steps to avoid them.  (WT-en) LtPowers 16:43, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

 * Keep the article. Merely because the expedition failed to take off does not mean that it meets the criteria for deletion. The page documents an idea that someone had for Wikivoyage. To delete it means we forget our history and are at risk of repeating it. It may be appropriate to reformulate the expedition at some time in the future, or it might give someone ideas to plunge forward and make it work. - (WT-en) Huttite 05:54, 3 November 2009 (EST)

 * If the purpose of keeing this is to show others who may wish to start this expedition again that it is not a good idea, then perhaps it should be transferred to a Failed Expeditions page or something. Keeping it on the expedition page as an expedition means that it is still an operating expedition. Most likely, if someone did try to create a culture page as proposed (ex: Jewish Culture Guide, Japanese Culture Guide, etc.), it would end up a nomination for deletion, because everything listed in the Topic List already has a place in the country/region/city articles. (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 15:03, 7 November 2009 (EST)
 * Yes, my suggestion of marking it inactive would presumably include listing it as such on the Expeditions page. (WT-en) LtPowers 16:48, 7 November 2009 (EST)

 * I went ahead and added a section on the Expedition page for "inactive expeditions". Feel free to make changes as you see fit, but there seems to be a consensus that this expedition is not worth keeping, so perhaps this can be archived? (WT-en) ChubbyWimbus 18:30, 7 November 2009 (EST)

title: Wikivoyage talk:Cultural Expedition