Talk:Roter Faden
Latest comment: 1 year ago by SounderBruce in topic Should stops along the walk be listed and maybe even described?
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Should stops along the walk be listed and maybe even described?
editShould stops along the walk be listed and even be described? Since the walk is about visiting significant sites in the old town, that makes it appear like a travel guide (and Wikipedia is WP:NOTGUIDE), but does this mean this walk CANNOT be described in Wikipedia like a building could just because of that? Betterkeks (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- Point 2 on NOTGUIDE: "Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc."
- This includes every stop on a walking tour. Describing major landmarks is fine, but this is excessive and not covered by any reliable secondary source from what I can see. SounderBruce 08:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- @SounderBruce: But just the stops about the walk that is the subject of this article. If it truly were a guide, it would include stuff that isn’t on the walk, of which there is plenty, like the Hiroshima bell. But it doesn’t because it sticks to the walk. A guide also would not include some of the stuff that is there, like the municipal building department, or a bridge that can’t be used to cross the river anymore, but it is because it’s on the walk. So we can’t describe it the way we would describe a different subject matter (the new city hall for example) because then it looks too much like a guide? We have to have just a list of stop names without offering a summary style breakout of the stop that makes it interesting to read? Isn’t that being overzealous with the rules, and is that really the intent of the rules? As for the secondary sources, they’re general so could be better, but not absent either: see the German version which mostly uses general references as well. I’ll have a go at trimming more aggressively, but after working it over a month I kinda wanted a bit of a break from it. Betterkeks (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
- If these sites are notable, then they should have their own article. The trail article should talk about the trail, otherwise it's off-topic. SounderBruce 00:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
- @SounderBruce: But just the stops about the walk that is the subject of this article. If it truly were a guide, it would include stuff that isn’t on the walk, of which there is plenty, like the Hiroshima bell. But it doesn’t because it sticks to the walk. A guide also would not include some of the stuff that is there, like the municipal building department, or a bridge that can’t be used to cross the river anymore, but it is because it’s on the walk. So we can’t describe it the way we would describe a different subject matter (the new city hall for example) because then it looks too much like a guide? We have to have just a list of stop names without offering a summary style breakout of the stop that makes it interesting to read? Isn’t that being overzealous with the rules, and is that really the intent of the rules? As for the secondary sources, they’re general so could be better, but not absent either: see the German version which mostly uses general references as well. I’ll have a go at trimming more aggressively, but after working it over a month I kinda wanted a bit of a break from it. Betterkeks (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)