Talk:Thyon
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Disagree with an article assessment
edit
I recently spent time greatly expanding and improving an article on a Swiss location I know well. (By no means the first edit I have made in Wikipedia). I now see the rubric: "This article is written like a manual or guidebook. Please help rewrite this article from a descriptive, neutral point of view, and remove advice or instruction." Furthermore two edits have been made ("citation needed") where I have explained something precisely because it needs explaining, not cross-referencing,as no such references exist in Wikipedia. Whilst I am happy to review what I wrote, and make one or two modifications, I simply disagree with the assessment of it being a "manual" (!) and I would argue that any article in Wikipedia that includes descriptions of a place used for recreation or tourism inevitably has overtones of a "guide-book" - and if so, so what? According to Wikipedia's entry "encyclopedia articles focus on factual information concerning the subject named in the article’s title." In the article I am referring to, Thyon, there is nothing that is not fact, and I have in any event tried to give references where it would be helpful. I am very willing to "improve" but I would like to know: who makes such assessments? how and where can they be debated? Divonnais (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi @Divonnais:. Thanks for your note at Wikipedia:Help desk. I have moved your note to this article talk page because, as Vexations mentioned, article talk pages are the places we discuss article content.
- Thanks also for your efforts to improve the article. While the tag that I added was (obviously) not intended as a critique or commentary on your own good-faith efforts (reflecting, in several cases, pre-existing issues), if you got that impression, I can but apologise.
- In any event, while you have asked a number of questions in your note, and I will be happy to address or answer them as best I can, I might first explain why I tagged the article.
- In short I added this tag because:
- Unattributed opinions, like the resort being "seamlessly integrated" and "easily connected" with the whole area, seemed at odds with the relevant ATTRIBUTEPOV guidelines,
- Subjective statements, like the resort "enjoying spectacular views" are not typically appropriate to the relevant WTW guidelines, and
- Guidebook style text, like that which talks about how to get there from the airport, or the opening times/dates of the local restaurant, seemed more in keeping with the Wikivoyage project than the Wikipedia's NOTGUIDEBOOK guidelines.
- Anyway. To your other point, about discussing/addressing these issues (to the extent that there is consensus to remove the hatnote), if you're happy for me to do so, I can make a first attempt myself. If that works for you.
- Thanks again. Guliolopez (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Issue is addressed. Hatnote is removed. Thread is closed. Guliolopez (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)