Διαφορά μεταξύ των αναθεωρήσεων του «Βικιταξίδια:Οδηγοί περιγράμματα»

καμία σύνοψη επεξεργασίας
Of course, length doesn't guarantee completeness or even usability. An article about a destination can go on for pages and pages and still not give the enough information you need to survive there. Each article should cover its subject with the appropriate depth or breadth. But if you do not know how to get there, or where to stay if you do, then the article is not very useful. Such an article would still be an "outline", even though it has a lot of ''content''.
 
'''δείτε επίσης''': [[Project:StubΛήμματα articles|Stubπρος articlesεπέκταση|επέκταση]], [[Project:Χρήσιμα λήμματα|χρήσιμα λήμματα]], [[Project:λήμματα οδηγοί|λήμματα οδηγοί]], [[Project:Αξιόλογα λήμματα|Αξιόλογα λήμματααξιόλογα]].
<!--
==Pros and cons of outlines==
 
It's trivially easy to upgrade an article from "stub" to "outline"; upgrading an article past "outline" can sometimes take a bit more work. In fact, many generally-well-developed articles get stuck at this stage because they're missing some key information. The [[Project:article status|specific criteria]] varies depending on the kind of article (i.e. city, country, etc.) but the general theme of a better-than-outline article is that it contains enough specific information that a traveler would know how to get there, where to sleep, where to eat, and what to see there. Which actually isn't all that hard to do, with a little bit of research. At that point it's not an outline any more, and the disclaimer can be [[Project:Article status|changed]] to be a <nowiki>{{usablecity}}, {{usableregion}}, {{usablecountry}}, {{usabletopic}}, {{usableitinerary}}, or {{usablephrasebook}}</nowiki> article (depending on which kind of article it is).-->
 
[[Category:Πρότυπα]]
0

επεξεργασίες