Naming
[edit]
- We don't. This is an entirely artificial anglicization of an entirely artificial name. It is as bad as can be. Kujawsko-Pomorskie is rarely if ever even mentioned in English, and it would be a disservice to travellers to provide them with an invented name that might not be entirely unterstood or easily indentifiable as the same with its Polish original name. It is not really easier to pronounce to anybody, and nobody is likely to pronounce it anyway, it is only useful for possible references in writing.
- I believe using the invented anglicization is very wrong on every levels. I shall revert the recent changes to it and remain open to discussion if somehow there are fans of it around. PrinceGloria (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- This and Warmia-Masuria are the only two voivodships for which we are using the artifical anglicizations instead of original names. I guess for the sake of consistency and clarity (the anglicizations are used much less frequent and voivodship/region names are not rendered in English in an uniform way anyway) we should revert to Polish names for those two as well. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- 6 years later. I have to agree with you. Consistency here is better than alignment with however WP does it. Texugo (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Name based on the official website of the Republic of Poland - poland.gov.pl. --Alan ffm (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Alan, you can see that in the same page they render it "Kuyavian-Pomeranian" and "Kuiavia-Pomerania" (Kuiavia???) and Kujawsko-Pomorskie. This is trying to create and English-sounding name for a region that never had one. Sounds awful and is pretty meaningless. Browse further and you will find Kuyavia, Cuiavia, Cuiavian and other renderings as well. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- PS. The voivodeship itself does not subscribe to this nonsense and calls itself Kujawsko-Pomorskie in their English-language web presence: http://www.kujawsko-pomorskie.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3839&Itemid=98
- Name based on the official website of the Republic of Poland - poland.gov.pl. --Alan ffm (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- 6 years later. I have to agree with you. Consistency here is better than alignment with however WP does it. Texugo (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- This and Warmia-Masuria are the only two voivodships for which we are using the artifical anglicizations instead of original names. I guess for the sake of consistency and clarity (the anglicizations are used much less frequent and voivodship/region names are not rendered in English in an uniform way anyway) we should revert to Polish names for those two as well. PrinceGloria (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Merging and reconfiguring sub-articles
[edit]Dear All,
This -> Wikivoyage:Travellers'_pub#Articles_on_unimportant_or_minor_locations_vs._subregions
Comments?
PrinceGloria (talk) 10:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Articles on unimportant or minor locations vs. subregions
[edit]- Swept in from the pub
I often encounter this issue and have been thinking about it recently - some regions have almost-empty or empty articles created for cities, towns, municipalities and villages that are relatively unimportant, minor and have very little of tourist interest. Not only are they unlikely to ever be covered by anybody, but even if covered well, they would make for short articles (as those places are admittedly lousy tourist destinations).
One example is Kujawsko-Pomorskie, which has many minor towns and cities, and there were articles created for a relatively random subgroup of those, e.g. for Nowy Dwór Królewski which is a village so small that there isn't even an ATM there and the only thing of interest are the almost inaccessible ruins of a long-forgotten "palace". This may be a secret find to somebody, but it is actually quite misleading to highlight this place as a destination, as it is hard to reach and will be a disappointment to most.
Some other articles were created for places that are legitimate, if minor destinations. Most have only a few accommodation opportunities, no public transportation and the general information relating to "get in", "understand" and such is largely the same for many of the neigbouring places. There are 52 cities and towns in the region, and each has its share of historic buildings and, at least minor, attractions.
My idea would be to keep the articles for the major destionations (by size or touristic interest) and have the latter combined into a few articles for subregions of the voivodship (province). Going by administrative divisions would be impractical, as the next level is quite small and would warrant no less than 23 articles. Therefore, I thought of going by the historic / cultural regions, curbing the number of articles to a maximum of six regions, six cities and two special destinations. Then if one day we would have enough content to warrant separate articles for some destinations, they could easily be carved out.
I am unsure if this does not violate some important Wikivoyage policies, as it would mean submitting a few articles for deletion, merging others and having the lowest-level articles in the breadcrumb trail covering an area larger than a city in some cases. Do let me know if I should heed some warning or plunge forward. Thanks a lot in advance, PrinceGloria (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Each article should be proposed for merge and redirect. This gives others a chance to comment. After a consensus has been reached, or after a week or two if nobody bothers to comment you can reasonably assume no objections then you go ahead with the merge and redirect. You should explain on the talk page why you think the article does not justify its own article, to save time, as someone will ask. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- PrinceGloria, you may have stumbled upon what I think could be one of the great strengths of wikivoyage, the ability to find and expand upon smaller areas that simply are overlooked in other travel guidebooks and commercial websites. Some of the most interesting gems that I have discovered were in small towns in areas that I thought I knew well but discovered a wealth of info while developing articles and I would encourage you to dig deeper if you have the patience. Home on the Kitsap Peninsula for example is a small sleepy town with not much to offer tourists but upon further investigation I dug up a fascinating history of Anarchy and assassination. Olalla isn't much more than a gas station, but also turned up an interesting history and a plethora of parks and beaches that I didn't know about. My list of other fascinating areas I've uncovered is long, including Fox Island, Lakebay, Oysterville etc that time and the internet have simply forgotten. As a traveler I love the off the beaten path towns and out of the way destinations and I don't think that anywhere classifies as 'unimportant', I hope you can find enough info to develop some of these articles further. --Lumpytrout (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wikivoyage never had any consistent policy regarding small and relatively unimportant destinations. Many people think that every tiny place merits its own article, although in reality we get nothing but hundreds of useless stubs. Some less-known places are indeed hidden gems, but most of them are simply boring. Anyway, the lack of strict policy and the huge difference in our opinions make vfd requests of this type rather hopeless. My discreet suggestion is that you describe minor destinations of Kujawsko-Pomorskie in its regional article and see what happens. Once you put the information, it may be easier to convince people for replacing stub articles with redirects. And of course, if you want to discuss the layout of a specific region, use the relevant talk page. --Alexander (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- There should not be any "vfd requests of this type" since policy is to redirect real places rather than deleting them. There's a judgement call involved, so of course we'll sometimes disagree and sometimes get it wrong, but the choices are clear. If a reasonable article on the small place is possible and someone here cares enough and knows enough to write one, then keep the article and link to it elsewhere. If not, turn it into a redirect. Pashley (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to weigh in and explain it to me, guys! It seems the right thing to do is for the particular village that is my pet peeve to be redirected (without merging, as there is little to merge), and then cover the area of KujPom not covered by larger city articles by several sub-regional articles, with mentions of interesting localities in all of them, and see how it pans out. Perhaps one day enthusiastic editors will turn many of them into full-fledged guides to places we never heard about or thought nobody will ever go to... PrinceGloria (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds about right, as long as there is some mention of the redirected place at the article you redirect to otherwise people will think the redirect is an error.
- If you decide to just plunge in and do it without previous discussion, I suggest a short explanation so the next person along knows what you have done and why. Saves explaining later. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)