What kind of article should this be
[edit]I stumbled on this article while working on the Valais region. This article exists as a 'region' article, however I'm not sure that's the right thing. I see the following options:
- This could be merged into Zermatt as that's the most common place to ascend the Matterhorn from. However there's also some tourism coming in from the Italian site (Breuil-Cervinia), so I guess that would be a bit one-sided.
- This could be a Park article as this should might just fit the criteria of 'natural areas that are large enough to be destinations in their own right'.
- This could be a Extraregion article which would solve the problem of it straddling two regions (and countries), however there are probably no other destinations other than the two mentioned above.
I am a bit at a loss on how to proceed with this article. Any inputs? Drat70 (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- is a valid search destination fro a travel site but straddles more than one established region, is therefore an extraregion. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am a bit skeptical of the extraregion approach as the results I have seen thus far are mixed to say the least. Park could work, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I too think park is the best alternative. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Park is the best possible solution. Ibaman (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Would it be an issue for the park article that it's over two countries? Drat70 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah. Where do you all think it should be breadcrumbed to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Merge the content of this page into the See section of the Alps article? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about that - does all of this belong in a "See" section? I'm thinking Extraregion is the best solution, with links to and from Italy and Switzerland as well as Alps but breadcrumbed to none. To those who oppose this, why would that be a bad idea? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think we could just merge the content into the Understand section of the Zermatt article, as that's the town mostly linked with the Matterhorn. Looking at Breuil-Cervinia, it is actually a redirect to Aosta Valley which barely mentions the Matterhorn (or Breuil-Cervinia for that matter). I know this is a very famous destination, but I am not sure whether it merits its own article for the little amount of content. Drat70 (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Merge the content of this page into the See section of the Alps article? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah. Where do you all think it should be breadcrumbed to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Would it be an issue for the park article that it's over two countries? Drat70 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Park is the best possible solution. Ibaman (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I too think park is the best alternative. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am a bit skeptical of the extraregion approach as the results I have seen thus far are mixed to say the least. Park could work, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- is a valid search destination fro a travel site but straddles more than one established region, is therefore an extraregion. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It was discussed 9 years ago, but the article still has no useful travel content. Given most people intending on seeing the Matterhorn will likely do so from the Swiss side (mainly because infrastructure is better on the Swiss side), what benefit do we get by keeping this article as is? //shb (t | c | m) 23:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- Support. I'd like to see this article as an itinerary, but realistically, no mountaineers write about their experiences here, so we need to redirect to Zermatt. The current article on the Matterhorn is less informative about the subject than the Zermatt article is. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think merging makes much sense. Zermatt is useful as is, with a short mention on mountaineering on Matterhorn, and merging in the content of Matterhorn would not improve it. Redirecting would mean that info on how to reach the mountain from Breuil-Cervinia would need to go into Zermatt, and altready the current Matterhorn Understand would give undue weight to something we give little travel information about.
- The Matterhorn article is weak indeed, but it has a much better chance to get developed as an independent (park) article. For articles straddling a border, we often choose to breadcrumb it from one side, so I don't see that as a big problem. Just keep the link from the Italian region article.
- -LPfi (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose that's fair and we would need to try and find a way to cover the Italian side if someone ever adds their experience from the Italian side – but I am thinking maybe it would be better as an itinerary? (btw I haven't been here so you'd probs know better than me on this – but I have done a fair bit of online research to visit here, so I guess my perspective mainly comes from ease of accessibility) //shb (t | c | m) 07:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've never seen the Matterhorn, but it's the type of place I want to go to, so I have a few thoughts about what kind of article I'd like to read about it:
- How much "walk-up" tourism access is there for the Matterhorn? I don't think WV is well-positioned to provide route details on technical climbing objectives. I don't want hope for that kind of content to drive the decision, unless we already have someone signing up to write that. That makes me hesitant towards an itinerary article.
- If you're not intending to climb to the top, it looks like the Swiss-side access is directly from Zermatt and not some intermediate "park headquarters"-type location. That leads me to merging with the Zermatt article.
- If I understand correctly, the Swiss and Italian sides are poorly connected - it's not feasible to see both sides in the same trip, unless you're doing a multi-day trek. I don't see how a joint Swiss-Italian extraregion or park article would add value over separate Swiss-side and Italian-side content, beyond a simple disambiguation-type page.
- Gerode (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- I just checked to see if Mont Blanc had its own article, and indeed it does, and it is useful without needing to go too deep into technical detail. So if the community stands by that article, then I think it's a decent model for what Matterhorn can look like. Matterhorn is more technical than Mont Blanc, which might make a complete article less compelling (or harder to write). Gerode (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- This might be a rare exception to our external links policy. Perhaps there’s a website with technical climbing information we can recommend to readers? Or even a travel brochure available in Zermatt? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- I would refer to any communities that share trip reports, recent conditions and GPX routes for the region. (WV doesn't have good ways to offer those features, which is why I'd rather recommend specialist resources than aim for completeness.)
- I don't have any local knowledge, and the resources I use for this stuff are specific to my home region. Mountain Project is the most comprehensive and active English-language community I'm aware of, but I'd expect there to be a better region-specific alternative for European routes. (It's probably in German, and it might be social media-based.) My next thought was Swiss Alpine Club, which requires a membership, but one-time sign-ups for foreign alpine clubs is common practice in some places. Some popular routes have a permit agency that collects this information, but the Matterhorn doesn't appear to have that. Gerode (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- I kinda agree – I think this is a rare case where doing so clearly puts the traveller first. //shb (t | c | m) 23:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- This might be a rare exception to our external links policy. Perhaps there’s a website with technical climbing information we can recommend to readers? Or even a travel brochure available in Zermatt? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 21:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- I just checked to see if Mont Blanc had its own article, and indeed it does, and it is useful without needing to go too deep into technical detail. So if the community stands by that article, then I think it's a decent model for what Matterhorn can look like. Matterhorn is more technical than Mont Blanc, which might make a complete article less compelling (or harder to write). Gerode (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- I've never seen the Matterhorn, but it's the type of place I want to go to, so I have a few thoughts about what kind of article I'd like to read about it:
- I suppose that's fair and we would need to try and find a way to cover the Italian side if someone ever adds their experience from the Italian side – but I am thinking maybe it would be better as an itinerary? (btw I haven't been here so you'd probs know better than me on this – but I have done a fair bit of online research to visit here, so I guess my perspective mainly comes from ease of accessibility) //shb (t | c | m) 07:44, 15 October 2025 (UTC)