Talk:Transportation Voyage Tips and guide

Contents

The purpose for this article is to be an incubator/index for any travel topic information that would be relevant in a "Get in" or "Get around" section of a geographic article. Thus, if someone is interested in writing about general considerations related to taxis, the information could be added to this article, and should it ever grow to the point where a separate article was warranted then (and only then) would that article be created. The headings and organization of this article aren't as good as they could be, so improvements are welcome. -- (WT-en) Ryan 23:30, 7 August 2006 (EDT)

"Travel" and "transportation" are synonyms. I would never use the two words right after each other, and consider this an awkward, redundant expression. Are there any objections to moving the article to "Transportation"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree - transportation sounds much better. --Nick (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nobody objected and you supported, so I moved the article. Thanks for your input. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Do we need to move this page as well? --Nick (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just moving a sub-index page is just a partial job done. All the other articles referencing it should also be edited. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is there an easy way to find out which articles reference an article? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

For links to the page on the left of the page under Toolbox the option What links here. To see what breadcrumb trail leads there, in your preferences switch on hidden categories, can then click down the trail.--Traveler100 (talk) 06:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Quite a lot of pages, actually. But it doesn't seem urgent, because whatever links to the redirect will come here, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think the average wikivoyage user is more or less familiar with the section headings in articles and would rather search for "get around" than for "Transportation", therefore to make this page more useful for travellers we should rename it "get around" as we also have articles on talk and sleep and at least a redirect from drinkHobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

So this article has been renamed from the noun Transportation to the verb Transport. Only some of the sub-articles have been changed and the title page not. Do others agree with the change? Should the other articles' breadcrumbs be changed too or this change reverted or is there an intention for new structure and the task is simply not yet finished? --Traveler100 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Transport" is also a noun in British English, but not in American English. However, "transportation" is also recognized in Britain. No, I don't agree with the change. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Moved articles and categories that were set to Transport back with the other that are at Transportation. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Driving with private cars and car camping are now the first topics mentioned in this article (after the restructuring), and private cars are said to be the most common means of transportation. I doubt that is true, at least when it comes to international travel, which I suppose is the primary subject of the project.

Choosing your vehicle, which formerly was the first section has disappeared (to where?). I think that issue deserves its former visible position (It might have been moved to an even better place, I have not checked other articles).

I suppose the order used in the guide templates would be logical. I'd also change the texts, where bus, bike and motorcycle tips are for those who "wish to" use that kind of transportation. I understand it for bike and motorcycle, but wouldn't it be as suiting for cars? Buses, on the other hand, are nearly unavoidable for those not going by own or rented car or extensively using taxis.

--LPfi (talk) 12:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article was reverted to the old version. The comments above apply if the new version is to be reintroduced. --LPfi (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think it is too radical to work over a high-level travel topic like this one withoug previous discussion on the talk page. Lots of material has been deleted without previous discussion. In my opinion, the transportation page should be reverted before any talk has been going on. /Yvwv (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I second the motion. The new thing looks somewhat infantilizing and there was a lot of information cut without discussion. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Spicy take: I don't think "Public transportation in city X" is a valid category of travel topics for Wikivoyage. Information about how to get around a given city/region belongs in the city/region's "Get around" section; if there's too much info, it should be cut down, not split off into another article.

Actual example: Public transport in Stockholm County, the bulk of which seems to be a listing of all T-bane/ferry/whatever lines. This is encyclopedic but not relevant for travelers, who are unlikely to want to ride every line for kicks.

For avoidance of doubt, I'm OK with Trams in Melbourne because that's a legit travel topic with tram-related POIs and whatnot, and country-wide articles like Rail travel in Japan or Australia without a car are also fine. I'm specifically talking about articles that just describe local public transport systems in painful detail. Jpatokal (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

How about Bay Area public transit? My feeling is that any topic that is overwhelming an article can be spun off, and that including too many minutiae is always something worth avoiding. I don't support banning all articles in this category. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts are the same as Ikan's. Jpatokal, what's your take on public transit in Israel? This is a guide article + FTT. SHB (t | c | m) 02:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have to stay that I don't agree with banning public transportation articles, and I'm not saying that because I have written articles in this category. Rather, I think public transit is one of the most central topics a traveler needs to know about, regardless of who wrote the article and how it is specialized or structured.

Stockholm's multitude of different lines is overwhelming, which is exactly why this article is helpful. Traveling around a major city such as Stockholm via public transit necessitates the use of various networks, and I don't know where outside of Wikivoyage you'd get such complete information. I wouldn't want all of that useful information cut down. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 03:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've been to Stockholm many times and I don't find its public transport system to be particularly unique or difficult? You can tap on and off everything with a credit card, so ticketing is easy-peasy. The metro/commuter rail/light rail/ferry split is common (Sydney has exactly the same), as long as we tell travellers to take T-bana X or Pendeltåg Y to get to their destination Z they'll be fine.

Also, to underline, I'm OK with countrywide articles because those apply to a whole bunch of destinations, plus Israel specifically has some interesting wrinkles (Haredi services, Sabbath services, etc). I'm specifically unhappy about single-city articles.

Put another way: the Stockholm#Get around section is already quite long and comprehensive. What's in Public transport in Stockholm County that is missing from the main article? Jpatokal (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

The latter has far more information, and useful information about routes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 01:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Encyclopedic listings belong on Wikipedia, not here. Why would I as a traveller ever want a comprehensive list of all routes?

To be fair, there's probably a "public transport architecture tour of Stockholm" itinerary hidden in there somewhere with all the descriptions of subway stations etc, but right now it's trying to be too many things at once. Jpatokal (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree that it's a list. It's prose, with mentions of stations and routes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 22:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Allow me to chime in, being the main reason why Public transport in Stockholm County is the way it is. My main goal was to write the article in such a way that it's both informative about services, as well as outlining some interesting stops you could gander at and learn to appreciate. I think that shows especially well in sections like #Metro Stations, which outlines the kind of stations the Tunnelbana network has, and gives some appealing examples of each. I'm by far the most known with the Tunnelbana and Pendelbåt systems though, so my knowledge lacks when it comes to other services. It is by no means intended to be an encyclopedic list, and I believe that describing it as such does the article and the potential it still holds a grave injustice.

I would argue the complete opposite, in fact. Every transport network consisting of several lines and/or modes of transport, can justify an article if it's interesting or diverse enough. It doesn't need to be necessarily complex or difficult to understand. Stockholm's article without a doubt is justified in that department. Most modes of transport offer a completely different way to experience the county.

Also, as an additional argument in favour of these kinds of articles: Operators themselves aren't always the clearest about quite useful information, or lack that information on their English website and publications. Having articles like these helps the visitor easily discern what they need to know before a visit, and while visiting. Often there's more nuance to put into sections than that, than can be crammed into a #Get around.
― Wauteurz (talk) 00:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I think Public transport in Stockholm County could be tweaked to give a quicker overview for those not seeing the system (or parts of it) as an attraction – I think the Get around section is enough for them, but unless the article and links make that clear, it should work also for them.

I am afraid Turku#By bus 2 is too long (10 KB) – the article as a whole is. I think everything in that section is useful to some travellers, while not needed by those just taking the bus from the plane or ferry to their hotel and then walking to attractions and restaurants (which would be my advice if you are healthy and restrict yourself to those in the centre). The metropolitan area has 315.000 inhabitants; the Föli buses serve a slightly larger area. As most of the content is useful mostly for those staying a longer time or going to places outside the centre, it could well be a short separate article – being separate doesn't mean it has to by encyclopaedic, one could just add subheadings and a little context.

–LPfi (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think with the Turku example, it is long and could do with some trimming, but what we want to actively avoid is something like Leeds#By bus 2. --SHB (t | c | m) 10:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

For Leeds: yes, the route list there is unhelpful. The names say little to me and searching for them is frustrating. Names used in such lists should be linked (or bolded in the Districts section). The one for Turku has fewer lines and they are described, which is better, although even that list could be removed. Including the lines on the map could work for Leeds. –LPfi (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

About the claim that "Encyclopedic listings belong on Wikipedia, not here": Coincidentally, the English Wikipedia is having another of its periodic discussions about whether a complete list of destinations for airlines/airports is encyclopedic. Some of Wikipedia editors are saying that route listings belong on Wikivoyage at the same time that some of Wikivoyage contributors are saying that route listings belong on Wikipedia. Maybe we need a bilateral treaty about which site is going to host this kind of information, so we can stop having these "I don't want it, make them have it" proposals? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

As a general rule, I have trouble believing that it's in the traveller's best interest to have less information available. Obviously, no information is better than bad information, but I don't know why no information would be better than good information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

One reason for the notability criterion on Wikipedia is that the work people have to to do to ensure correctness of articles has to feel worthwhile. We have the same resource problem, so too much information will result in some of it being bad – not necessarily at the time it was written, but as people don't keep it updated, which is much more important here than on Wikipedia.

Content needs to be interesting enough for a large enough audience that somebody does the updating. Daunting lists and walls of text won't be checked. Well-written articles will have much better chance to stay current, but even then they need an audience. Cutting down on info of marginal use makes articles more readable, and leaves less and more interesting info in need of maintenance.

I think Jpatokal's most important point is that moving out content to its own article doesn't excuse adding info that acts as baggage.

–LPfi (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

If Historic churches of Buffalo's East Side would be a useless niche article if it weren't well written. Now it is a pleasure to read and I believe that it will stay updated, and find readers that indeed follow the itinerary, thanks to that. Public transport in X-articles should be well written and no longer than what is needed for their purpose. If they are, and aren't so short that they look like stubs, I suppose they are useful – the problem is that they need to fulfil those criteria. –LPfi (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

A solution: use the collapsing function to keep the volumes of transportation information in the city article while not forcing all readers to scroll past it to get to the more interesting bits about what to see and do. We already do this for long lists of embassies, such as in London. With this function, the information is readily available to readers who click "Expand". I think we should make more use of this so that detailed practical information is maintained and available but not in the way of the article being interesting. Ground Zero (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

For that to work, the reader needs Javascript and a fast internet connection. I think hiding content is deceptive: authors will use it as an excuse to add minute details, and most editors who read it won't realise how large the article has become in relation to useful content. When uninteresting stuff is hidden, it will not be maintained. Content that is seen by everybody will instead be edited to make it more readable and concise, and updated. –LPfi (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I am not against allowing collapsible content, but I think it needs to be visible by default (on desktop). –LPfi (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

In that case, branch articles may make more sense. Ground Zero (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply