|
Archived discussions
|
Border checkpoints
[edit]
- If you just pass through, then a listing or subsection in a suitable Get in section (country, region, nearby town) would suffice. If it is a real city, even a dull one, then I think a proper city article is warranted. The small city template is probably the one to use. As the info should be linked from several places, I think the threshold for creating an article should be low, unless there is some suitable other article where it can be handled (perhaps in Get in or Nearby). –LPfi (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is a discussion at Talk:Jaigaon about a specific example where Sbb1413 has redirected an article about a town to India#Get in without transferring any information. I would ask that we have the discussion there about the specific example, rather than dealing only in generalities. Ground Zero (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I thought I have transferred some of the information in Jaigaon to India#Bhutan as a summary, something I have done with Benapole and Panitanki. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- You didn't transfer any information about the town in this edit. The hotel listings, which are the valuable information were not transferred, and they shouldn't be, but where should they go?. If you have an opinion on whether the Jaigaon article should be restored or not, you should express it at Talk:Jaigaon. Ground Zero (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is a similar discussion at Talk:Hasimara. That article had a listing for the town's train station. Now it is redirected to a section of the India article that doesn't mention the town. Ground Zero (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at these specific articles yet, but in general I think it's useful to provide information about border towns, even boring ones. They're often visited by travellers for a variety of reasons, and it's not uncommon to end up spending a day or more there – to change forms of transportation, to take advantage of different laws on the other side of the border, or to deal with visa issues. Many years ago (long before the Schengen Agreement) some of my relatives were stuck at the border between Spain and France for several weeks due to a visa issue.
- So we can provide a valuable service by giving advice about border towns (hotels, restaurants, practicalities like ATMs and photocopy places, the border crossing itself, and whatever the most interesting attractions are in case a traveller is stuck at a border and needs to pass the time). I've worked on articles like Desaguadero, Villazón and La Quiaca, and Chuy with these considerations in mind. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. However, should that be extended to border crossings in the middle of nowhere? We have a few in Finland, where the nearest town is quite some distance away (50 km to Ivalo from Raja-Jooseppi, described in the fifth paragraph of Urho Kekkonen National Park#Get in). Kivilompolo in Enontekiö and Kelloselkä in Salla are similar (some 20–50 km from the towns); the nearest lodgings could be mentioned along with suggestions for wild camping and advice on services (go for the town). A redirect to a relevant article and a paragraph or two in Get in might be ideal for the latter two. Now the names redlink. The articles on Russia seem to have no information on border crossings (I added mentions of ones to Finland to some articles). –LPfi (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- To reply to the question; it depends. If the border crossing is a complicated one and/or there is a lot that the traveller needs to know like common scams happening there, then it should get its own article (see Poipet). If crossing the border is easy, and the place is just a border crossing point rather than a town on its own, the information can be added to the article about the last town before the border, or possibly to the region article. Ypsilon (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. However, should that be extended to border crossings in the middle of nowhere? We have a few in Finland, where the nearest town is quite some distance away (50 km to Ivalo from Raja-Jooseppi, described in the fifth paragraph of Urho Kekkonen National Park#Get in). Kivilompolo in Enontekiö and Kelloselkä in Salla are similar (some 20–50 km from the towns); the nearest lodgings could be mentioned along with suggestions for wild camping and advice on services (go for the town). A redirect to a relevant article and a paragraph or two in Get in might be ideal for the latter two. Now the names redlink. The articles on Russia seem to have no information on border crossings (I added mentions of ones to Finland to some articles). –LPfi (talk) 06:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is a similar discussion at Talk:Hasimara. That article had a listing for the town's train station. Now it is redirected to a section of the India article that doesn't mention the town. Ground Zero (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- You didn't transfer any information about the town in this edit. The hotel listings, which are the valuable information were not transferred, and they shouldn't be, but where should they go?. If you have an opinion on whether the Jaigaon article should be restored or not, you should express it at Talk:Jaigaon. Ground Zero (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- I thought I have transferred some of the information in Jaigaon to India#Bhutan as a summary, something I have done with Benapole and Panitanki. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 04:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- There is a discussion at Talk:Jaigaon about a specific example where Sbb1413 has redirected an article about a town to India#Get in without transferring any information. I would ask that we have the discussion there about the specific example, rather than dealing only in generalities. Ground Zero (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Roads?
[edit]I propose adding a line in the section "What does not get its own article?":
- Roads and highways, unless they are legitimate itineraries. Scenic roadways can be mentioned in region or destination articles.
Thoughts? Mrkstvns (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- What makes an itinerary "legitimate"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would say that a legitimate itinerary is baased around points of interest (things to "see"). That could be great scenery, like on the Pacific Coast Highway, or it might be places of historical interest around a common theme (like a modern art tour, Civil War battlefields of a region, etc.) An itinerary is definitely not an ordinary highway that people use to get around or transport goods. Mrkstvns (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think an itinerary can be thought of more like a "plan" and that may, or may not use multiple roads. The road is typically not the crux of an itinerary, the theme is. A good itinerary might be a travel plan that includes recommendations for great places to stay, things to do, or even places to eat or drink (I could write an itinerary for a taco tour of Texas, for example). Mrkstvns (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I would say that a legitimate itinerary is baased around points of interest (things to "see"). That could be great scenery, like on the Pacific Coast Highway, or it might be places of historical interest around a common theme (like a modern art tour, Civil War battlefields of a region, etc.) An itinerary is definitely not an ordinary highway that people use to get around or transport goods. Mrkstvns (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Take a look at Illinois_Route_173. Does it provide any genuine value to a traveler? Seems out of our focus (not to mention ridiculously boring). Mrkstvns (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The advice should explain what we mean, rather than using "legitimate", which is open to interpretation. The exceptions should include challenging or remote routes like Quebec Route 389, which may not be scenic, but its remoteness means tjat our article provides value to readers. (I created the article as part of my research for a planned trip there.) Ground Zero (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- The Illinois Route 173 article looks fairly useless in its current state. Still, some decent itinerary articles are based more on practicality than scenic appeal. Here in California, Interstate 5 is an ordinary highway and a not-very-scenic way to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles (for the scenic route, take the Pacific Coast Highway instead). But if someone is driving up or down I-5 for practical reasons, our article can provide value by recommending whatever roadside attractions are available and practicalities like where to stop for gas. In other cases, an itinerary provides value by helping travellers get from Point A to Point B when the best way to do that is complex (Kota Kinabalu to Brunei by land was formerly a good example of this, though nowadays that article is less useful because the journey has become easier with a direct bus). I think Wikivoyage has room for many types of itinerary articles, some that are more about getting from A to B and others where the route is chosen simply to be enjoyable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I totally agree. Illinois Route 173 is currently a stub, so of course it's pretty useless at present. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] I think what is in scope for an itinerary should be defined in Wikivoyage:Itineraries, nor here. Anyway:
- The challenging and remote routes are certainly show that the route does not need a theme and sights to be in scope as itinerary. We also have articles for many European Routes ("E roads"), which aren't remote and don't seem to be intended to cover a specific theme, but rather to help with practicalities and roadside service and sights. A good example would be Highway 4 (Finland) (part of E75). E8 through Finland and Norway is actually scheduled for featuring. Those highways are indeed used for getting around, and to the extent there are sights on the way, that's a happy coincidence (although the articles do try to include them).
- –LPfi (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)