Talk:Viazul
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I am not sure this is an appropriate article for Wikivoyage. Bus timetables should be something for the bus company to keep up to date, a link to their web site should be enough. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I think the missing availability of internet access in Cuba makes this very worthwhile information in wikivoyage. I’ve just been there and travelers essentially are offline for their entire visit to the country. Other travel guides also list the departure times of these buses. Most WV destination articles in Cuba currently just link to the website, but again, as it’s not accessible for a traveler (and doesn't provide an easy means to download a timetable in advance) this is completely useless when already in the country. As further rationale I’d add the reasons mentioned in the avoid links to other travel guides section in Wikivoyage:External_links#What_not_to_link_to. To avoid adding the departure times to each article, duplicating a lot of information that’s very hard to keep in sync, a central page with timetable and prices seems to make much more sense. Rumpeltux (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless, this article is not acceptable under current policy. I can't comment on the current internet situation in Cuba, how likely hotels are to have it, etc., but all that is really needed to address your concern is a one-line note informing the person planning their trip that it's better to check the official sites for current schedules before arrival or to stop by the bus station and pick up a schedule, etc.. It does not in any way require making us responsible for ensuring we always keep a constantly updated copy of it here, at the risk of actually misinforming the traveller with outdated info, especially given that, if we followed your logic, there would be many other companies here and in other countries that we'd have to constantly keep track of schedules for. The reasoning behind our current policy still very much applies here. Texugo (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- If there are particular challenges for intercity bus travel in Cuba, maybe we should have a "Bus travel in Cuba" article? Articles for individual companies are strongly discouraged, especially as other bus companies exist too.
- I agree that we cannot have schedules posted here, because they have a tendency to change (and a ten-minute change in a schedule does have more effect on one's travel planning than a ten dollar price hike on a hotel room).
- Ps. shouldn't we have this discussion at vfd? ϒpsilon (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless, this article is not acceptable under current policy. I can't comment on the current internet situation in Cuba, how likely hotels are to have it, etc., but all that is really needed to address your concern is a one-line note informing the person planning their trip that it's better to check the official sites for current schedules before arrival or to stop by the bus station and pick up a schedule, etc.. It does not in any way require making us responsible for ensuring we always keep a constantly updated copy of it here, at the risk of actually misinforming the traveller with outdated info, especially given that, if we followed your logic, there would be many other companies here and in other countries that we'd have to constantly keep track of schedules for. The reasoning behind our current policy still very much applies here. Texugo (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am in favor of a bus travel in Cuba article. And I agree that both articles about individual companies and timetables (that are by there nature liable to change, even though they sometimes stay the same for years) should be avoided Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- bus travel in Cuba sounds great. I still think the timetables are very valuable (they seem to change very rarely) and we can message the reader that these may not be up to date and they should check the website, but in most cases having outdated information available is better than having none at all. But if the consensus is that this is discouraged, then I guess that’s ok too. Rumpeltux (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)