Talk:Bavarian Forest National Park

(Some of) the redlinks

I know, I know... But still... I think some of the redlinks mentioned in the flowing text of the article are unlikely to ever be much more than a few lines of text. I can of course always be convinced of the opposite, but this here is not WP where every populated place with a name gets an article... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I know you do not like the color red :-). In this case I tend to agree with you. Plattling should maybe redirected to Deggendorf and expanded that article. As for the others set as bold text and add any listing in those locations to this article. If the article get to big and complex (which I doubt) then can be reevaluated and split as required. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

See entries

Is this the open air museum being referenced, would not say it is that near Ringelai. Also any idea where the zoo is? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

VFD discussion

Extraregion full of redlinks. Either convert into some of the things we have historically done with rural areas, redirect to Bavaria or delete. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest changing this to a Park template and renaming Bavarian Forest National Park as per w:Bavarian_Forest_National_Park --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That would actually make more sense than the current mess the article is. But some work would be required to remove the red sea it currently contains... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate (and sympathize) with your dislike of the 'red sea', but I checked out some of those towns and they do meet the Wiaa criteria. That said Bavarian Forest National Park is a valid destination, and would indeed tidy things up a great deal (not all of those towns would be needed) and be of far greater use to the traveler as a destination article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not the right place for this discussion, as we don't delete real places. Try Talk:Bavarian Forest. Powers ^(talk) 21:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong because 'Bavarian Forest' is a description of a general area in South East German, and not a 'real place'. The (very short) discussion above yielded a result that would preserve it by remodelling into a 'real place'. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Not to argue policy, but I do think some real places should be deleted if their redirection just makes no sense whatsoever. Take a census designated place of no interest with a name so common it would have to be disambiguated with its county... Or an individual island that contains nothing more than a single tree. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct, 'we do not delete real places' has become a bit of a self-perpetuating soundbite used to shut down discussion, when in fact we should refer to Wiaa for actual guidance. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's to save pointless arguments like this one, where there are obvious redirect targets and no reason to waste an admin's time with deletion. Powers ^(talk) 01:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I propose the conclusion is Redirect to Bavarian Forest National Park and Change the template to Park --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with move to Park. the name and page is referenced on a number of page. --Traveler100 (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I think there is general agreement to preserve and change. Will fix tomorrow if no further comment. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed and removed the VFD tag. Article still needs a lot of work to move from 'outline' but hopefully this concludes everything. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Now we can go about the more difficult task of either creating articles on (some of) the redlinks or consolidating them in some other form, preferably within the Bavarian Forest National Park article itself... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

• Do not delete Please be sure to cite a reason for deleting an article from the WV:Deletion policy in nominations. Unless I'm missing something, this would (at worst) be a candidate for merging and redirecting, but there is no reason to delete it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 01:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Do you still want to delete what's now a park article? It looks like there's ample scope for expansion, not deletion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

In case this was still unclear I am now also in favor of keeping this park article as Bavarian Forest National Park Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Outcome: Kept. -- Ryan • (talk) • 04:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)