Talk:Bristol Channel

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page is for discussing the corresponding article or guide. For more about using talk pages check out Project:Using talk pages.

Body of Water - Can it be an article?[edit]

Note: General disagreement with the Wikivoyage body of water policy should be discussed at Project:Bodies of water.

The Bristol Channel is a body of water and since you cannot sleep there, unless you want to get wet and drown, we don't normally create destinations for such geographical features. This article could be turned into a region based on a body of water, such as the Bay of Fundy article, that this article (incorrectly!) links to because that is about a New Brunswick, Canada, region. - (WT-en) Huttite 11:05, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I am obviously trying to disagree with you about the Bristol Channel not being a destination. I have holidayed there on numerous occasions, obviously travelling by boat. It might be classified as a region because it encompasses many attractions and destinations. Yes you can sleep there whether you are aboard a vessel or staying in any of the hostelries along the coast, or on the islands that provide accomodation, such as Flatholm, Caldy or Lundy. If the consensus of opinion is to delete it then so be it, 'que sera sera'.(WT-en) Brianeric 17:49, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Archived VfD[edit]

  • I cannot decide whether to Delete or Disambiguate this body of water. I have proposed it here because the policy says we don't normally create such articles (but sometimes we do!) So I want to get a feel for where the tide of opinion is running on this article and perhaps provoke discussion about these sorts of articles generally. Perhaps the policy is too indecisive. - (WT-en) Huttite 11:14, 14 February 2009 (EST)
  • Weak don't redirect I still maintain that the purpose of a disambiguation or redirection is to point somebody in the direction of where they might find the information they are looking for. If we can define what the user is looking for, and we have that information located somewhere else, then a redirect or a disambiguation makes perfect sense, and we should just do it as a matter of course. When either of these factors is missing - when it isn't at all clear what the user is looking for, or that information isn't located in a few fixed places in the guide, we are not helping anyone with a redirect or disambiguation. Redirecting to a higher level region isn't useful if it makes no mention of the search term, as the user is still left with nowhere to go. We are better off just letting it fall back to the default search, where are least the user will be presented with a listing of all articles that match their search, in relevance order. In this case the text of this article it seems to more resemble a travel topic for navigating the waterway. Again, we could end up with a article for how to navigate most navigable waterways, and that may be a valuable thing, but at the moment that fits more within our travel topic hierarchy then it does within our destination hierarchy. --(WT-en) Inas 18:44, 26 February 2009 (EST)

Hold We apparently really need to root out a policy on this, since alot of us are starting to second guess the current one. (see discussion for North Sea above). --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) Talk 21:06, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Page deletion[edit]

Stumbled upon this page by accident by Googling for the Bristol article. This article doesn't seem to be linked to from other articles except the Bristol article which links to it once in its introduction. There have been no significant content contributions in the last 10 years (!) since deleting it was first suggested, and it's still little more than a skeleton. Perhaps after 10 years there are new opinions on whether it should be redirected or deleted? 87.74.178.74 23:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Feel free to renominate it at vfd. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Done. 87.74.178.74 08:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)