From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This "article" (quotation marks because it doesn't seem like an article, as we think of one on Wikivoyage) has the same issues as Traveler routers, plus WV:Links to Wikipedia. Long list of links in seeming violation of various aspects of this site's external links policy. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No advice on how to use, what to look out for when choosing. Just a list of links is not really productive, maybe better each one in the relevant town or country article. Also the future section is something for Wikipedia (if referenceable) not a travel guide. --Traveler100 (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likewise with traveler routers this article mainly serves as central place of storage for the information on offerings in these areas organized per area of service. Jukeboksi (talk) 20:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In reply to User:Traveler100: Surely this information is of more use in a free travel guide than a consumer empowerment wiki entry on alternative travel services so I propose we keep the "master file" here in Wikivoyage. If not then tough. Jukeboksi (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please have a look at renting a car to see how such an article could look like. The article on car rental is by no means prefect, but it gives non obvious advice that is applicable in many parts of the world and regardless of the specific company one uses while also providing some information on common pitfalls. It does not list or link individual companies as that is better done in destination articles. No doubt ridesharing and carsharing are worthwhile travel topics (something like that was on our requested articles list if memory serves), but the current "linkfarm" format is not what we as a travel guide should aspire to be. I hope we can find some common ground. Rules and traditions are not always good just because they exist, but in most cases there is real thought and debate behind them and they should not be overturned on the spur of the moment. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jukeboksi, you may want to keep master files like this in your userspace (e.g., User:Jukeboksi/Sandbox). I think in the medium term, this kind of article, if not radically altered, will be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The links, if relevant, should go to destination articles. This is not Wikipedia, we don't do lists. Information on how to use the services and characteristics shared by all that are important to travellers, as well as differences some may not be aware of, should stay - or be expanded actually, as there is precious little of it. Anybody cares to review or move links? Otherwise, I will be happy to blank them out, if relevant somebody will propose them in country articles sooner or later anyway. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the international car sharing companies like Car2Go (it is not just Canada, actually is German in origin) should be mentioned here but regional ones should be on the appropriate destination site. Also where are you getting this list from? Not checked all but, for example, Calgary Carshare went out of business last year. --Traveler100 (talk) 13:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Traveler100: Source is under (GFDL) @ and brought here via dual licensing to CC-BY-SA by original compiler of the list Jukeboksi (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Traveler100, the list comes from (and is indeed just a shorter version of) the list on Jukeboksi's own website, which he also linked to above (hastily added due to edit conflict, lol).
I also share others' concerns that Wikivoyage is not the place for such a list, let alone a "master copy" (this is a travel guide, not a place to store whatever travel-related "database" you feel like creating).
That's not to say, Jukeboksi, that none of the contents of your list is helpful to our travel guide; far from it. Indeed, many of these ride-sharing services could be put, as properly formatted listings, into the relevant country / region / city articles' "Get around" section, so travellers reading those articles can find out about the local ride-sharing options available. What is lacking in use, value or readability for the traveller, is having every ride-sharing service on the planet listed one after the other in a huge article like this. This article should, as others have put, be written as a general explanation of and advice for ride-sharing. TFI Friday :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/May 2016[edit]

*Delete or radically alter: Almost exclusively a series of long lists of links. Violates external links#what not to link to, WV:Avoid long lists, WV:Links to Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Keep. The intro and the first three sections start out promising, and only thereafter does it turn into a monstrous link farm. We should definitely get rid of the long lists of external links, but as for the article itself I'm not convinced of the value of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - this may be first time ever I would agree for keeping, because the subject matter should be covered by WV obviously. One needs to delete the list of links though, if relevant they should go to destination articles. PrinceGloria (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know, you are probably right. If approached in an entirely different way, this topic could be fine to cover. So I'm going to change my initial comment, but I still think this discussion may be good to have. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - agree with comments already made, this is a good subject for Wikivoyage but the links should be dispersed to the relevant destination pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - this is definitely a travel topic worth exploring further, though obviously the article as it stands requires a lot of work. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep is ecological, economical and convenient.
A central list is useful for keeping the article entries in good validity and does not hurt anyone as far as I can see but I can also host it on my consumer empowerment wiki if the people totally hate this list article.
Language question: Car-sharing or carsharing?
There is much work to be done for the carsharing since we need to research which services allow travelers to acquire access to fleet and which require national drivers licence or nationality or some such limitations.
Ridesharing services shoulnd't have limitations and are well applicable for affordable and convenient alternative travel from city to city.
I truly belive if someone purchases a car into a dedicated carsharing fleet somewhere, or a peer-to-peer carsharing scheme updates its service area to include new areas, it is worth mentioning.
If there is one traveler finding a ridesharing ride an excellent decision for their transportation needs with lots of local color included the service is worth mentioning. Jukeboksi (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep - I'm OK with the article as it is now. It can be expanded with more information on how to use these services, rather than the long bunch of links that made me want to delete this article before. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outcome: Keep in rewritten form --Traveler100 (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uber is not ridesharing[edit]

Uber is more like a traditional taxi in the sense that the driver was not planning to travel to that location and the two people are not riding with eath other to save money, gas or time. Uber/Lyft should not be considered ridesharing.

I agree. Uber is not mentioned in this article, did you mean a change is needed in Ride sharing? Uber & al is not described as typical ride sharing there either, but perhaps its status should be described clearer. The articles need some work regardless. --LPfi (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]