Talk:Esino Lario Via Crucis

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

We really don't need so many articles about Esino. Just add useful content to the Esino Lario article - if it's not copied and pasted from other sites. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is already a listing for Via Crucis di Michele Vedani under "Architecture" in the "See" section of the Esino article, but there is no description, so I would propose that the contents of the section of this article called "The Via Crucis" should be summarized appropriately and moved there. A biography of the sculptor is not needed, and I don't think the unification of two villages and so forth is that interesting, but if anyone thinks it's really important, it could be put into the "Understand" section.
I think it's somewhat important to stop the proliferation of articles about this one place, because it would better serve the traveler to put most of the information about the town where it's expected - in the article for the town. The 3 walking itineraries linked from "Excursions" under "Do" are OK because they concentrate on advising the visitor on routes to travel. In my opinion this article, like Exploring cookery and tapestry, is not an itinerary but a long listing masquerading as an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could a good itinerary be created from some of the material here and in the cookery and tapestry article? Neither article looks good to me in its current form, but both have some good info and overall there is more than the town article can reasonably handle. Pashley (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the excessive information isn't really relevant. Travellers don't need a detailed biography of every artist, for example. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merged text, what if anything to redirect[edit]

Please see these edits. I don't think it's essential to add the prehistory of this Via Crucis (the smallpox epidemic, etc.), but if any of you think it is, please go ahead.

But the next question is, when we're all satisfied that a sufficient amount of content from here has been merged into the Esino Lario article, should this be redirected? If so, do we have to retitle it? After all, it makes no grammatical sense to "explore Esino in the last century", unless someone has invented a time machine while I wasn't looking. I suppose "Exploring the Esino of the 20th century" might make more sense.

What do you all think? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another idea is to rename this Esino Lario Via Crucis and redirect that search term, since the most relevant content in this article is about that attraction. Anyway, I'd like other people's views on whether to merge anything else and what to rename this article before redirecting it. Pashley, ϒpsilon, Ibaman, any thoughts? I've also posted to Talk:Exploring cookery and tapestry, where the task at hand is more complicated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine by me. Pashley (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you suggest merging anything else before turning this article into a redirect? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd also solicit comment from Nurg, if you'd like to look over my edit linked above and express an opinion about whether any other content from this article should be merged into the Esino article before renaming it Esino Lario Via Crucis and redirecting it. If no-one comments further by tomorrow, I will take these actions without further ado. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. If anyone feels strongly that any other content should be merged to the Esino article, go ahead and look at the article as it was before I turned it into a redirect, and move whatever you like. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]