Talk:Matterhorn
Add topicLatest comment: 8 years ago by Drat70 in topic What kind of article should this be
What kind of article should this be
[edit]I stumbled on this article while working on the Valais region. This article exists as a 'region' article, however I'm not sure that's the right thing. I see the following options:
- This could be merged into Zermatt as that's the most common place to ascend the Matterhorn from. However there's also some tourism coming in from the Italian site (Breuil-Cervinia), so I guess that would be a bit one-sided.
- This could be a Park article as this should might just fit the criteria of 'natural areas that are large enough to be destinations in their own right'.
- This could be a Extraregion article which would solve the problem of it straddling two regions (and countries), however there are probably no other destinations other than the two mentioned above.
I am a bit at a loss on how to proceed with this article. Any inputs? Drat70 (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- is a valid search destination fro a travel site but straddles more than one established region, is therefore an extraregion. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am a bit skeptical of the extraregion approach as the results I have seen thus far are mixed to say the least. Park could work, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I too think park is the best alternative. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Park is the best possible solution. Ibaman (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- Would it be an issue for the park article that it's over two countries? Drat70 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah. Where do you all think it should be breadcrumbed to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Merge the content of this page into the See section of the Alps article? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about that - does all of this belong in a "See" section? I'm thinking Extraregion is the best solution, with links to and from Italy and Switzerland as well as Alps but breadcrumbed to none. To those who oppose this, why would that be a bad idea? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I think we could just merge the content into the Understand section of the Zermatt article, as that's the town mostly linked with the Matterhorn. Looking at Breuil-Cervinia, it is actually a redirect to Aosta Valley which barely mentions the Matterhorn (or Breuil-Cervinia for that matter). I know this is a very famous destination, but I am not sure whether it merits its own article for the little amount of content. Drat70 (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Merge the content of this page into the See section of the Alps article? --Traveler100 (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah. Where do you all think it should be breadcrumbed to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Would it be an issue for the park article that it's over two countries? Drat70 (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Park is the best possible solution. Ibaman (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I too think park is the best alternative. ϒpsilon (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- I am a bit skeptical of the extraregion approach as the results I have seen thus far are mixed to say the least. Park could work, though. Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
- is a valid search destination fro a travel site but straddles more than one established region, is therefore an extraregion. --Traveler100 (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)