Talk:Mesoamerican Barrier Reef
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Geographical hierarchy
[edit]Putting this "in" Mexico doesn't make sense. Even setting aside the fact that it's not in any country, only a small portion of the reef lies off Mexico's coast. Belize is the country that's most closely associated with the reef. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 22:59, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
VFD discussion
[edit]Similar to a body of water, which we don't do articles on usually. Dive sites should be called up in their nearest destination. We do however have an article on the Great Barrier Reef. -- (WT-en) DanielC 06:25, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- Keep. It should be classified as an itinerary, because there are dozens of sites where one can visit and study the reef. There are also several museums in local places near the reef that offer materials, and these could be listed in the itinerary. It is actually a natural feature (not a body of water) comparable in some ways to the Grand Canyon, because it is 700 km long, however most people don't know about it because it is entirely underwater. Also, because it spans the Carribean coastline of four different countries, it doesn't have that much of an international identity (except to marine biologists). It is the largest coral reef system in the western hemisphere, the second largest in the world. You can't really say "dive site" because it is actually the destination for divers in four different countries (Mexico, Belize, Guatemala, and Honduras), spread over hundreds of kilometers. "Mesoamerican Barrier Reef" (in quotes) brings up more than 18K Google links. (WT-en) HLM 07:04, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- We have an article for the Great Barrier Reef because it's a region of Queensland, Australia consisting of several islands, and a part of our geographical hierarchy. It easily passes the "can you sleep there?" test. It's not there to describe the reef itself, which is beyond the scope of it. The fact that the Mesoamerican reef is so large is actually an argument against trying to put it into a single article. People are most likely to visit just a part of the reef, using one or two of the nearby countries as a base, and those dive sites can and should be covered in the articles for those countries. I'm not opposed in principle to having an itinerary-type article describing the route one might take from one end of the reef to the other (if people actually might do that), but it should be crafted as an itinerary, linking to the destination articles that cover the coastline along the way for info about accommodations, restaurants, etc. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 12:23, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
- You can sleep there too! Honduras in particular has three large islands on the reef, which are famed among backpackers who want to dive for cheap. Honduras is the poorest country in Central American, and often the cheapest. This reef system has another common name, the Belize Barrier Reef. It is recognized as a Unesco World Heritage Site. The scientific name Mesoamerican Barrier Reef reflects an understanding that the name Belize Barrier Reef isn't really accurate. Maybe Mesoamerican Barrier Reef should redirect to Belize Barrier Reef. But I can't believe that wikivoyage deletes the names of Unesco World Heritage Sites while promoting names like Mayan Riviera, basically a travel agency invention. Furthermore, if you were describe the geographical features of Central America (coastal plain, cordillera, highland plateaus, etc.) then this would obviously be one of them. (WT-en) HLM 02:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
- (I'd actually describe it as a feature of the Carribean Sea, it being in the ocean, after all. But them, this isn't a geography guide, so the question is fairly pointless.) The Great Barrier Reef article is an article about the above-water land in that area, not for the reef under the water. Similarly, we have articles for the Bay Islands because that is a region of another land-dwelling country. Wikivoyage has a distinct air-breathing bias, I'm afraid. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 17:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
- Keep, but move to Belize barrier reef since that's what Unesco calls it. We want the most common name; scientific precision is not particularly important. Scuba gear or snorkels allow this to be a travel destination for air-breathers. Link to it from Scuba diving. (WT-en) Pashley 22:51, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
- Keep Important for the traveler and several places to visit. We should keep as a regional article. -- (WT-en) Tom Holland (xltel) 16:00, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
- So what is it a region of? If it's a region of the Caribbean, does that mean we pull any coastal islands of Honudras-thru-Mexico out of those countries and put them in here? If not, then what is in it, besides water? The only other body-of-water regions we have were created for the sake of islands that had no other region to go in; there are no such orphaned islands in this one. Or, if it's not a region article, what is it? An intinerary... from where to where... and on what transportation? These aren't rhetorical questions; the topic is neither fish nor fowl, and I really don't see how to develop this Wikipedia stub into something that fits Project:What is an article?, or what purpose it will serve. - (WT-en) Todd VerBeek 20:21, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
- Why does it have to be a region of anything? The purpose is to describe an area people (especially divers) might travel to. As I see it, if such description doesn't fit policy, it is the policy (or your interpretation) that is wrong.
- If this region overlaps others, I see no problem. Other areas are on borders; is Lake Tahoe in California? Or borders are somewhat arbitrary; do you include Turkey and Egypt in Middle East? Or southern France in Mediterranean Europe? The geographical hierarchy is helpful both for navigation and for categorisation when you're writing, but it can never be perfect, it isn't scared, and it needn't be a major factor in choosing which areas rate a description. (WT-en) Pashley 09:44, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
- Keep - I see no reason to delete this. It's a place tourists might like to visit so it deserves to be here. (WT-en) Xania 08:09, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
- It appears that the consensus is to keep this, and we're long overdue to resolve it. (FWIW, keep is my own vote too.) Any new arguments for other actions? If not, I'll do the bookkeeping shortly. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 14:42, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Swept in from the pub:
This article was vfd'd before (see the discussion on its talk page), but that was 4 years ago, and the article remains completely blank. It is a nebulous cross between a body of water and a cross-regional dive site region article, neither of which we really do, and contains no destinations because the few islands here belong in their respective country hierarchy. Can we revisit this? (WT-en) texugo 22:28, 19 March 2011 (EDT)
- It seems to be of more benefit to retain this article than to delete it. I added some content to the article in May last year so it is not "blank". Perhaps we should consider if it is of benefit for the area to be defined and described if wishing to delete the article as it should not be deleted on the basis of insufficient content. There are many WT articles with far less detail or with sometimes quite dubious unverified content that are surely more appropriate for a deletion. Mesoamerican Barrier Reef is noteworthy, it is the second longest barrier reef in the world, after the Great Barrier Reef off Australia's eastern coast and is the largest coral reef in the Western Hemisphere. The reef system extends along the coast of four countries and includes several offshore islands. This surely makes it significant enough for an article. The Eat, Drink and Stay safe sections are lacking content but the other sections have quite reasonable detail. In any case those sections should be dealt with in individual destination articles. As it has content I am not clear on why it is still being considered as a vfd candidate as a "blank page". It is not blank?? -- (WT-en) felix 00:05, 7 July 2012 (EDT)