Talk:Northern Isaan

VFD Discussion

I think the breaking down of Isaan into sub-regions is unnecessary. I put the following to the Thailand discussion page a few days ago but no one commented, so this may get the ball rolling: Isaan, being an "overlooked part of the country" still has very little content in its sub-region articles. Would it be worth considering removing these subregions? At least until the Isaan article is so brimming with content that it needs to be burst into sub-regions (which is unlikely).

I'm using Northern Isaan as a test case. If it is approved for oblivion, I'll also nominate Central Isaan and Southern Isaan.(WT-en) Travelpleb 05:06, 1 April 2012 (EDT)

Result: Redirected to Isaan. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:11, 22 April 2012 (EDT)

Renewed discussion

The breaking up in regions is definitely necessary, as Isaan has a total of 24 cities. With a limit of 9 at the Isaan page, many cities were left out of the hierarchy, so I have restated the regions. Not having enough content is not a reason to delete/merge pages, we have many outline articles waiting for content to be added. I also think the VFD process shouldn't be used for region discussions—if you'd like to see changes to the regions, please discuss at Talk:Isaan. --Globe-trotter (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2012 (CET)

There was a discussion, a consensus and the page was removed. Isaan does not need sub-regions not because the articles lack content but because Isaan itself lacks content. You say 24 cities as if 24 of Paris or Rome were being lost. These 'cities' are dusty nowhere towns that do not need listing in sub-region articles.Travelpleb (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

We'd get a list of 24 cities under the "Cities" page of Isaan. This is unacceptable following established policy that we sub-divide such regions in regions that can hold 7±2 cities. Isaan is larger than England and Wales combined, so regions are definitely necessary. You're right that Isaan lacks content, but so do many other region articles. It's not a reason for removing subregions. I also don't see where the discussion took place or where consensus was reached.--Globe-trotter (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Noting says that all the non-descript towns in an area have to be listed.134.0.106.94 11:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of these are actually provincial capitals, far from "non-descript". And yes, it is policy that all cities are listed somewhere in the hierarchy. For good reason, as else no one could find them.--Globe-trotter (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that provincial capital doesn't mean interesting or useful. I can't find a policy says that everything must be listed somewhere. Surely just searching is the best way to find something? I can find this though: Geographical unit articles need to meet the criteria for articles too. There should be enough scope in the article to have at least 4 or 5 good quality destinations or attractions, especially for regions. Given the dearth of good quality destinations or attractions in Isaan, I really can't see why you want to split the region up.Travelpleb (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I have found this about the 7±2 in the Wikivoyage:Geographical_hierarchy page: This doesn't need to be applied stringently to the lowest level of the hierarchy; if a region has more than 9 cities in it, and there's no helpful way to divide it into subregions then don't split it. When dividing regions, use a breakdown that is most practical from the traveler's viewpoint, which may not necessarily make use of official government divisions.

And I think this is a perfect example of not having sub-regions for the sake of complying with that guideline. Isaan, despite my harshness, does have a few things worth seeing. I'm lucky to have seen some of them! However, for the most part it is a big empty nowhere-land that few people visit. A traveler would be best served by a high-quality, comprehensive, single article, guide to Isaan and not three useless, empty, sub-region articles and a neglected Isaan article.

Overall, concentrating only on the Isaan article makes the most sense in this case.Travelpleb (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

So, the problem is this: you think there's too much here for one region article. I think there not enough for one region article and three sub-region articles.

What if Isaan were not split into sub-regions but into two first level regions? These could be approximately central and northern Isaan combined and southern Isaan separate. Two such areas would be distinct in terms of:

• Travel logistics - particularly rail
• Geography - Dangrek Mountains and Khorat Basin in the south vs. Chi River in the north
• what to see - Angkorian temples are in the south
• Culture - there's a Khmer influence in the south

Any thoughts on that? Travelpleb (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)