Talk:Resorts
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Article?[edit]
@Yvwv: Does this need to be a separate article? Maybe it would be better suited as a subsection of Sleep, and the redirect simply changed to point to the section. I'm not sure there's enough information beyond the obvious to justify a whole article, especially since some of it would overlap with Sleep. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 22:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think this article should me merged with Sleep. If the content there is expanded enough to warrant a separate article, then it can be split out again. For now, there is not enough info to warrant taking readers to a separate page. Ground Zero (talk) 14:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Is there a need for a separate section? Resorts are mentioned in Sleep more or less where relevant. And the discussion on whether a resort is a good destination fits the articles on reasons to travel (Honeymoon travel etc.) and on groups with special needs (Travelling with children, Group trips) better than it fits a section in Sleep. If we keep the page and don't develop it, it should be a disambiguation page, and content merged where it fits best, but not keeping it might be better, unless somebody is going to add substantially to it. --LPfi (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- There are lots of people who go to resorts who aren't newlyweds, or travelling with children or groups. It's a common way of travelling for many types of people. Ground Zero (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hotels#Resort_hotels may be a better place to merge this. Ground Zero (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think that it would be better merged into Sleep, as resorts include "Hi-de-Hi!" style holiday camps, and resort towns. I would suggest giving the creator (and others) a month or so to grow the article. AlasdairW (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Hotels#Resort_hotels may be a better place to merge this. Ground Zero (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- There are lots of people who go to resorts who aren't newlyweds, or travelling with children or groups. It's a common way of travelling for many types of people. Ground Zero (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Is there a need for a separate section? Resorts are mentioned in Sleep more or less where relevant. And the discussion on whether a resort is a good destination fits the articles on reasons to travel (Honeymoon travel etc.) and on groups with special needs (Travelling with children, Group trips) better than it fits a section in Sleep. If we keep the page and don't develop it, it should be a disambiguation page, and content merged where it fits best, but not keeping it might be better, unless somebody is going to add substantially to it. --LPfi (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think that this is a valid topic, but I think I would focus on the all-encompassing single facility, rather than a city that's popular for travel. These "cruise ships on land" offer a different experience compared to staying in a hotel and exploring the local area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
As this is being developed into a full article, I think we can drop the discussion of merging it. Ground Zero (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Swept in from the pub
The resorts travel topic has been absent until now. Please contribute to the article, and suggest sub-topics. /Yvwv (talk) 22:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- As I posted to Talk:Resorts, I'm doubtful this is an article we need separate from Sleep. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 22:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think articles should not be created as stubs. If nobody has the time and interest to create a well though out outline, there is a significant risk that the article does not get enough content to be worthwhile, and just frustrates readers who click the links to it. If somebody takes over and makes it an outline or even a usable article, that author could have created the outline from scratch. I for one prefer doing it that way if I know the subject. If I don't, I might contribute with what I know, but the article seldom becomes usable with just such random contributions. There might be enough to say about resorts that the article would be worthwhile – I believe there is – but it won't be worthwhile until somebody says it. --LPfi (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- There might be a problem with how we handle article requests. If somebody really takes the time to write a requested article, then everything is fine. But when people think it might be a good idea, but don't have the time or knowledge, there is no obvious procedure to discuss the article before it is created, which means it will often be created as a stub. If there were a procedure to collaborate on the article before creating it, we might avoid some of these stubs, as the article could be created after there having been enough input to show it is viable, and for the author to be able to lay it out well. --LPfi (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with LPfi: stubs and even outlines diminish the reader's experience with Wikivoyage. If someone wants to see an article, but isn't willing or able to create a usable article, it should be added to Wikivoyage:Requested articles instead of being created as a stub or outline. Ground Zero (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Historically, looking at wikis in general, putting out a little stub is more effective at eventually getting a decent article created than putting an idea on a list somewhere.
- w:en:Category:Resorts by type might be helpful for creating an outline. Maybe we should have a "Types of resorts" section? Or start with a way to differentiate "Brighton is a resort (town)" from "Club Med is a resort (hotel)"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- There might be a problem with how we handle article requests. If somebody really takes the time to write a requested article, then everything is fine. But when people think it might be a good idea, but don't have the time or knowledge, there is no obvious procedure to discuss the article before it is created, which means it will often be created as a stub. If there were a procedure to collaborate on the article before creating it, we might avoid some of these stubs, as the article could be created after there having been enough input to show it is viable, and for the author to be able to lay it out well. --LPfi (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think articles should not be created as stubs. If nobody has the time and interest to create a well though out outline, there is a significant risk that the article does not get enough content to be worthwhile, and just frustrates readers who click the links to it. If somebody takes over and makes it an outline or even a usable article, that author could have created the outline from scratch. I for one prefer doing it that way if I know the subject. If I don't, I might contribute with what I know, but the article seldom becomes usable with just such random contributions. There might be enough to say about resorts that the article would be worthwhile – I believe there is – but it won't be worthwhile until somebody says it. --LPfi (talk) 13:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Judging by the state of the article think that it shouldn't be a seperate page for resorts like @ARR8: proposed.Creating a subsection of Sleep is the best thing to do yet Arep Ticous 15:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps you would like to take another look at the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- The article has certainly improved... I think that maybe this article can work in some way... Arep Ticous 15:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)