Talk:Singles travel

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Move[edit]

I think this should be moved to Singles travel. Solo travel is most often used to describe simply traveling by oneself, often referring to backpacking. Singles travel exclusively means travel for the purpose of meeting other singles. --(WT-en) Peter Talk 22:30, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

I agree.
Certainly this is a valid travel topic, but it needs some careful handling. There is a slippery slope here leading to an article that is just touting.
Another danger is that, since travelling to "meet other singles" is travelling to get laid a lot, this could end up violating our sex tourism policy. I don't think that is a big risk, and I'd say those policies are too restrictive anyway.
What warnings does it need? Bring condoms and beware of women from low-income countries who pursue a man for the visa. What else? (WT-en) Pashley 23:13, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
I am very dubious that it will develop into a proper travel topic. The page seems to have been set up to feed into another page which consists of a list of urls and has just been vfd'd. If it does remain though, I would agree that Singles travel is a more appropriate title. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 23:55, 16 June 2011 (EDT)
Anyway, we already have Travelling alone, so anything on "solo travel" should go there.
The question is whether "Singles travel" will be become a reasonable article. It clearly could, something along the lines of Travelling with children or Retiring abroad which cater to other fairly limited groups of travellers, However, that certainly does not mean it necessarily will. (WT-en) Pashley 03:22, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

I have moved it. (WT-en) Pashley 03:25, 17 June 2011 (EDT)

Rewrite[edit]

I made a start on turning it into what I think it ought to be, but it needs a lot more work, which I am not prepared to do. (WT-en) Pashley 02:00, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

Is it now dead?[edit]

It started as mostly promotional stuff for some singles tours. We eliminating the touting, leaving a short article that is mostly platitudes; arguably the whole article as it stands violates Wikivoyage:No advice from Captain Obvious. There have been no substantive edits since 2011.

Should we just tag it for vfd, give it a decent burial? Pashley (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge tag[edit]

Currently, this article is tagged for merging to Travelling alone and that article is tagged to merge here. That seems silly to me; you cannot merge in both directions. User:Ypsilon:since you inserted both tags, can you explain your intent?

In any case, I do not think a merge is a good idea. Travelling alone (without a travel companion) is one thing and Singles travel (travelling without a sexual partner, possibly because you are looking for one or more new ones) is a different thing. Sure they overlap, but that is no reason to confuse them, let alone to try to deal with both in one article. Pashley (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that, while I object vehemently to the idea of a merge, I would not mind seeing this article deleted (unless someone wants to take it on and develop it); see the section just above. Pashley (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Singles travel means something totally different from solo travel. But the last substantive edit to this article was made in 2011, which makes it a deletion candidate. --Peter Talk 22:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, firstly this is one of those short outline travel topic articles that, as Peter just said, hasn't been edited for quite a while. While I think the article is...maybe a bit out of scope for VW (though not as much as "Marriage in China") I'm fine with keeping it - it isn't trolling or spam. I figured that instead of deleting everything in this article, some of the information could maybe be included in "travelling alone" as a subsection/a travel topic of a travel topic. Plus, I can't remember if I've ever used the merge tag before, I assumed they should be added to both articles... Ypsilon (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Singles travel can be done with friends (e.g., wingmen, or fellow dejected singles, who just have so much love to give, if only someone would open up their heart to them?)—it's really a whole different thing. Also, I think you are looking for Template:Merge from. --Peter Talk 22:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Merge from" would've been a more suitable template but I didn't know there was such a template. Anyways, I imagined people who "single travel" traveled alone for the most part, the stay safe section was pretty much the same in both articles and travelling alone also takes up the topic of meeting new people on the trip, so I figured the stuff from this article not already there could be moved there. But if it's a bad idea, I'll remove the merge tags right away. There are also other travel topic outline articles that IMO could be merged into larger ones, for example the exotic Hitchhiking around the world could very well be merged into Round the world overland. Ypsilon (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now removed the merge tag. Is it a vfd candidate? Pashley (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vfd[edit]

Mostly full of overly general Captain Obvious-style advice. Deletion was suggested months ago at Talk:Singles travel#Merge tag.

  • Delete - Texugo (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete Pashley (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments: I don't mind a bit of "Captain Obvious" advice in a travel topic; it seems to me, that's in part why we have topics like Stay Safe, et al., so that the advice we don't want to clutter other articles is there. That said, this article is very undeveloped. I don't mind the topic, but unless someone wants to develop the article further, I'm kind of apathetic about whether it is kept or deleted, and I can see that it will be deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whoa! What happened to the "Stay Safe" topic? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, it's Stay safe. Is there a way to have different capitalization automatically redirect? For now, I'll create the redirect. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A search for the uncapitalized version of a title-case title will get there without a redirect existing; it's only links that cause a problem in that respect. Powers (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for explaining. That's a little strange, and I think I'd call it a bug. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep as separate article (without merging) if only to keep this page's implicit assumption that "single" always equates to "single and looking" out of the main article on travelling alone. K7L (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But K7L, keep with what valuable content? And keep waiting how long for that content to appear? It's already been a long time, well past the period we usually give for travel topics to be developed into something useful. If it's never going to become a truly useful guide, we need to get rid of it, not keep it as a semantic marker for contrast with the other article. Texugo (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Talk:Singles travel for previous discussion. There is certainly potential for a decent article on this as a travel topic, but no-one has every actually tried to create one. The original creator just touted some cruises, I fixed that but did little else & a few people have added bits, but no-one has seriously tried to develop it and there have been no substantive edits since 2011. Unless we have a volunteer now, delete. Pashley (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
K7L, maybe you'd like to have the article moved to your userspace, so that you can whip it into solid shape before it's put back into article space? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Policy says we should delete this article now, but if K7L would like, I'll move it to his userspace as Ikan suggested, if he responds affirmatively in a reasonable amount of time. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: Deleted. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]