Talk:Warsaw in one day

If nobody but the original editor agrees that the article should be merged, I am taking down the merge template next week. Otherwise, I'd gladly discuss. Cheerio, PrinceGloria (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikivoyage:Itineraries#Valid itinerary article subjects almost all of the "Destination in X Day" articles were tagged for merging for reasons outlined in the linked policy page. The "Personal" itineraries section of the linked guideline has additional details. If this particular article was about a specific route in Warsaw it would make sense to keep it, but as an arbitrary list of someone's suggestions for a single day trip it probably doesn't meet the threshold for its own article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

For an example of a similar itinerary to this one, see Along the Magnificent Mile. That itinerary is about a specific route in Chicago (and includes a map) which meets the requirement for an itinerary article, but it is otherwise comparable to this itinerary article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

OK there, I then need to go there and reopen this discussion. On active travel portals like TripAdvisor the community gets asked for such itineraries time and time again, and they're some of the most popular articles. They just serve a purpose and fulfill a need that actually exists. My understanding of WV is that it is purpose-driven and user-oriented much more than the strict WP or other MediaWiki sites, which are more formalized and structured around a set of rules to provide for a valuable formal source of objective information and not a dumpster for all kinds of everything in any form.

In particular, I believe WV is far from needing excessive regulation in its current form, as it sorely lacks user and reader activity - there is very little editing being done, very little community involvement and very low readership actually, compared to both the more popular Mediawiki sites and the popular travel sites. Therefore, as a purpose-oriented project, I believe that WV still needs to find ways to encourage more activity in all levels and suit the users the best. Applying strict policies, apart from some cornerstone pillars such as avoiding commercialization and becoming a poster board for advertising, is not in WV's best interest IMHO. Whatever WV is now simply isn't working, and one needs to experiment to see how it could.

If you'd show me how to integrate the route into the article, I'd gladly do that. But the structure of WV articles seem to be more like bullet-listing attractions for readers to cherry-pick from, with a bit of narrative to spice things up and give a better overview of the destination. There is little space there to actually discuss routes, distances and getting around from specific points, and it is specifically discourages by other policies, which I happen to actually agree with.

I do understand that once WV becomes an active and vibrant community with editors falling over themselves to share their travel insights, such itineraries may become hard to maintain with everybody trying to chip in their subjective POVs, adding a POI or suggesting a different route. But, for now, this seems a very remote perspective to me. If editors indeed wouldn't be able to agree, I would have nothing against different itineraries existing for every city, such as "Warsaw historic architecture walk", "Jewish Warsaw", "Warsaw for public transit lovers" etc. etc. - it would only broaden the experience to me. Actually, even personalized itineraries such as "PrinceGloria's Warsaw" would be of value to me, but this would require significant formalization and rules. But I would only hope time comes when the community would have to deal with such issues. For now, most destinations I am interested in suffer from utter lack of interest and activity rather than the opposite and overzealous editors with strong POVs.

I personally find the "whatever in one day / two days / fornight / six hours / two years and a half" itineraries the best things since sliced bread. As a traveller, it gives me a great way to start my own subjective plan from, even if I usually deviate from it and end up creating my own. It speeds up my planning process and helps me kick-start it. And it often contains the abovementioned information that is of much value, and that otherwise a map or a bullet list wouldn't provide.

In short, unlike much of Wikitravel as of now, it is actually useful.

Kindest, PrinceGloria (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

PS. I guess I need to repost it and reopen the discussion on this particular policy in the appropriate talk page.

PS2. I well plan to include a map, I just do not have THAT much time on my hands and, for now, I am one of a handful (where "handful" is an overstatement) editors involved with Warsaw and Poland in general.