Talk:Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route

Merger proposal

Because there is only a little information here, I propose to merge and redirect this article to United States National Trails System. If someone is willing and able to expand the content on this trail later, then it could easily be broken out into a separate article again. Ground Zero (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 21:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons I stated at Talk:United States National Trails System. If we consider this short article to be worse than nothing, then instead of merging we should delete it and let a redlink encourage the creation of a better article. But I think it's fine to keep it as is, at least for now, in the hopes that someone will improve it. I will try to work on it at some point but there are a lot of itineraries being deleted and merged right now and it's hard to keep up. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

As I wrote elsewhere, I don't agree that "a redlink encourage[s] the creation of a better article". I think someone who wants to expand coverage on a subject will just add stuff to an overview article until they (or another editor) decides to separate it out into a new article. It happens often here, e.g. districtification of large cities, or the recent project that few of us undertook to split Northern Ontario when it became too big. Ground Zero (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• I support this nomination in the article’s current state. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 18:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

*Ditto. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose due to recent addition. Please reconsider. /Yvwv (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  It still lacks the itinerary structure though, and has no info about the route itself. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Nope, now I oppose on the same basis as Yvwv. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The article says: "It was designated in 2009, and has interpretative literature, signs and exhibits that describes France's role in the war. The route passes by many sites of early United States history...." but it lists none of these things. If it listed a few museums, or battlesites, or something, it would be a useful itinerary, but it just lists a bunch of cities without explaining what their connection is to the subject matter. We would provide better service to the traveller by directing them to the National Parks Service site and deleting the rest. This is not a useful guide to the trail. Ground Zero (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a start, at least. Why the rush to get rid of this article? It's less than two weeks old. Let's give it some time to develop. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I nominated it because the creator of the article expressed no intention of expanding it. It was one of three stubs the editor created in short order. If you are going to expand it, obviously I would hold off on merging it. If we are waiting for User:Someone Else to do it, then we can expect it will remain as not being useful to travellers. That editor is not contributing to Wikivoyage these days. Wikivoyage has lots of useless stubs that have been waiting for User:Someone Else to provide some travel information for up to 15 years now. Ground Zero (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort to ensure that Wikivoyage is useful to readers. I just think two weeks is too soon to give up on a promising start to an itinerary article for an official route.

I've already stated above that I intend to work on this article, and I'm grateful to User:Yvwv and User:JakeOregon for doing that too. I probably won't work on it much today or even this week, because I'm very busy right now, but at some point. I don't see any need to rush it. I suggest we revisit this proposal in a year or so if necessary. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

If it is going to take a year to make this usable, maybe it would be better to move it to user space, and then move it back when it is ready. Given how people respond to deadlines, giving it a year means it will likely be set aside and forgotten, like Kohoku and Miyaki, which said only "[Miyaki/Kohoku] is a town in Saga Prefecture, Japan." since they were created in 2007. How about we look at this article again in a month to see of any progress is being made? I think that will give us some idea if this has potential or not. And note that I am proposing to merge the article, not delete it, so the content would not be lost. Ground Zero (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this has been the case for so many itineraries and travel topics. Someone says they're going to work on it, but then it ends up being the work of Someone Else. But often that also rarely gets done, and it remains as stubby article with little/no useful info unless "Someone Else" comes and does the job and all this gives a pretty bad impression on voy. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 01:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)