Jump to content

Wikivoyage:Votes for deletion/June 2016

Add links
From Wikivoyage
← May 2016 Votes for deletion archives for June 2016 (current) July 2016 →
  • Delete. I suppose this topic could conceivably be within our scope, but certainly not in anything like its present format. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More a WIkipedia article. But maybe worth first going through the list of links and see if any would be useful on specific destination pages. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. The reality is that organising travel these days a good airline router/comparison site is the first place you go to. Especially for independent travellers, that are the kind we are catering too. But obviously this listy article would isn't right in its present form. --Inas (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you think of a way to deal with this topic without making a link farm or opening the article up to touters? It seems to me, the place to discuss airline comparison sites would be in the relevant article in the Flying series, as part of the preparation for air travel. I'm having trouble imagining a good Wikivoyage article about airline comparison sites themselves, but I'd love your thoughts on how we could make one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no Wikipedia article on "traveler routers", because the term doesn't exist. Paraphrasing what I wrote on the talk page, the Wikivoyage article doesn't seem to serve any purpose except to shunt readers straight off WV as quickly as possible to another website. External links to journey / trip planners (including those which may be listed on the traveler router article but are not known about on the relevant destination pages - definitely worth checking) should be put into existing destination articles. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep No more WV:Links to Wikipedia. WV:Avoid long lists not relevant since this is a list for keeping track of coverage with the main yield to consumer when each service is written as a {{listing}} in the article on entity the service covers. Cursor is currently in France and following countries and their municipalities have not yet been added an item: France, Israel, Luxembourg, Germany, Austria, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Sweden and Switzerland.
To the terminology question: looking at Wikipedia one can derive that journey planner is originally a travel agentures tool and they are often geared at making money for the agenture and the service providers they have contracts with. In the early 2000s few successful implementations for local traffic, London and Helsinki chose to use term journey planner even though it was a loaded word. Some fanboys then proceeded to write a bunch of statements of no particular informational value in w:Journey Planner and w:Intermodal Journey Planner (yes, with the caps). In new areas of service the language is new, and evolving. Doesn't w:public transport route planner sound a tad bit clunky and is not expecting the eventual concert of traveler routers, navigation apps and even car navigators (IoT) negotiating with the traveler routers to achieve traveler goals.
Only negative I see coming for this is the manual work of keeping the list and the list items in sync manually. Compared to the amount of trouble I went to compile and sort this list in its entirety is not much trouble and I can do it if deletionists just stop trying to stop me.
To be asking the right questions we should have a semantic database instead of lists of arbitrary length. In this kind of arrangement the database could contain for example information and URL for all the available language versions. Traveler routers are really useful to the traveler and if you delete this you are doing the traveling consumer a big disservice and not really solving or improving anything in Wikivoayge. Except maybe blind adherence to rules and regulations. Jukeboksi (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, Votes for deletion is about enforcing rules, not changing them. If you want to change the rules, you should discuss that in policy pages - notably including Wikivoyage talk:External links - but Vfd is not a policy page. I'm totally fine with any of this content being in your userspace, but your line of argumentation about "deletionists" and trying to radically change rules after creating several articles that, at least in their current forms, are radically in violation of the current consensus of what a Wikivoyage article should look like - and continuing to create more such articles and add more links to the ones you were working on when you were warned about this - is not a good way to try to persuade anyone. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone in the discussion page for this article made the good point that it could be useful if it explained how to make the best use of travel planners, but to create that and bring this article in line with existing policy would require gutting the existing article of all content and essentially building a new article from scratch (and since "traveler router" appears to be a term the author has created, judging from the explanation above, there isn't even really a strong argument to be made for redirecting the existing article to something else). PerryPlanet (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't have strong opinions about keeping or deleting these three articles, but if there is a consensus to delete them I'd instead suggest a move to userspace (example: User:Jukeboksi/Traveler routers). That would allow further development without the external link concerns raised for a mainspace article. User:Jukeboksi is obviously enthusiastic about these subjects, so it would be a shame to delete something that might otherwise be developed into something useful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This seemed a reasonable meet-you-half-way solution so I moved the list parts to User:Jukeboksi/lists/Traveler routers and will go through it and add each service to the article on the area served if not already there. Jukeboksi (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for working to find a compromise. However, I'm not enthusiastic about the proposal to "go through it and add each service to the article on the area served if not already there" since it isn't clear that these travel router links should be included in Wikivoyage at all per WV:XL#What not to link to. There are likely to be dozens or even hundreds of these services available in a country like the USA, so including such links in that article would not be appropriate for the reasons outlined in the external links policy (basically: primary links only, since collaboratively determining whether a link merits inclusion isn't something Wikivoyage wants to spend time debating). -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ryan: There aren't many in USA since Googel Transit has taken nearly all the turf. Jukeboksi (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Votes_for_deletion/June_2016&oldid=3009363"