Wikivoyage talk:Requested articles

Justification for this article

I do not understand the justification for this article's existence. Anyone who wants a new article can just plunge forward and create it. I'm inclined to nominate this article for deletion, but wanted to first get some feedback on whether there's any policy-related reason in anyone's mind that would bar this article from being fairly deleted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

While it's true that someone can simply plunge forward, it' possible to have a good idea for a page but not the time to write something to give it a good start. In such a case, there's two choices: not create the page or create a stub. Making a request puts the idea out there for someone with the knowledge (and/or time) to write a quality and decent-length article to give the topic a good start. If a page is created as a stub, then there there is the possibility it will just get deleted. Maybe if you have a look at the page after my additions it will change your perspective. I should also note that Wikipedia has this same page (w:Wikipedia:Requested_articles). AHeneen (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it's a longer list doesn't change my mind at all. Any user who would like to keep such a list in their sandbox until they have a chance to start the articles in question should do so. Encouraging people to submit requests instead of contributing is not a valuable use of anyone's time, in my humble opinion. And I don't think that stubs should be at great risk of being quickly deleted. If you think there's a substantial risk of stubs being quickly deleted, perhaps we should discuss that in Wikivoyage talk:Votes for deletion. Finally, I strongly dissent from any idea that it is appropriate to do things just because they are done on Wikipedia. I know that's not what you mean to say at all, but whether a list of requested articles is useful in Wikipedia or not doesn't change my views on its (lack of) usefulness here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added this to RfC. AHeneen (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Destination articles are easily created in outline form; if a contributor doesn't even know enough about a destination to create an outline article (that is: what the place is, and where it's located), then there's no point in adding it to this list. However, that applies only to destinations (and perhaps itineraries). For travel topics and phrasebooks, this page might be more useful. LtPowers (talk) 14:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to see outlines created which lack even one way to get to a place, one thing to see or do and somewhere to eat or sleep. If we have just one listing for a place (such as that oversize wooden apple at a restaurant in tiny Colborne, Ontario) then create a subsection in the closest destination article which actually exists and redirect there. If those sections grow to the point where there is something to see or do, somewhere to eat and somewhere to sleep then at that point split the village out into its own destination-level article. "X is a village in Y" followed by a blank template should be deleted, it serves no purpose. We already have the X redlink in the "cities/towns" section of Y's region article to tell us that X is in Y and needs an article once we have listings for it.

I'm not sure if there should be any templates or categories to track redirects like Colborne → Cobourg#Colborne so that we know these places lack articles of their own; Wikipedia uses {{r to section}} for this. A requested articles page might be of use if it lists just the most obvious omissions (larger places like Oswego, New York and not just every tiny village unless it's famous/notable for something) or lists non-geographical topics. To list every place that lacks an article would duplicate the redlinks on the region page, as well as special:wantedpages, so the inclusion criteria need to be narrower (as in "create these first please"). K7L (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the [scaffold] an important wiki pattern and that we should support it's use. -- MarkJaroski (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd think that Cobourg#Nearby is the scaffold. Each village exists and has at least one listing, encouraging users to add more if anything notable exists. If any of these grow, split them out then. Most of what's on special:shortpages (other than disambiguation) is an empty article as there's nothing in any of the template sections. Which is more useful to the traveller? K7L (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we already have a scaffold, though in this case I think it should be the "Cities and towns" list on Quinte-Northumberland... but that's just semantics. Where I strongly disagree is in shoving disparate travel destinations together in one article, even when there's travel information to impart. LtPowers (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

So what does one do with Yarker? WP just redirects w:Yarker, Ontario to Stone Mills Township, pop 7500, which isn't an article here. Yarker has one tea room, a lakeside cottage camp and an empty Wikivoyage outline... that's it. It's seven miles from Odessa, but Odessa and Bath both also redlink. K7L (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like it meets our article criteria, if only barely. Some have suggested combining rural areas like that into a single bottom-level article named like a region, but I think it's equally acceptable to treat each as its own destination -- especially if there are places to sleep. LtPowers (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The result of a VfD nomination was to keep this page. The discussion can be found here. The discussion has many useful ideas for the direction of this page.

Airlines

Unsure about this entry:

• More airlines, like: Delta Air Lines, British Airways, Air France, Emirates (currently a redirect to United Arab Emirates), and more

I think Delta had a page, which was deleted. The question of whether we want more articles about individual companies (as opposed to merely air travel by region or frequent flyer/reward mile programmes in general) is still very much open and should be resolved - at least for the batch currently on VfD - before making these requested articles. The risk with an article about one company is that these are turned into advertisement. K7L (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Remove the "More airlines, like: Delta..." entry!

It's very easy to compile a list of all the airlines in the world that don't yet have their own WV article and plonk it in this Wikivoyage:Requested articles, but such a list is a real waste of everybody's time if it's put here, because then it acts as a bad model and we start to get a list of bus companies and hotel chains, etc. If someone chooses to create a great article on any airline, etc then that's a different matter and we should retain it as long as it's at status {{usable topic}}) or higher. If it's not - just delete it. -- Alice^✉ 21:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Requests for travel topics

Swept in from the pub

Would it be OK to create Wikivoyage:Requests for travel topics as a place where travel topic articles could be proposed? Say, for example, that I want to propose Desert survival, Getting married abroad, or Convention planning, but would like some feedback as to whether they are in scope before putting in a lot of research only to have it vfd´d and deleted, shouldn´t we have a place to have this kind of discussion as to what kinds of travel topics we might want? I´m not suggesting that we have to have an approval process before creating any topic article, just that in some cases it might be useful to have discussion beforehand. It would also serve for cases where someone has a good idea but doesn't have the time or motivation to plunge forward and create the article themselves. We already have Requests for phrasebooks and Requested articles; why not a page for travel topics too? Texugo (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Perhaps also Requests for itineraries? Pashley (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything preventing these from being placed on the Requested Articles list; there are already proposed travel topics there. K7L (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I would really like to separate them out. Real places can be listed on the requested articles page and they rarely require any discussion, but travel topics are a little trickier. Texugo (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I know of no reasons why you should not, so go ahead. No guarantee that it will work either, but it seems like a good idea.

Are these pages indexed anywhere or does one only find them by good guesswork? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, almost all the requests on the requested articles list are for travel topics. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Support both the requests for travel topics and also request for itineraries - a good idea if it works sats (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we also add "Requests for destination articles" and make Wikivoyage:Requested articles a sort of index page with links to the destination, t-topics, phrasebook and itineraries lists. That takes care of Peter's question about how to find these. Pashley (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Can we also have Requests for users? I´d really like to do some collaboration with Jessica Alba if possible. Texugo (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

For that matter, project:requests for aircraft. Someone gave me a Boeing 787 Dreamliner for Christmas, batteries not included. It's just sitting here on the tarmac; I have no idea what to do with it. K7L (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

With the goal of decreasing the number of project pages, why isn't it more useful to just separate the requests into subsections of Wikivoyage:Requested articles? It's already organized and you don't have to click through multiple pages—just ToC headers. --Peter ^Talk 16:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I was actually looking for a place where we could request feedback on travel topic ideas, since their legitimacy/naming/where to put the information is not really as obvious as it is for other types of articles. That Requested article page is not really suited to that, I think.

If there's a question about whether something would be in scope, then it should go on Wikivoyage talk:Other ways of seeing travel, or perhaps Wikivoyage talk:What is an article?. If you're requesting feedback, you're not really requesting that an article be written, which is what it sounds like from your proposed "Requests for travel topics" title. LtPowers (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

But how would a new user know where to do that? WV:Requests for phrasebooks has been used for some discussions of this type, I just thought it would make sense for proposed travel topics to have their own space with some visibility, since travel topics tend to incur the most controversy and often require discussions of the scope of a proposed article, its title, and/or how such information might be better split between other topics/articles. It's not always necessarily a matter of wiaa, and the "other ways" talk page has never been used much for this purpose...Texugo (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Peter and K7L in that I would prefer a single page with sub-sections for all "requests for..." items since it seems simpler, easier to find, and easier to use. As to instructing users on where to find things or where to go for feedback, my suggestion is to just add some instructional text to the page in the form of a "See also" or some similar heading. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess I don't understand what you're looking for. What is your projected use case? It seems like we have enough discussion fora, between talk pages and the Pub, so I don't know if another one is a good idea unless you're expecting an influx of travel-topic discussions. LtPowers (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This type of question will usually be discussed here in the pub, which is not surprising in view of the disclaimerbox at the top of the page. Although the pub is pretty cluttered these days, it is a good place to get your question noticed. After discussion is closed or a a new article is created, the discussion can be swept there. If no article is created at the time it would be swept to the requested articles discussion page, with an entry on the project page in the appropriate section. Do we need anything more complicated? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Visa requirements

Like Visa summary for EU citizens, would it be a good idea to have pages on visa requirements for nationals of various countries? --Saqib (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Only if the information gets to be too long for the country articles. LtPowers (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't understand. What about creating page on visa summary for U.S. citizens? --Saqib (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I apologize; I misunderstood what you were asking. I can see where such an article would be useful, but I'm reluctant to support the idea of systematically creating one for each country in the world. If we create them, I'd stick with countries that are majority-English-speaking. LtPowers (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Or where English is an official language? But there are many of them either way, and I do not see how they would be kept up to date. For destination countries, changes in visa requirements are probably quite well advertised and noticed by many locals and travellers interested in the destination. I do not see my (as Finnish) noticing changes in Burkina Faso visa requirements. Thus a change in Burkina Faso should trigger a more or less automatic change in all the articles. As not too many people follow Burkina Faso, every one of these should take the responsibility to note the changes in all the articles, including those on Vanuatu and Saint Lucia (or post a message somewhere). I think the chance of this working spontaneously is small, so before writing such an article, the system of securing updates should be in place. --LPfi (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Where do we limit our scope on immigrant intent?

I'm a little unsure about this one:

• International adoption — decision to adopt a child often comes with a journey to the country of origin, to acquire knowledge of the child's social background.

Is this within the scope of Wikivoyage, or is it (like marriage in China) too closely related to permanent immigration? K7L (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

My first instinct is to say "neither" -- it's out of scope because the factors involved in traveling for this purpose don't require special travel information. It seems to me that of the information presented in such a hypothetical article, it would all fall under one of two categories: information that's already in the relevant country article, or information that's about how to adopt from a specific country, which is not travel-related. LtPowers (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Agree with LtPowers, although if someone wanted to start such an article we could of course tag it as "experimental" and see how it developed. However, I think there is a distinction to be made between articles about travel and articles about something that requires travel, and this subject seems to be the latter. To consider a different example: Business travel is a valid topic insofar as it relates to travel issues specific to business people, but we wouldn't consider a discussion of how to prepare for a presentation as relevant. Similarly, if an adoption article is dealing with how to adopt a child rather than specific travel issues encountered by people traveling for purposes of adoption then that seems out of scope. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Navigation

The redlink Navigation is described as:

this would cover the use of satellite positioning systems (GPS is by far the most well-known, but units may also rely on Russia's GLONASS or the E.U.'s Galileo). Topics would include navigating with such units, types of receivers, use of such devices, & restrictions (some countries ban the import of such devices by foreigners). This topic should also incorporate info from and replace the Orienteering article, which covers map/compass navigation. This would be a great page to link from various activities which often rely on GPS receivers to navigate.

I do not agree. Navigation is the term commonly used for navigation at sea and in the air. If we have an article with that name I think it should be something suitable to link from Cruising on small craft (aviators should probably not get their navigation advice from us), perhaps on getting sea charts and nautical publications, issues in some waters, something about equipment, a very short introduction to navigation itself (mostly to give understanding about what to learn), some tricks important in some waters but neglected in others and perhaps something about how to learn the basics.

The suggested article should instead be named satellite navigation or simply GPS. The latter name may not include GLONASS & friends, but they may still be described and the page renamed in the future. It is probably the name most easily linked from other articles.

I think the navigation article can wait quite a while. There is a lot to do before we can serve boaters and navigation is the least of issues (for us, as serious boaters know how to navigate and others will find a lot of better guides on the net before stumbling over ours).

The orienteering article should be developed. I think it should not be replaced, as not everybody needing orienteering skills will need or have a navigator. Much better with an orienteering stub referring to GPS for the navigator stuff.

--LPfi (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

A resorts article?

Swept in from the pub

Big resorts like Club Med are not my preferred type of destination, but they are very popular with some travellers. Areas like Montego Bay or the Yalong Bay area in Sanya seem to be mostly such resorts. We have an article on cruise ships, another all-inclusive way to holiday, and one on GLBT-friendly beach resorts. A search for "resort" turns up many Disney resorts and a few other things. A search for "Club Med" turns up many mentions but no article.

I'd say an overview article on such resorts would be a good idea. —The preceding comment was added by Pashley (talk • contribs)

It is certainly a useful travel topic. Resort holidays are popular, but I believe that an almost invisible percentage of WV's current readers and editors are people who frequent resorts. One just has to look at the state of our Caribbean articles, given the fact that they AFAIU are certainly not off the beaten path for North American visitors, the same goes for places like the Canary Islands, Spain's south coast and so on. Also, the status of our articles of cities towns and regions next to ski resorts, even the most popular ones in the Alps etc. don't reflect the amount of visitors they get. So we might very well even attract some new editors. I must admit I don't really have much experience of this kind of travel, either. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Me neither, but yes, definitely a great idea for an article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Neat idea. But please don't confuse it with the term Seaside resort that often refers to resort towns. Btw, how are you feeling about creating such an article on state-accredited resort towns? It's a crucial traveller's topic and many guides solely cover those. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like the situation with Cruising on small craft and Cruise ships, two articles with related names but little content overlap. They should link to each other so that if a search leads a user to the wrong one the problem is easily corrected, but other than that they can be developed independently.

The difference is that for cruising we have two articles, for resorts zero. Volunteers? Pashley (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not experienced with topic articles on Wikivoyage. But I'll definitely help to extend and create content for both a vacation resort and seaside resort town guide. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Answering a question from User:Horst-schlaemma on my talk page, I suggested this but am not volunteering to do it. I do not know much about such resorts and am not greatly interested in them. Pashley (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there's nothing of magnitude at Wikipedia either, it could be a great project for the Wikivoyage community. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Split discussions/debates onto a separate page?

Swept in from the pub

I notice that Wikivoyage:Requested articles is turning into discussion and debate as to whether we should have an article on any of a wide variety of topics from a Manhattan skyline guide to the War of 1812 in North America, the history of the Orient Express train, scenic tourist trains or dinner trains and metro/rapid transit systems.

Would it be worth splitting all this discussion out of the main WV:RA list to another page (either Wikivoyage talk:Requested articles or the article Talk: page for the proposed article) and just linking to that discussion from the main list body, so that the list itself doesn't become a debate forum?

There are also a few entries with "X wanted, has been started as an outline but needs work..." (including the main list of attractions); I'm hesitant to de-list these until the new pages have enough text to survive a VfD. K7L (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess that's a good idea. I don't really know how it turned into a forum or how it came to look like a talk page in the first place. But the discussion should be well visible, lest somebody create an article for which there is a good reason not to. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It happens because sometimes people request articles that others are not sure we really want or which may not actually fit with WV:What is an article? But yeah, I think it would make more sense for this page to list only the non-controversial requests, and anything where a discussion needs to be had should get moved elsewhere for said discussion. I suppose Wikivoyage talk:Requested articles would be the best place for it. Texugo (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Stubs and marginal travel topics

There have been a lot of travel topic stubs created the last year. I am worried that these both make the travel topic hierarchy more difficult to navigate (it is already chaotic) and frustrate readers, who think we have something to say about e.g. campfires, knives or navigation (for the last, see my comment above). I think we should not create stubs, but wait until somebody has something valuable to say about the topic, or at least a good idea of what the article should be about (a real outline).

I think this page should not list travel topics that are of marginal importance. They might be useful if the right person starts writing, but this page should list the most important ones, the lack of which are a real deficiency of the site.

The one I now noticed was Scouting. An article about international camps, lodging where one can meet fellow scouts and hospitality exchange of different kinds may well be worthwhile. But a topic "about the international Scout movement"? It seems very likely to foremost be a stub without anything you cannot find on Wikipedia.

--LPfi (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd have thought that in our WV context, "about the international Scout movement" would already mean international camps, lodging, hospitality exchange, and the like. Feel free to improve the description as you like. I certainly don't see why we'd want to decide that ideas like that aren't worth keeping track of somewhere, and I don't think there is any better place. Texugo (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with removing items from the main list if they're controversial; better to leave the item visible and add a link to the discussion (with the discussion on another page, so that Wikivoyage:Requested articles doesn't become a debate or Wikivoyage: Votes for deletion of pages which haven't been created yet). K7L (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we have a lot of travel topics that look like they've been created solely because it's fun to create articles. I find it odd to start up a travel topic if I don't have much of anything to write about it. ϒpsilon (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems like I got into the defendant's box, here, as I created the example articles. It seems hard to accept that each new article, moreso each suggestion for a new topic, needs to prove its right to exist. The project has, since the Wikitravel days, been full of articles that are of practical use to very few, if any, travellers. There are lots of Scuba diving guides with specific details about small islands, which are impossible to verify, and likely to be used by very few readers. The War zone safety article should not replace professional advice for the few travellers who need it, and space (which is not labelled as a joke article) seems to be written mostly for entertainment. Should these articles be deleted? Or should they be preserved only as artifacts of Wikitravel's early history? I guess that campfires, knives and navigation have more relevance to the average traveller, than war zone safety or space tourism.

When it comes to stubs, that's how many great articles began. A fundamental principle of wikis is cooperation; nobody knows everything. When I started Diplomatic missions it was questioned; now the article is useful. Cold weather has also developed over time. Even though a topic such as Dangerous animals is useful for very few travellers, it is still broader than aggressive dogs (from the Wikitravel period); it is also a good example of cooperation, and surely provides to the casual reader's experience as much as other articles. /Yvwv (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The issue with travel topics and itineraries has always been where to draw the line - for example, should we have a single article on Accommodations, or should it be subdivided such that we have a separate article for Bed & Breakfasts, or should it be even further subdivided so that we have an article for Finnish B&Bs? Past advice has generally been to start out with broad topics and only split out separate articles when the broad topic contains sufficient content to warrant splitting up instead of starting out with lots of granular articles in the hopes that they will fill out. My views on the matter have changed over time and my opinion has moved towards being more encouraging of users who are excited about developing a new topic article, but just like with city articles I'd suggest that creating lots of outlines without developing those articles might not be a particularly valuable exercise. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

damn it, my contribution must have disappeared to the great big void of stuff deleted on the internet... Ok here goes: While there is a tendency to have too many travel topics and any wiki about a specific subject gets more and more articles not all that closely related to that subject over time, I still see no big danger. That being said, it is of course easier for somebody from Wyoming who has never been outside North America to contribute to a travel topic he knows about than to a destination article in - say - Colombia Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Some geographic articles (countries or cities) have been filled up with information not specific to the place itself, often subject to the WV:OBVIOUS principle. For example, the Sweden article contained many details about dangerous animals that were superfluous, exaggerating risks, and applicable to most of Eurasia and North America. The text was moved to pests and dangerous animals, hopefully making the country article more relevant to the reader, and the information easier to access for people who travel to other regions. Also, travel topics put information into context; a traveller to Sweden should learn that the greatest "wolf danger" is probably getting into a brawl for talking about wolves. /Yvwv (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A thing I wanted to add: There seems to be really good information on the general subject of portable stoves on WP which is relevant to travel but not yet present on this wiki. Maybe someone could get inspiration there. A hobo stove for example is easily made from material that is available (almost) globally and thus may be a relevant thing to tell the traveler about... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Germanophones: Help translate articles from the German Wikivoyage

Swept in from the pub

There are 12,000 articles that exist on the German Wikivoyage but not on the English Wikivoyage: https://tools.wmflabs.org/pagepile/api.php?id=963&action=get_data&format=html

Many are stubs about small German towns, some are covered here with a different granularity, but some are really worth translating to English. For each seemingly interesting article, please check the neighbouring English Wikivoyage articles using the map at the bottom of Destinations.

Thanks a lot! Syced (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I nonetheless advice at least some caution, as overall (especially regarding very small destinations in Germany) de-WV has a more inclusionist stance than en-WV which on the whole has been kind of deletionist. This goes doubly so for airport articles, which de-WV has for basically every runway with scheduled flights in Germany. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Although you would need a stub article to begin with, this category would help : [[Articles_needing_translation_from_German]]

There are definitely some good German articles which some of us brought material over. Gyeongju used a good amount of material from its sister German article.

Looking through your list, the first random example I found would be a worthwhile translation candidate.

In terms of new articles, is it at all possible for you to order those articles by size (in bytes)?

And for bonus points, could we remove from that list all the articles in Germany/Austria/Switzerland? (for the reasons Hobbitschuster stated) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

A bit of cleanup would be in order

Several articles here have now been created, whereas others will probably not be created due to discussions or overlap with other articles... Also sometimes it says "an outline has been created" (or something similar) which might as well be outdated... Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I very much agree and actually came to the talk page to say just that. Will plunge forward and do this, maybe even later today, if nobody has any objections. ϒpsilon (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Done ϒpsilon (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Deadline for article requests?

The impression I get from the content and length of the article requests page is that some suggestions have been up for years, making the list really long. Would be better to perhaps archive suggestions at least two years old? Selfie City (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. Anyone looking for inspiration from old ideas should be able to locate the archive with ease. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would help, not only in the way I originally suggested, but also because people would pay more attention to this page, and perhaps there would even be more suggestions. Also, I think there would be more interest in turning the requests into pages if people thought there was a limit on how long the requests would be there. Selfie City (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It will be a chore to figure out how old the existing requests are, but you're welcome to it. I've cleared out a bunch of requests that either had been completed or were considered by other editors not to be good ideas. I have left some in where articles exists but only as stubs, but I have generally removed requests that existing articles be improved. All of our articles can bear improvement. Ground Zero (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The view history page is the trick; just go back two years and compare to the current. But yes, it still isn't a fun thing to do, but then nor is sweeping the pub, reverting edits, and a lot of other maintenance activities we do. Selfie City (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The date a request was posted really tells us nothing about the topic's validity (unless someone requests something like the upcoming 2016 Games in Rio which is time-sensitive). I disagree with the proposal for an arbitrary deadline on requests and disagree with the number of valid, unfulfilled requests which were just removed without any form of notice, consensus or explanation.

Some of the deletions are problematic as the title – which looks to be a blue link – merely redirects to some other page which isn't on the same topic, for instance nostalgia vs. historical travel (as nostalgia covers eras or technology that people living today may still remember). If there's a usable article that's actually on the requested topic (and not just some meaningless redirect to some other topic, like sending authority trouble to stay safe) then sure, remove the requests as the articles are created. As for suggestions which you merely didn't like or considered to be bad ideas? Those should probably be moved off the main page into a slushpile, so that these sort of removals can be tracked and any valid suggestions restored. K7L (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

We're never saying to have a "deadline" on requests. Just that, if they're outdated, they should be removed to an archive or a slush pile, as you said. And I don't think anyone's removing requests just because they didn't like them. If so, please give examples. Selfie City (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘For now, I've created Wikivoyage:Requested articles/Slush pile. Selfie City (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed requested articles that other editors objected to in the comments. With regard to nostalgia, this is an exceptionally vague topic thst is covered at least in part by existing specific articles. historical travel exists, so I removed it. K7L didn't identify objections to any other specific deletions, so we cannot discuss those deletions. Of course, anyone who thinks an article should exist can go ahead and create the article and demonstrate why it should exist. Doing so builds the travel guide. Dumping random ideas into this list doesn't do that. The list just keeps getting longer without providing more information to travellers. Ground Zero (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

We do need to track this sort of thing, as occasionally a valid suggestion does get written off (see Talk:Orient Express for a lengthy discussion of why a certain topic can't or shouldn't exist... and I invoke it as an example because the article does now exist and is valid). That's why I tried to determine what was removed without the proposed article ever being created, so that a slushpile could be kept as a record of this particular deletion spree. K7L (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, a lot of the requested articles that were removed were never objected to: see difference. Selfie City (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

We usually archive things. Pub discussions are swept, and not merely deleted. Policy or help pages which become outdated are archived. Failed featured article proposals have their own slushpile. VfD has its own archives. A slushpile here would be consistent with that pattern. K7L (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. There is no precedent and no consensus to simply start deleting ideas; they should all be archived. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I was following past practice. We have never archived Requested Articles before during clean-ups. And no-one has objected before to deletions. See , , , , . But I don't object to starting a new archive. Selfie City has kindly created the Slush pile already. The list needed a clean up. I cleaned it up by removing articles that have been created, or have been redirected to articles that are reasonable redirects, or that other editors objected to for being out of scope (for example). Ground Zero (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but going forward, archiving still makes sense for consistency with other pages, like K7L says. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Apology accepted, although none was offered. Maybe we should think twice before piling on when someone does tedious janitorial tasks and we think they should be done differently. I'm just a volunteer here. Ground Zero (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm sorry? And no, that's not an apology, but an expression of incredulity that you should passive aggressively suggest I apologise for offering an opinion. "There is no precedent and no consensus to simply start deleting ideas; they should all be archived." was simply an agreement with K7L's proposal, and certainly not an attempt to pile on to your or anybody's work.

Maybe you should take a step back and think; I know I will. When I come back to WV with fresh eyes in a few hours, I will revisit this discussion and try to find the place where I went wrong, and see if there is anything that warrants an apology. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It certainly felt like you were piling on. After all, there was no precedent for archiving Requested Articles (quite the opposite - it had never been done), and no consensus to do so when I cleaned up the page. So, yes, I felt like I was being crapped on for not meeting a standard that did exist when I undertook the tedious task of cleaning up. I appreciate you being willing to reflect on this, as I did before I posted the above. Ground Zero (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Ground Zero: Well, I can't tell you your feelings are wrong, but equally hours later I can't see anything in my comment which craps on your work, or even suggests that I thought you had done something bad. As you can see, the single line I wrote didn't even mention you. Additionally, when I made the comment, I wasn't aware of the cleanup work you had done, so not only was I not talking about your edits, I was not even thinking about you; as said earlier, I was simply agreeing with K7L, and arguing in favour of archiving from now on.

Therefore, you can understand that seeing your comment (from my perspective out of the blue) also felt pretty crappy, and still does.

For future reference, please bear in mind: I don't make veiled statements about other people or their work. I don't even talk about other people without mentioning (and pinging) them directly. I don't backbite, I don't make snide comments, and if I ever have a problem with you or anyone else's edits, I will tell you/them so directly. So, let me say this directly: (1) I have no problem with the edits you completed earlier today. (2) I personally like you, so this discussion, in addition to being surprising, is really not pleasant for me, as I'm sure it isn't for you. (3) If you are not mentioned in my comments, you are not involved or being referred to.

Can we chalk this up to a misunderstanding? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

TT, I am quite happy to chalk this up to a misunderstanding. I have a lot of respect for you as an editor and a member of the Wikivoyage community, so I am eager to move on from this. The statement that irked me was "There is no precedent and no consensus to simply start deleting ideas" since I had been deleting ideas in line with past practice. But I take at face value your comments about the statement not being about my edits and that you were not aware of my edits when you made this statement. Thank you for your reply, and I look forward to working with you again in Wikivoyage. Have a great week. Ground Zero (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that, GZ. You too. In future, I will make sure I fully understand the circumstances and precedence before opining. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Older requests

I think it can be a good idea to have some kind of expiry date for article requests. If a request has been sitting around here for several years, I think it can be archived, slushed or otherwise removed. Just my 2 cents. --ϒpsilon (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I too think that if we are to impose an expiry on old requests, then it would be arbitrarily unequal not to apply that expiry to present and future requests as well, otherwise the page will just become clogged full again within three or four years. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, I think the requests deadline should become general procedure, not a one-time thing. This would require maintenance in the same way DOTMs, COTMs, and Pub sweeping requires maintenance, but part of operating an open-source website is the continual cleanup involved. Not to re-open something already resolved, the above discussion has convinced me that outright deletion, or deletion of a request because an idea is a poor one, is not the way to handle an article requests. The best option in my opinion is, from now on, that any 2-year-old requests be put in the slush pile. Selfie City (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I'm going ahead and adding to the slush pile anything 2+ years old. Selfie City (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I strongly oppose such a move as there are many valid topic (such as museums, which redlinks) which have been on the list for years and which need to be created. Any reason why I should not revert until some consensus is reached first? K7L (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I think I agree with K7L – pruning the list to remove unworkable ideas or articles that have been created is good, but we shouldn't remove good suggestions just because no one has acted on them yet. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Sorry I did not see your requests until after I moved the old ones to the slush pile. I think it needs to recognized, however, that they're not really being removed, just moved to the slush pile, and someone who wants to create a new article can always go to the slush pile. Selfie City (talk) 02:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I support the two-year limit. If an idea sits around for two years and there are no takers, that's an indication of a lack of interest on the part of the community in starting such an article. Selfie City's full of these dead letters allows us to focus on ideas that have more chance of being addressed. The old ones remain in the slush pile for anyone who is interested. Ground Zero (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm neutral about the creation of a slush pile but concerned about its implementation. There are suggestions posted in 2017 that made their way onto the slush pile. Maybe going forward we should organise the requests by date? Perhaps in a table format where the first column is the article name, second column on type of article (destination and location/travel topic and type) and a third column adding further information comments. The columns can be sortable so you can always find out e.g. how many South American places or architecture articles are on the requested list at any point in time. Gizza ^(roam) 03:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It feels to me like we should distinguish between promising ideas that just haven't been created yet (like Museums, Massage, and Visa summary for U.S. citizens) and ideas that seem unworkable or difficult to act on (like German Reich or Cuisines of Africa). I realize it can be hard to tell what is or isn't workable, though. I don't feel strongly about it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not like the articles which are being archived are disappearing forever, so I really don't see the problem with this. If these are such good ideas, why hasn't anything been done about creating new articles? The "promising ideas" (that no-one has run with in several years) will all still be available to consult, just on a different page.

Would it help if, instead of being called the "Slush pile", which although used elsewhere kind of implies a page where rubbish ideas go to die, it was renamed the "Archive", organised by date and/or topic, and specifically pointed out from the main Request page, in large friendly letters, as a location of older requests which may still warrant attention? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

"Archive" also gives one the notion that it is for inactive or passed over ideas. I suggest "Older requests", so that we are not passing any judgement on them, just splitting requests into two groups. This is a name suggested by @Mx. Granger: in a discussion elsewhere. Ground Zero (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't help to rename the subpage, because the subpage (at least in the manner it is being misused by randomly dumping half of WV:RA there) should never have been created. The only reason I'd originally suggested "slushpile" is that some of these suggestions sidetrack into discussion (a proposal for Manhattan skyline ends up in discourse about which viewpoint is suitable, or a proposal for Orient Express becomes an endless litany of "but it takes three or four modern trains to retrace this, so why bother?"). The analogy would be the featured article nominations, where ideas which meet opposition are slushpiled. The date an idea was proposed tells us nothing; museums was proposed in April 2015, but the lack of an article on the topic remains a glaring omission today. I'd expect tour boats and some of the other long-time gaping holes in coverage have been noted for just as long. These need to remain and the mass-move of half the list to a "slushpile" (by whatever name) reverted. K7L (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I created the subpage because at the time there seemed to be consensus for it. If I added any requests that are more recent, or GZ did or anyone else, say so here and I will make sure they are put where they belong. And yes, I support the "slushpile", although I suggested to Granger earlier to change the name. Selfie City (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Consensus for what? Adding suggestions which had sidetracked into endless discussion to a "slushpile" (like nostalgia travel or pre-war German history) instead of deleting them outright is one thing, randomly slushing half of WV:RA is quite another. K7L (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Reverting now would be a big waste of time. We can continue discussing whether there should be one big list, or two lists, and if other editors come along to support restorationofone big list, then we can combine them then. So far, there seems be only one editor who supports one big list. So let's hold off on any reversion undltil it is clear what the community wants.

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘An "Older suggestions" list in no way side-tracks suggestions. They are still listed, and the articles can still be created. The older suggestions are the ones that bo-obe seems to think is worth their while working on. K7L could easily create a museums article by talking text from our sister project, Wikipedia, and adapting it for use in a travel guide. But s/he doesn't think it's worth his/her time. Fair enough. I think my time is better spent working on destination articles, so I haven't created it either. Grouping suggestions into "new ideas" and "ideas that no-one has been willing to take on for two years" helps editors decide what they want to focus on. But it does not in any way relegate the second group to the trash heap. Ground Zero (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Really? The only reason for sidelining requests to a "slushpile", by whatever name, is as a way to make them go away without having to justify outright deletion. It's intended to sidetrack and bury suggestions. There's no other reason to do this. K7L (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Anyone can look at the Older requests, and anyone can write the articles if they want to. Ground Zero (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

They could do that if the requests for museums, tour boats and the like were right here on this page. All a "slushpile" accomplishes is to put one more obstacle in the path by burying valid proposals. K7L (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the overlong list on this page is the obstacle, which is why we're talking about this in the first place. One more click can't hurt, otherwise you'd be arguing to phase out district and sub-region articles. Since we're not using the term anymore, your refrain of "slushpile" is starting to seem obstinate, especially while you're ascribing purpose to the archive ("intended to sidetrack and bury suggestions") that nobody in favour has avowed. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

A click away is no major hindrance, but certainly gives fewer eyes to those suggestions. And if K7L is like me, creating museums is not just copying some stuff from Wikipedia. One should think quite carefully about what such an article should contain to be useful, and have quite some grasp of the topic to be able to do that thinking well. I could of course write a stub any day, but to write something inspiring others to expand it, and have the outline show a viable direction for that expansion is quite an other thing. I do not want to create stub. When the right person passes by it is at most a 50 % chance he or she clicks the old suggestions link. Having a separate page for new suggestions mostly lets us, who are active, avoid looking up the suggestions as they turn up, or use the history, and still mostly notice the new suggestions. The question is which group we believe is more important. I suppose most of us regulars notice the suggestions by watchlist or recent changes, and more seldom scan the page for them. If the latter is common, then the length of the page may be a real problem, otherwise it isn't, as any section still is quite short. It is easier to find interesting ideas for itineraries if they are in one section on a single page, likewise for destinations in Taiwan or parks in Peru. --LPfi (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

If the article is too long I think that it would be better to split it by topic rather than archiving older requests (except older requests which have been opposed by other editors or are superseded by events). Maybe requests for places are more likely to be taken up on the talk page of relevant country (or expedition page if it exists). AlasdairW (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's an important point that hasn't been touched on much so far: if nobody's fulfilled the request in 2 years, then there's quite a high possibility that it's either not a good suggestion or cannot easily be developed into an article. I agree with TT and GZ on this issue: TT for the reasons he stated in the above comment and GZ for the good point that "[a]nyone can look at the Older requests". Also, hopefully by archiving old requests we can get more attention to Requested Articles and see the website grow. But this can only be done if we continue to archive old requests. This really does not seem difficult to me. If those who oppose would like, I can always make the link to the "Slushpile", as K7L still calls it, very prominent so more people view it. Selfie City (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The claim that "if nobody's fulfilled the request in 2 years, then there's quite a high possibility that it's either not a good suggestion or cannot easily be developed into an article" isn't so much something that "hasn't been touched upon"... it's a claim that's been trivially debunked, merely by reviewing that long list of articles that you've slushed and pointing out multiple items which still really need to be articles if WV is to be a complete and informative resource which serves the traveller. Glaring omissions from our coverage really do not improve with age. K7L (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You're really not making sense. How do you know that WV needs an article about "Museums". Is that really a good idea for a travel topic? Is it really one that we should have? It seems broad to me, but as I've already said on the other talk page, if you want to plunge forward and start the article, go ahead. It's interesting how you will spend a lot of time complaining that the request is misplaced when you could solve the issue completely just by clicking the following link: Museums. Selfie City (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

If the size of the list is hindering people from reading and using it properly, it might be better to split the page by type of article, that is, having a separate request page for destinations, travel topics and itineraries. FWIW we already have a separate requests page for phrasebooks so this will create consistency. Despite the list being shortened and split into two, neither the current requests or old requests page look clean and organised (probably because there are comments in between the suggestions). Gizza ^(roam) 02:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

In that case we will have a lot of articles just for requests. Also, I'm not really sure that neatness is important for something that wouldn't be expected to be neat. Selfie City (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

How do I know that Museums would be a reasonable article? Because I would read that. Because travelers visit museums. Because travel sites often have content about museums. Because real-world organizations such as the Museum Travel Alliance exist, and groups like that presumably wouldn't exist, if people didn't consider museums and travel to be related topics. Because, basically, I have either enough common sense and/or enough access to a web search engine to be able, with my best judgment, to figure out that museums are a valid travel topic.

On the bigger question: Why are you removing content from this page? What's your ultimate goal? Try the w:en:5 Whys method if you think you'll have trouble explaining it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't need any "5 whys" to know why I am doing it. I am doing this to keep the main page neater and up-to-date. You can also read the discussions if you like. If you do not agree with moving old requests to a separate page, say so, but sarcasm isn't the way to stop it. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, please see Wikivoyage:Tone, which states that sarcasm should be avoided. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, as I said to K7L: WhatamIdoing, if you think there should be an article about museums, you can always create the article. I made doing this very simple for K7L and he/she took no action. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Selfie City, I am not being sarcastic, nor ironic, nor any number of other words that people might use. To reduce the risk of further misunderstanding, I will be unusually blunt: I am genuinely trying to figure out why in Hell you thought blanking half this page was a good thing to do. You might not need to ask yourself why, but I do.

I have concluded from the page histories that you did think it was a good use of your time, and I can see that it has taken multiple hours. I have looked over the results and concluded that the goal probably wasn't to focus the page on the more important or popular requests, but I cannot figure out what positive outcome you were actually trying to achieve. I am still convinced that you wanted a positive outcome, and I'd be very happy if you explained what that was. (Why do I want you to explain? If I understood your desired goal, I might be able to help you achieve it.)

I've recommended the 5 Whys process because the only reason you'd given was that you personally thought the page was "really long". That's superficial statement, and I'd like you to dig deeper with that. Why should anyone even care if this page is (by your standards) "really long"? Here's how 5 Whys works:

1. Why do you want to blank half this page?
   • Because the page is really long, and blanking half of it will make it shorter.
2. Why do you want the page shorter?
   • Because making the page shorter will <next reason>.
3. Why do you want <next reason>?
   • Because <next reason> will (something).
4. Why do you want (something)?
   • Because (something) will ______
5. Why do you want _______?
   • Because _____ will...

Given that "make the page shorter" isn't a shared value, but keeping everything in one place is, you're definitely not done explaining why this is a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm on roaming right now, so I can't really participate in discussions, but when did SelfieCity ever "blank half the page"? As fas ad I can tell, s/he moved content from this page to another. Making false accusations about deleting content will make it far more difficult to resolve this dispute, and is disruptive behaviour. If SelfieCity has actually deleted content, it would be a different matter. Ground Zero (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, before I explain in more detail, it's noticeable that you are treating this as if it were an interrogation. It is not. So I hope in your next comment that you will explain, in five whys, why you are trying to make this an interrogation.

Now here are my reasons, using appropriate wording, instead of using inaccurate and inappropriate terms like "blanking half the page":

1. Why do I want to move 2+ year old suggestions to a separate page?
   • Because this page is really long, and moving half of the suggestions to an older page will clean up this one.
2. Why should the Requested articles page look cleaner?
   • For a start, people new to the website who see an immensely list of requests as long as the list of guide articles might not think much of WV (for example, they may think the page has been abandoned, or that there aren't enough contributors to fill the requests). Therefore, with a long and cluttered list we might turn away possible contributors, or remove some enthusiasm. In my opinion, we want to make this travel guide look as up-to-date, alive and thriving as possible, and keeping pages like requests at a good, neat length will help. @WhatamIdoing, K7L: are you actually interested in seeing WV thrive, or are you actually more interested in getting your way than doing what is in the best interests of WikiVoyage? (PS: I created the "slush pile" page because K7L moved some content here in the first place.)
     • This may not matter to anyone else, but you spent so much time answering my question (thank you!) and so you can have no possible doubt that I read this, I'm going to say that this is where your logic chain seems to fall apart. There are a lot of assumptions in this statement, and most of them are wrong or at least doubtful. For example, you assume that "people new to the website" usually see this page (they don't; newbies usually start at a destination article), that a visible need for contributions turns people away (exactly the opposite experience of the Wikipedias), that a long list is inherently discouraging (it probably isn't), and that shorter is neater/cleaner (it isn't. Neater is neater; shorter is shorter. We could have a short messy list or a long neat one). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Why should we try to get new contributors?
   • So Wikivoyage can grow and become more successful, as Wikipedia has done.
     • The English Wikipedia's "success" is killing it. WhatamIdoing (talk)
4. Why should Wikivoyage grow and become successful?
   • Why do you think I signed up?

Now, I'd like you, WhatamIdoing to answer some questions. You've got some explaining to do.

1. Why do we sweep the Travellers' pub?
   • Answer: Because we sweep things that we're finished with (NB: "completed", not "old"), which is not the same thing as sweeping things that still need to be handled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
2. Why do we do janitorial work?
   • The answer to this question depends upon what you count as "janitorial work". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
3. Why are you so strongly opposed to cleaning up this page, that you are willing to make false accusations to see the archiving get stopped?
   • I am unaware of making any false accusations. If you refer to whether reducing the page size from 79kb to 35 kb (a ~56% reduction) should be counted as "blanking half", I think that's a perfectly fair statement. You may prefer to call it "removing approximately half" or "archiving slightly more than half" or "moving 56% to a different page", but I think that "blanking half" is a fair description of what happened, from the viewpoint of any person who read the page in the two states. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
4. Why are you using the same offensive tone as K7L? Are you two sockpuppets or something?
   • I am trying to be perfectly clear. If you come from a high-context culture (the kind where people drop hints rather than telling you plainly what they mean), then I apologize for being uncharacteristically blunt. I have not found that dropping hints is an effective method of communicating my views to you, so I'm trying a new approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
5. Why do you care whether some requests have been moved to another page, which you can still reach by clicking a link? Why would it matter to you?
   • Because every click costs readers, so it's less likely to be read by anyone. Because archiving by date, when the content is not time-sensitive, makes us look disorganized. Because the audience for this page is not new editors, who do not start at this kind of page, so optimizing the page for your guess about what a newbie wants is wrong. Because we have research on what new editors want, and it's not a short list that shows how little is left to be done. Because, in other words, if your goal is encouraging new editors, your actions will not encourage them. It will not even be neutral. It will actual discourage them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Once you answer these questions, I will probably be more satisfied, but I doubt whether you will answer the questions.

If you take the above into consideration, thank you.

PS: Do I really need a reason for moving outdated content to an old requests page? (That's where your interrogating doesn't make sense.)

Yes, you do. No reason = random change. Randomness is not helpful. But in this case, you don't have "no reason"; you have a goal that will be actively harmed by your actions. Small effect size (=waste of your time) and negative results (=worse than a waste of your time). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

---Selfie City (talk | contributions) 14:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

There's often a substantial delay between the first suggestion that something is missing and the initial article creation. Yes, it could well be years. For instance, User:LtPowers created Finger Lakes Apple Country around the time of the WT/WV split in 2012 and seemed to think that some place named Oswego was worthy of at least a link, for whatever reason. There was no article on Oswego NY until mid-2014, two years later, leaving that link red. Does that mean that Oswego should not have been created, or that slushing the idea would get an article created any sooner? Discarding valid proposals isn't magically any more likely to attract contributors, cause Wikivoyage to grow and become successful or achieve any of the other stated grand objectives. More likely is the opposite outcome, where the project is the less because a gap in coverage never got filled.

To say that WV:RA would look prettier, just because the list is shorter, misses the point. WV:RA isn't intended to be a showcase of anything if that objective trumps its primary role: a handy list of suggestions for destinations and topics which currently lack an article, as a utility to serve editors and contributors. The goal is that suggestions become viable articles. Like a broom closet, it's utilitarian.

The question of whether one individual suggestion is viable has little to do with the question of when the idea was proposed. We only have a limited number of regular contributors turning WV:RA suggestions from ideas into usable articles. There is no deadline; if the underlying idea is weak (and some sidetrack from one-line WV:RA suggestions into lengthy discussions which were moved off WV:RA onto the appropriate article talk pages) that's one thing, but slushing valid ideas just because someone didn't get to them in obedient compliance with one user's arbitrary deadline? That's really doing nothing to get us closer to our objective, which is to write a travel guide. We remove suggestions as articles are created, where the suggestion is flawed or where a page created from the idea would have no chance of meeting Wikivoyage:What is an article? or our project's goals. Moving something off the list because the proposal itself is marginal is one thing, slushing half of WV:RA for no reason other than the date of the original proposal is arbitrary and is doing nothing to move this project closer to its goals. K7L (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

So what we disagree on is not whether we want new contributors, but whether keeping the page neat or keeping it functional is more important, and whether trying to tidy the page really has a positive effect on new contributors. And, if function is important, whether it is more functional if it shows just a small collection or the complete collection of requests.

I think being honest is a virtue. We do not have the manpower to fulfil valid requests in a timely manner. "Tidying" the page will hide this fact from some newcomers. Some newcomers will click the link to the older requests (more if it is shown prominently, fewer if it is hidden away). Those who find that page will see it filled with valid requests, more or less slushed (less if the link was prominently displayed). Now I conclude that making the page "tidy" can make a positive impression, but it may equally well give a bad impression.

Therefore I prefer not to play any game of impressions but choose the functionally best approach. Newcomers who see we work on functionality rather than in impression will appreciate that, at least if they are like me. So is there a functional argument for the change?

--LPfi (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

PS. What we are talking about is not "outdated" but old requests. Using words we agree on does help communication. On sv-wp many contributors do concentrate on the oldest deficiencies; we could very well leave the "outdated" requests on this page and put the rest in a queue, waiting for those to have been fulfilled or slushed. --LPfi (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

How about something like "Long-Awaited Requests". I think that we should try to find a term that gives the idea that these requests are just as important as recently added ones. This does mean that the list of Long-Awaited Requests should be reviewed occasionally to remove outdated requests (e.g. there is no need for an article on Morse Code any more). AlasdairW (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Historical travel and nostalgia are perfectly valid topics. Quite a few articles (or article proposals) might validly touch briefly on Morse Code; heritage rail, rail museums, ocean liners, marine museums, military history, Titanic cities and amateur radio (insofar as they relate to travel, become a reason to travel, or appear in museums which attract the voyager). The history of Cape Race would be woefully incomplete without mention of its historic rôle as first point of radiotelegraph contact for trans-Atlantic crossings of yesteryear; the same could be said for Marconi's experimentation at Signal Hill in St. John's. Renaming "slushpile" to "old requests" to "long-awaited requests" misses the point; namely, there's nothing which inherently makes a request made two years ago (or a request for a topic that relates to historical travel) any less valid than any other request. A weak or marginal request might be made today, while a valid request which has languished for years might be slushed. I'd prefer to reserve the slushpile for proposals which sidetrack into discussion which ends with no consensus as to whether the article is worth creating. The date a proposal was made tells us nothing. K7L (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The way that you communicate that a request from 2015 and a request from 2018 are equally important is that you keep them on the same page. You make them actually, visibly equal.

As I have said above, Selfie's assumptions about the audience for the page and the effect of a shorter list are both wrong – a very reasonable first guess, but the facts happen to go the other way. This page will be most functional if "learners" (not "brand-new editors", who don't typically end up here) and more experienced editors can look through it, have that "Hey, I can write an article about that place!" moment, or at least recognize that there's still a lot to be done around here. It is not optimally functional if people look through it and think "Ho hum, so few things here – I guess that just about everything's already been covered". If 50% of the content is on another page, then we have halved our chances of having that desirable moment when someone looks at this page.

If the page becomes too long (e.g., it's hard to load on mobile devices), then we can split it, but the split should be content-based rather than time-based. Dividing up between destinations and non-destinations could make a lot of sense. Dividing destinations according to continent/region could work. But the content is not date-oriented, so it makes no sense to split by the date of original request.

I'd like to be explicit about the costs of having a (any) second page. Every click costs readers. If you split a news article across two pages, 80 to 90 percent of the people who actually read (not just clicked on) the first page of an article will not open the second page. During the three months before this dispute started, we were averaging about 19 page views per day. That means we could reasonably expect to get about three people looking at the new one (once this dispute fades away, excluding bots and spiders, and assuming things like the new one not being separately advertised). IMO that is a substantial cost, and I would prefer to avoid it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I've just checked the page views. In the last 10 days, the slushpile/archive/older requests page has gotten just one page view for every 14 page views on the main/newer requests page. That's 7% of the attention towards long-standing requests of approximately equal value. This trend is unlikely to change.

Can we merge these back together now, so that people looking for requests will see all of the requests (or at least all requests of a given type)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

My biggest concern with the original split was that many suggested articles that were added in 2017 have ended up in the slushpile. I agree that if the requests page has to be split, splitting it by content (destinations, phrasebooks, travel topic, itineraries) is better. Gizza ^(roam) 03:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

If you want to revert, go ahead. But don’t expect me to help you. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Done. K7L (talk) 05:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

WV:Requested articles

Swept in from the pub

A user is now edit-warring Wikivoyage:Requested articles to systematically remove (or slushpile) all suggestions which were made two years ago. I believe there is no consensus to do this and it is doing more harm than good to the project, as burying valid ideas actually reduces the chance of the articles being created.

I have already raised the issue on Wikivoyage talk:Requested articles, only for my concerns to be pointedly ignored. Could anyone who hasn't been following this please take a look at Wikivoyage talk:Requested articles and the associated subpages? I'd like a second opinion on this. Thanks. K7L (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Prove to me where a user is edit warring. Also, you know where this discussion belongs, so again please watch your tone. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

K7L, you are trying to make out that you are unbiased and unreasonable. However, the opposite is the case. You have been continually hostile to the "slushpile" idea (as you call it and no-one else does) for article requests. Go to Wikivoyage:Requested articles/Old requests, it is clear who was going against consensus. When Granger voiced objections to the creation of the new page but without seeing the objections I went ahead and made the change, I apologized for not seeing those late objections (late not in a bad way, you understand), and then we agreed to change the name of the page. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"No-one else", except maybe you, many times? If you're unhappy about the name, then please go back to the discussion on that talk page and propose a better one. If you're unhappy about the fact that suggested articles are still visible, instead of being buried in history, then please don't complain about trivialities like the name of the archive, and instead see whether the Wikivoyage:Deletion policy would realistically permit these ideas for articles to be deleted.

(Everyone else: A w:en:Slush pile is publishing jargon. Usually, publishing interns look through it when they're bored, to see if anything interesting is lost in it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I am happy to hear any objections to this whole thing, but please keep them reasonable. Ground Zero, I am happy to hear your comment on the latest developments in the situation, along with other users (including those who disagreed with the idea in the first place). --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 19:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: it was originally called a slush pile, but then the name was changed to "old requests". I called it that before the name was changed, while K7L is still calling it a slush pile despite the name change. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, no, I do not want to see these ideas removed. Also I am not unhappy about the current name. What bothers me is how K7L refuses to reasonably object and instead forces his/her views upon everyone else until everyone else gives in. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 20:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Sorry that I keep making one comment after another, but I think this is an important part of the issue here @WhatamIdoing, K7L: K7L was the person who created what they called the slushpile. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with K7L. A "requested article" that was suggested five years ago is no less likely to be taken up on than one that's was suggested five days ago. There's no reason to archive or slush old entries, and any that were ought to be de-archived or de-slushed or whatever word you want to use. In fact, if anything, the ones that have been outstanding longer ought to be more visible than the newer ones. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

What's clear now is that there never was consensus to archive old requests as I assumed. In that case, we can always go back to the old method, where everything was on one page, or we can divide up the requests into categories as I believe Gizza suggested.

See, I am not opposed to reverting my work on this; what I resent is the use of words like "edit war" when they are untrue accusations. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 21:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

After spending a few minutes reading through the discussion about the capitalization of "Travellers' Pub" or whatever, and some thinking about this, and I really think this is one of those situations where it really doesn't matter: by adding the change, all it means is one more click to see older requests. As it is, I have to continually wait here for the latest commentary on the situation. Honestly, I don't care anymore whether we keep an older requests page or not ... yes, K7L, I guess we could say you've won. It's always tempting not to contribute and just talk, and these types of discussions, with accusations, etc., are the worst sort. I'll quote an AndreCarrotflower statement from back in 2013 when the capitalization of this page was fiercely debated over:

"I feel the need to be very careful in how I word this comment. But frankly, it needs to be said. This is a problem that's been playing itself out over and over again since the migration. And it's been getting worse, not better, over time. The problem I am talking about is that people - more than one person; probably a majority of us who have been active in policy discussions lately, myself included - have, in discussions like this, been so gung-ho about advocating for their individual vision of how Wikivoyage should be that they've been completely deaf to others' concerns. We've been so busy talking about why we should absolutely change something, or absolutely not change something, that we've been unable to listen to alternative points of view which may be quite valid ... What I want from Wikivoyage—far more than a place where the Village Pump equivalent is called the Traveller's Pub rather than just the Pub, far more than a place where getting someone's permission before nominating them for administrative duties is a hard-and-fast rule rather than just a custom, far more than (insert reference to recent molehill-made-mountain here)—is a place where I can write about Buffalo without having to worry about too much. I think most people here feel the same way about their respective writing projects."

I would significantly prefer removing the "old requests" page and restoring the situation before all this debate rather than have this whole discussion escalate and perhaps end at the user bans page or something of that nature. Hopefully this will be my final comment on a thread that never should have been in the — should I write "pub" or Pub? ;) — in the first place. --- Selfie City (talk | contributions) 00:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Requesting destinations?

Swept in from the pub

Hello, I'm new. Could I request some destinations?

Ideas.

Canaan

Swanville

others... if u want me to create any new ones let me know. thanks. Jukkohiss (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

You might want to look at Wikivoyage:Requested articles. --LPfi (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

WV:Requested article expansions page

Swept in from the pub

I had a thought for a new Wikivoyage page idea. While most of our articles are still not at the ideal star status, a page similar to Wikivoyage:Requested articles would be useful for pointing out particularly poor pages on this website (e.g. outlines or usable articles that should be better) that need improvement and do not match the requirements for a cotm nomination — for example, they need more originally-written content. If the page requested for expansion reached guide status, we could then remove it from the list. Just a thought for a new page; what do others think of this idea? When one of us isn't sure what page to work on, it could provide more ideas. Also, to clarify in relation to the Requested articles debate, I wouldn't propose archiving/slushing old ideas.

Such a page wouldn't be harmful but at the same time help us focus on the poorest of our articles. Perhaps it would be more effective than COTMs. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 21:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The star to all article ratio will always be a rounding error. I would guess most editors work on locations they're already familiar with. If someone is looking for work, try recommending articles like NYC, London, or Paris. Super destinations like these probably capture the majority of traveller interest, so we should strive to make our versions "the best". Good luck! --ButteBag (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

My idea is something more along the lines of WV:RA, but for stubby outlines, etc., including travel topics. What do you think? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 17:02, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd rather see people make such requests here (more people will see it) or on the article's talk page (anyone watching the page will see it), instead of on another page. Extra pages and "structure" means that we could spend more time maintaining the mess than improving articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

See Wikivoyage:World cities/Large for one list of the most important cities, including some info on which get the most visitors. See its parent article for a longer & less detailed list. Pashley (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• In response to WhatamIdoing, I see your point. The more of those types of pages we have, the more work is required. This is a good place to bring up such information. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto

i want to request this being made somehow into a travel guide. like where to find gta memormeilla etc. Baozon90 (talk) 00:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Philippine languages

There are not yet Ivatan phrasebook, Pangasinan phrasebook, & Kapampangan phrasebook. Mayon V (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

These should be listed at Wikivoyage:Requests for phrasebooks, if relevant (I don't know the languages). --LPfi (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Airports

There has appeared a large number of airport article requests. I think they should be considered and justified according to the discussion at Airport Expedition. @AdamT777: Not all airports of capitals or big cities are relevant for own pages. I suppose most airports of capitals have connecting flights, but some of them may be small, and those serving a huge metropolitan area may be less important as hub, if there are other bigger airports nearby. --LPfi (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@LPfi: This was discussed at User talk:AdamT777. --Comment by Selfie City (talk | contributions) 11:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Cuisines of Africa

[from Special:Permalink/4494960#Eat/Drink, removed as "removing Cuisines of Africa per discussion. suggestion strikes as ethnocentrism and there is no such thing as 'African cuisine']

---

• Cuisines of Africa

Way too broad a topic and almost smacks of ethnocentrism to me. Would you suggest a "Cuisines of Asia" or "Cuisines of Europe" article? Africa is a vast continent with great variety. What would hold this kind of article together? Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia describes Wikipedia:African cuisine by sub-region. Probably the North African cuisine, West African cuisine, East African cuisine and Southern African cuisine would be useful articles. /Yvwv (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This entry strikes me as blatant ethnocentrism and was probably suggested by someone (I don't know who and I wasn't bothered to check who it was) who only knew Africa based on stereotypes and generalisations, treating it like one country instead of 54. Any objections before I remove it? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 03:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The article would more or less be a disambiguation page. The regional articles could be on travel areas and likewise point to real cuisines of the area. I don't think the problem is 1 vs 54 countries – I assume few African countries have one cuisine, as the borders were drawn by ruler, not according to ethnicities. I think the articles should be started by cuisine and the disambiguation or summary/pointer articles created only when there is enough content to point to. Anyway, I think it is better to have this discussion here than removing the entry and having it reinstated by somebody else thinking along similar lines as the original bullet creator. –LPfi (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a disambiguation page would make sense. Someday, if we have articles for a bunch of different African cuisines, someone might decide it makes sense to have a template that shows all such articles, like the one that exists for European cuisines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

---

I think I wrote another answer, but seemingly I never posted it. Or has this discussion been also elsewhere? I remember arguments that don't appear above. The article might not make sense before there are actual articles on different cuisines, but I still think the entry shouldn't be hidden in the history. Leaving it on the talk page or in the archive at least allowing it to be found by a search.

I also still think that arguments can be made for the article along other lines than those of ethnocentrism and ignorance. Let's return when when somebody has an idea of what the article could be like, and some individual cuisines are described in country Eat sections or separate articles. I don't think a template is the ideal format.

–LPfi (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Your other answer was probably at Talk:African national parks, but we don't have a cuisines of Africa article, and we won't ever have it because it's way too broad, and it's simply nonexistent (not in the sense that it doesn't exist, but because there is no single cuisine or food for that matter that's eaten throughout the continent. Would we ever have a European cuisines or an Oceanian cuisines article? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah! That's why I didn't find it. Thanks. And as I said there (correspondingly), I could imagine European cuisines. Cf. Europe#Eat, which discusses regional and country-specific cuisines and includes links to articles on them. The section could be expanded and made an article. But I am not qualified to write that article on Africa, and no one here might be. Until we have some good regional guides, I won't recommend creating the page. –LPfi (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

All-terrain vehicles

@LPfi: I removed All-terrain vehicles because they are equipment. Offroad driving is the travel-related activity that uses them. To me, it makes sense that a Wikivoyage article would focus on the travel activity, and not on the machinery. We don't have articles on models of airplanes or cars or railway rolling stock, and we shouldn't. Ground Zero (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

OK. Then, of course, "ATVing" is an activity (or mode of transport) like cross-country skiing is, and different enough that Offroad driving helps little in its current shape. Anyway, I'll add the request at that article's talk page instead. –LPfi (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Article suggestion

Swept in from the pub

If anyone is up to the task of writing it, I think a Canada without a car article will be a good one to have, along the lines of the United States without a car and Australia without a car. I've never lived in Canada, but based on my visits there. Canada is also a very car dependent country. And it seems that Canada's famed national parks are very hard to explore without a car. If anyone knows if any of them can be explored without a car, that information will certainly be useful. The dog2 (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This looks like a viable topic. Perhaps some of these webpages would inspire someone to create it:

• https://www.clevercanadian.ca/best-places-to-visit-without-a-car-in-canada/
• https://newcanadianlife.com/the-10-best-places-to-visit-in-canada-without-a-car/
• https://www.aaa.com/tripcanvas/article/10-awesome-things-to-do-in-vancouver-without-a-car-CM57
• https://endlesswonder.ca/destinations/north-america/canada/alberta/canadian-rockies-without-a-car-banff-jasper/
• https://thebanffblog.com/banff-without-a-car/

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Re alternative transport. Brycehughes (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, from experience the Vancouver metro area is easy to get around without a car, but I needed to rely on one of my mum's friends in rural BC. A guide like this would be very helpful for many travellers. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Because of overcrowding at the parking lots, Banff National Park has shuttle buses to get people around, but other parks are difficult to access. Park Bus has sporadic trips from Toronto to ten parks in summer. Rouge Park is a national park in Toronto, accessible by city bus. Ground Zero (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)