Talk:Chora (Greece)

Merger

• Support - the article doesn't even tells us what Chora is. As far as I can tell, it is a hilltop, which is something that isn't an article. Much of the text is filler that doesn't inform the reader. Ground Zero (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. well, it's located in Alonissos island. That's about the only useful information to be found here. I'm not sure wether we should bother trying to insert such promotional fluff in the island's article.Ibaman (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Really, people? It took me ten seconds on Google to find this. Chora is not merely "a hilltop", it's a village, and in fact the ancient capital of Alonissos. Furthermore, reading through the text it becomes clear that the article would pass Ypsilon's three-listing test that's been recently discussed at the pub: there are several old Byzantine churches, a walled Old Town, "a lovely traditional cafe offering excellent Greek sweets", and that's just what popped out upon skimming the article quickly. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • but the point is it does not at the moment have listings and the island Alonissos only has 4 sleep listings, spread over 3 other villages. Should there really be 5 articles with just a few lines of information in each of them or one reasonable sized article about the island, until a later point when someone writes more information on the area? ( oh and yes I did see where the village is when doing last months geo cotm). --Traveler100 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• I stand corrected on the issue of merging. Having said that, this article's prose is really not much that useful. Ibaman (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• Reading over the article again, it still provides very little information to the traveller. Expanding the article is the most effective way of shutting down a merger discussion. Adding to the article that there are several old Byzantine churches, a walled Old Town, and "a lovely traditional cafe offering excellent Greek sweets" would do that. Mentioning them on the talk page following a sarcastic snipe at other editors doesn't build a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Expand the article would be the the best solution but then change the island to a region article. Then what of the other villages on the island? --Traveler100 (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Ground Zero, I'm not sure what you mean by "sarcastic snipe[s] at other editors". If I'm reading your meaning correctly: I admit that I can be overly opinionated sometimes, and it's no secret that I feel differently from certain other editors about certain issues. I'm trying to do my part by modulating my tone, even if after the fact. I'd appreciate it you would meet me halfway by disregarding comments I make and later edit. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I was referring to "Really, people? It took me ten seconds...." I would, of course, not bring up something that was later edited. That would be tiresome and rude. Ground Zero (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Well in that case, I don't think those comments were an unreasonable way to express the frustration I feel with the fact that there's a clear pattern of users crusading for article mergers and adding merge tags to new articles, despite the fact that existing policy says skeleton articles are not problematic, and there's no clear consensus in the recent discussion where some have proposed otherwise, and they've already been urged to stop trying to force the issue. Status quo bias in the absence of consensus behind a proposed change in policy is just as binding as any other policy on this site. And to be honest - and maybe the rest of my comment would be better placed in the pub, but for the sake of continuity I'm going to continue here - but to be honest, slapping a merge tag on an article seems like taking the lazy way out. I think one element that's been missing from the ongoing policy discussion at the pub is the fact that getting an article to a place where its existence can be justified actually requires very little time and effort. Estimating liberally, it took me about half an hour of work to elevate Randolph (New York) from non-existent to Usable, and that's a situation where I took special care to craft good prose and be as complete as possible. Even if you multiply that by four villages on Alonissos, you still have a very easy fix that, more importantly, adds content - and I don't think there's any better way to put the traveller first than by doing that. In my opinion, no one has any business adding a merge tag to an article without at least trying to find content to add first. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Undecided Per Google Maps, the town definitely has enough potential POIs to merit its own article, though as of now the article isn't very informative. If the island would be smaller, I think it would be best to have everything in one article though now I'm not sure. --ϒpsilon (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Comment. AFAIK, Chora (or alternatively Hora) means "village" or "countryside" in Greek, and is often colloquially used to denote the main town/major harbour of any Greek island (as mentioned here in the last paragraph). So in any case Chora (Greece) with the country name as the disambiguator is meaningless as there should perhaps be hundreds of Choras in Greece. Vidimian (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
• This article was imported in Sept 2008, so it has been around for 9½ years without finding anyone willing to improve this article, so it is better to merge it and remove the content that duplicates the Alonissos article or is just filler, rather than leave this useless article sitting here for another decade. Ground Zero (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)