Talk:Frankenstein

Is this a travel article?

If there are no sites associated with Frankenstein that readers can visit, why do we have an article on Frankenstein in a travel guide? We have several sites that fans of Dracula can visit, so that article makes sense, but not this one. Ground Zero (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

there are sites, Ingolstadt for example is shilling itself as its hometown and offering themed tours and if you had done the due diligence of looking at the article history, you'd know that it was once a redirect to a different place altogether. [---] Hobbitschuster (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Unlike the Dracula article that you created, which provides information about specific sites to visit, this article does not provide any information to the reader about how to find a tour in Ingolstadt. If the article did provide information about such tours, then it would start to look like a travel article. When I made this comment, it provided no information about any other place. Ground Zero (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

With regard to the Villa Diodati listing that was added later, the contributor didn't bother to inform readers what city or country the villa is in. I think Good Reads is a better website for posting plot summaries. Wikivoyage should stick to being a travel guide. Ground Zero (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hobbitschuster started contributing to this article on 5 May, two weeks ago. I think we should give him time to work on it before complaining. For itineraries we have the one-year rule. I suppose we can allow a year for this article also, and then return to the issues, if any remain. –LPfi (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

A lot of editors start out with good intentions, and then leave the work of making an article into a travel article to "someone else". Wikivoyage ends up the worse for it. (Copying blocks of text from another language Wikivoyage without bothering to translate it is another example of this behaviour.) I think a year is a long time for Wikivoyage to host something that isn't a travel article. A month seems like a reasonable time for someone to build up an article, I think. Ground Zero (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's something that I rend to do a lot. But I've realised that and am tryin' to upgrade my outlines to usables. Especially Horsham (Victoria). But once it's unimproved for a year, I'd go erh, is this worth having? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Horsham is a real place, and you've listed places to see, at which to eat, and n which to sleep, with addresses and phone numbers, so yes, it is a travel article. Ground Zero (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

But I do have the bad habit of starting articles, and leaving it to someone else. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we want to encourage people to write plot summaries of books and leave the work of creating a travel article to other editors. I think it is reasonable to ask people who create fiction tourism articles to do some of the work by finding places linked to the book and providing useful travel information about them. Otherwise, it's just a Good Reads entry. Ground Zero (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I;ve now demoted this from outline to stub, as it lacks a skeleton. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Still, let's leave this thread for now, contribute to content instead, and take a look after a month or two. –LPfi (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You happy now? The redirect already existed and I just decided that "this should not be a redirect". Unlike the Dracula article, I at the time did not have the energy and nerve to write a full list of destinations at the time. That happens sometimes. We are all just unpaid volunteers, And I'd much prefer not to have some backseat driver Monday-morning quarterbacking harmless stuff I do. We done yet? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Now that you have added some practical travel information, yes, it is a travel article. It is absolutely fair to ask if an article is appropriate for Wikivoyage. After all, it sat untouched for over two weeks. It is not like I jumped in the day after you created it. Of course we are all unpaid volunteers, and that it is why creating a non-travel article and expecting others to populate it with travel information is not on. Ground Zero (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Who died and made you king? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Stop it, both of you! –LPfi (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's actually get into doing articles about real places (like what GZ is doing), and not something like this. As far as I can tell, this has gone further than the litter bin debacle. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Travel topics are legitimate. Besides, both of these folks have spent plenty of time working on destination articles. We're all volunteers and can do what we want within Wikivoyage policy and guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I need your help with Frankenstein

Swept in from the pub

Can you assemble various parts and the divine spark to make this creature walk? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Move to Frankenstein tourism?

As per Harry Potter tourism, James Bond tourism etc. /Yvwv (talk) 13:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)