Talk:Kalwa

Article to be merged?

User:Soumya-8974 has just recently made some unilateral changes to this article by merging it without discussion. Does anyone think this should be merged or not? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I will put my reason for my unilateral change here for other editors. The Kalwa city article does not have any attractions or activities, as they have in average destination articles. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

There is one 'See' listing, though it's not clear what that's supposed to be. If there's not much more to add, then by sheer proximity, this article should be merged and redirected to Thane. But if it's just the case of an underdeveloped article with more to be added, then it should be kept separate.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

there's more content I see on google maps SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, by "merge and redirect", I mean to the main Thane article. Thane isn't a huge city, so can't be divided into districts.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, sure. But for the clarification (Soumya-8974), this is consensus and what you did earlier is not. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 10:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Although this does have a fair bit of information in the understand and get in. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 12:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

On Google maps, Kalwa really does look a suburb of Thane -- you could walk across a bridge to get to Kalwa from Thane. The Get in information in this article mostly describes how to get to Kakwa from Mumbsi via Thane, so it is repeating information from the Thane article, and could be merged into Thane with no loss of useful info. The fact that w:Kalwa article is so sparse is a good indication that Kalwa really isn't a separate destination. I agree with User:Soumya-8974 on merging and redirecting this. Ground Zero (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Deleting or redirecting cities without attractions or activities?

Swept in from the pub

I am wondering whether city articles without attractions or activities should be deleted or redirected to a more populous city. I unilaterally redirected Kalwa to Thane since Kalwa don't have any attractions or activities listed under "See" or "Do" respectively. However, the edit was since been reverted. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that SHB2000 has created a discussion at Talk:Kalwa whether Kalwa should be merged to Thane. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you made some unilateral changes, without discussing on the article's talk page. If there's consensus then yes, it may - but first seek consensus. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 08:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I have been stuck with Wikipedia for three years without having major edits in Wikivoyage. Therefore, I am not well aware about the editorial conduct of this project. Anyway, I understand that virtually everything requires consensus in Wikivoyage. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Everything requires consensus on all Wikimedia Projects. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 09:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I have unilaterally redirected some stub articles where there is little reason to believe that the article can be developed into something useful for travellers. I don't think that active Wikipedia editors should have their work directed by a random passer-by who creates an empty stub. And I think the empty stub are frustrating to readers. Someone who clicks on a link from Wikipedia and finds a stub article on Wikivoyage is less likely to bother with Wikivoyage again.

I think redirects from articles with no information are not contentious, and don't need discussion. (In these cases, I leave the existing structure in the articles but use "<!-- text -->" to comment it out.)

In this case, there was a fair bit of text in the article that User:Soumya-8974 redirected, so I think that User:SHB2000's approach of making the article useful by finding some points on interest was the better one. Ground Zero (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I've also done this, but this had a fair bit of text in the understand and get in bit, so this needs discussion SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

An older discussion covers some of these issues. Pashley (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

these aren't empty, it has information in the understand and the get in section SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

That's an interesting discussion, Pashley, but much of it deals with page creation vandalism and with the delete/redirect debate. I think we're pretty settled on "don't delete real places". I would be interested to know what people think about Uruma, created a week ago. I will contact the creator to ask if they are going to add anything, but as it stands, it is of no use to a traveller, who would be better off with a redirect to Okinawa Island until someone decides to create an article about this place. Ground Zero (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

we did delete the french teachers unused articles, even though they were real places SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 11:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Regardless, you don't have to build a consensus for uncontroversial edits. Some understanding of whether a an edit is controversial is needed before doing massive changes, such as redirecting tens of articles, for an isolated one there is more trouble participating in the discussion than just reverting the controversial edit with a suitable comment. We have the Plunge forward guideline, just as Wikipedia has Be brave; Be brave–revert–discuss is good practice. –LPfi (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I tend to trust Soumya-8974's local knowledge and defer to him on these kinds of matters, but Soumya-8974, I think that in situations that seem unlikely to be controversial, you can smooth out any ruffled feathers more effectively by posting on the relevant article's talk page, stating why you redirected it and that you thought this wouldn't be controversial but that if anyone disagreed, they could revert the redirect and start a discussion about it in that thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Soumya-8974's reasoning is that there weren't any see or do. Obviously looking at google maps shows that there are SHB2000 (talk | contribs | en.wikipedia) 21:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

But none of them in See or Do. Whether an outline article should stay there as such or wait as a redirect (perhaps with content commented out as suggested above – if there is valuable content the solution sounds better than just redirecting) is a judgement call. Is this a place likely to attract visitors, who'd benefit from the article as is and who might add the attractions, or is it better to have it as redirect not to disappoint readers until somebody decides to make the article "usable" (starting by uncommenting the hidden outline)? –LPfi (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

For clarity, Wikivoyage:Plunge forward is a policy here, and if you think that an edit is uncontroversial, then we don't expect you to start a discussion first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)