Talk:ASEAN

Extra-hierarchical region? Travel topic?
Which is it? As a region article it basically duplicates Southeast Asia with the additional mention of Papua New Guinea. But it's starting to be written more like a travel topic, and it's purpose seems more aimed in that direction. Can we change this to a topic article? Texugo (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * just to take this a bit further, what is the point of this article at all? It has no practical travel implications. There are a lot of such economic partnership regions in the world but they belong in wp and not wv (with the exception of the eu) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, you're right. Shouldn't anything relevant be covered at Southeast Asia anyway, since it basically involves the whole region? Then this should just be a redirect there. Texugo (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree, we don't have a separate article on Schengen Agreement nor GCC, then why ASEAN? --Saqib (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Nor MERCOSUR nor NAFTA, so... Pashley, can we move this stuff to Southeast Asia and redirect there? Texugo (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I found an ASEAN link while checking for useless redirects with WT attribution to delete. Just deleting and leaving nothing did not seem right since there were several links to it. Nor did leaving it as it was. I'd also be strongly opposed to turning it into a redirect again.


 * I therefore deleted & recreated as an extra-hierarchical region, which I think is the right thing. I cannot see it as a travel topic. There are practical travel implications, e.g. the cheap flights within the region.


 * See Wikivoyage_talk:Search_Expedition for an argument that we should have many more articles like this. An article on the Schengen Agreement strikes me as a fine suggestion. Pashley (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * But it's hardly a separate thing from Southeast Asia itself - it includes all of it except tiny East Timor so any truly traveller-relevant information needs to go there, and does not need to be repeated again in a separate article. There is virtually nothing you can say about ASEAN that doesn't also belong at Southeast Asia, hence a separate article would only increase a traveller's chance of not coming across the info, or else needlessly duplicate info, something we always try to avoid. Texugo (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ASEAN is evolving. It is likely to soon include Papua New Guinea, outside our SEA region. With proper linking, I do not think there is much danger of travellers who need it missing important info.
 * A limited amount of duplication is fine; e.g. any of our half dozen "Low-cost airlines in ..." articles partly duplicate "...#Get in" and there is overlap between the Europe and European Union articles but I'd say we should keep both and consider adding a Schengen article. Pashley (talk)


 * I'm sorry, I don't agree. ASEAN is not a region but an economic agreement. The degree to which is relevant to the traveller is very limited and the amount of pertinent text we need to provide is smaller and less important that even than what we provide for the Schengen Agreement - which, by the way, does not get its own article because the entirety of the text is already duplicated boilerplate style in all relevant articles by Template:Schengen, perhaps the only similar case where we actually decided this type of duplication is necessary in order to avoid the danger of letting the info in different articles get out of sync, etc.. At the very very very most, I could see doing something like that here if the info is important enough. But though it happens to describe a relatively contiguous area, it's still an economic agreement, same as G-3, same as NAFTA, same as the Pacific Alliance, same as the SADC or any number of other things. But as it stands, economic agreements do not fit under What is an article? unless there would truly be enough travel-related material to constitute a travel topic, which I do not think to be the case here. Texugo (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We seem to have a pretty basic disagreement here. To me, it seems obvious we should keep this article and, moreover, we should be looking hard for opportunities to create more like it for SEO reasons (Wikivoyage_talk:Search_Expedition).


 * I have added something at Requests for comment seeking other opinions. Pashley (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * To tell you the truth, I don't even see anything in the article as it is that is truly information that a traveller would need to know, or even that it would be helpful for a traveller to know. It says that it "affects travellers" but this is only in a very behind-the-scenes, indirect way, obscurely affecting prices as the NASDAQ or any number of other factors might. It even admits that no ASEAN travel area exists. All this talk about trade and development, politics, import duties, member countries, and bilateral talks seems really to be just non-travel-related trivia. How is a traveller supposed to benefit from this info in a way that makes it merit its own article? Texugo (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree the effect on travelers seems indirect, but I'm also not too bothered by keeping it around if it's a plausible search term. It's definitely a travel topic, though, not an extra-hierarchical region.  Powers (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As a search term, a redirect suffices - Powers, do you see a reason to keep it as a separate article rather than covering it at Southeast Asia and redirecting there, as we do with Schengen Agreement? Texugo (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Texugo. This search term should simply redirect to Southeast Asia. What's next, an OAS article and an Arab League article? This is an encyclopedic topic that doesn't have practical application for traveling. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I know that improving our SOE situation is a good thing, although I don't think adding non-travel related topics is the way to go. Agreements about budget airline travel also do not relate in any direct way to the traveler. (awesome that budget flights exist, but we don't discuss the political background as to how the prices were set or the routes allocated)
 * I would also urge redirecting to South East Asia and perhaps adding some description text in that article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm indifferent. If I were doing it, I'd cover the details in the Southeast Asia article, along with Papua New Guinea at the appropriate time.  Powers (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Having come to this one late - I agree with Texugo - there is no valid reason for it on voyage and Ikan Kekeks comments sats (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The issue here is broader than one article, so I am trying to start a broader discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article%3F. Pashley (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge
Based on the discussion above, I propose to Merge this article's (travel relevant) content into Southeast Asia and Redirect to Southeast Asia Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure, whatever is actually relevant and not encyclopedic in character. I'm not sure how much will remain. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, oppose. I seem to be alone in that, though. Pashley (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Vfd
ASEAN is an economic forum for south east Asia. It is not a region in any practical sense and there are no travel considerations at all between ASEAN members, nor will there likely be in the foreseeable future.


 * Delete Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Southeast Asia. That is the intuitive solution, and even when Papua New Guinea joins, it is still the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Southeast Asia per Ikan's argument. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. See previous discussion both on the article talk page and at Wikivoyage_talk:What_is_an_article%3F.


 * It does affect travel. The open skies aspect already has large effects on the cheap flights; SE Asia is one of the best areas on Earth for those.


 * The one-visa travel area like Schengen is coming; see ASEAN Single Visa and The Impact of Visa Facilitation. All but Myanmar already have visa-free travel for each other's citizens & Myanmar is expected to complete the process this year. They are working on a common visa for outsiders. Pashley (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The one-visa travel area is not coming. It is a very long term aspiration at best. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Southeast Asia. As discussed there, any effect on flight prices is far behind the scenes like many other economic organizations for which we do not have an article, and with regard to visas, even if there were a currently active program, we would cover it at Southeast Asia, just as the Schengen Agreement is covered in the Europe article instead of a separate article. This is a merely economic organization that is barely tangential to our scope and anything we might need to say about it can be covered succinctly at Southeast Asia. Texugo (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

1. The user is looking up information about the Association itself. That would be suited to a Wikipedia search and is outside of our scope. As such, a redirect to Southeast Asia would be a waste of the user's time. 2. The user is actually looking up information about ASEAN's affects on travel. In this case, we really need to make sure that our Southeast Asia article covers it sufficiently to warrant a redirect and I would suggest if we take Texugo's suggestion, the merge go directly to the Understand section (or to the ASEAN subheading if it had its own). Otherwise we run into the same issue as #1. We will annoy users by providing a redirect that does NOT actually have information (or satisfactory information) about the search topic. It'd be like redirecting NRA to United States or Songhai Empire to West Africa. Deceptive and aggravating for the user. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still not certain that a redirect makes sense. Yes, the organization deals with Southeast Asia, but when we think about redirects, I think we also need to think about them from the standpoint of someone who types this into a search engine. For ASEAN, I see two scenarios:


 * ASEAN is also a region. When I was in Malaysia, politicians and the media frequently talked about the ASEAN nations. Ignoring the possibility that someone on a travel website is searching for ASEAN in order to look at coverage of constituent nations (and, therefore, Southeast Asia) is kind of like assuming someone here who searches for the EU is looking for detailed coverage of EU politics or economics, rather than European nations that are EU members. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I was also considering those who might find us from search engines, because I'd say most people are not searching for travel info when they search for ASEAN in actuality. ASEAN is a regional association, but it's not a region itself. The EU is likewise not a region, nor the African Union. Someone might go to Southeast Asia, but they won't go to ASEAN. Point 1 aside, Point 2 is really where we are now, I think. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Point 2: I would be happy to see an ASEAN section in South East Asia itself. Technicalities around PNG not really belonging to South East Asia are somewhat moot considering that ASEAN has no travel implications yet. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There is indeed an ASEAN region, as perceived as I recall in the region itself; however, that region is Southeast Asia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep ASEAN is a region, and it certainly does have travel implications. One ASEAN citizen can travel to other ASEAN countries without a visa, and for countries who are often not granted visa free travel, I see that as significant.  We have an article for European_Union, so I really don't see the difference in this regard.   --Inas (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The EU has so many travel implications for travel within the EU or from outside the EU to EU countries; by contrast, did you just mention the only travel-relevant distinction of ASEAN in a single sentence - that citizens of ASEAN countries can travel between them without visas? If so, in what way does that necessitate an entire article? Do you also propose for there to be articles about the Organization of American States and the Arab League? Where would you draw the line? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there really any other consequence of an EU country other than visa free travel between them for residents of the region. I can't see a substantial difference between them?  If the travel information relevant to ASEAN can be embedded in another article and redirected to, then that's fine.  --Inas (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They have freedom to live and work in every other EU country, just for starters. Try doing that if you're an Indonesian and want to move to Malaysia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But that is out of scope for a travel guide, yes? Travel wise, I see no significant difference, i.e freedom of travel without a visa.  --Inas (talk) 03:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Crunch time
Okay. The 14-day discussion period was over long ago. At this point, we clearly have a consensus not to delete the article, but there's no consensus as to whether to merge and redirect it or to keep it as is. As a concession to ChubbyWimbus' skepticism and Andrewssi2's outstanding delete vote, I'd like to tip the scale in favor of merging and redirecting this article to Southeast Asia. If anyone has any objections, let's hear them now; otherwise in a short time I'm going to proceed with merging and redirecting. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I agree with the redirect. Should have made that clear earlier. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * As long as the information that someone using ASEAN as a travel search would find useful is written in the article, I support the redirect, as well. For me, the important part is to make sure that someone doesn't create the redirect before adding the relevant information to the article. I also think the redirect should be made to the specific subheading where that information is located. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with ChubbyWimbus, but I still think the article does little harm as short article, and its information would probably only be relevant to those seeking it out.  --Inas (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: Merged and redirected to Southeast Asia. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)