Talk:Bangkok to Ho Chi Minh City overland

The Overland from Singapore to Shanghai itinerary already covers the Bangkok-HCMC section, why do we need to keep this separate? (WT-en) Jpatokal 21:30, 7 May 2006 (EDT)

BKK-Saigon is a completely different journey than Singapore-Shanghai, and starts in Bangkok. In case of overlap you are free to link to this itinerary or otherwise incorporate the content into yours. (WT-en) Piroco 18:49, 11 May 2006 (EDT)


 * Another possibility would be template inclusion, although my guess is that this part of the journey would be covered in more detail in its own article than in the larger one.


 * I see a number of reasons to keep this as a separate article. Level of detail is one. Also, I think that Bangkok is an air hub for the region, and itineraries that start and end there are likely to be useful.


 * Mostly I think that overlap in itineraries is less of a problem than overlap in the destination guides. I think that itineraries are less well-defined than our destination guides, and we need to do some experimentation with them. Let's have the itinerary garden grow a little more before we prune it back too much. --(WT-en) Evan 19:38, 11 May 2006 (EDT)


 * Never taken this trip, and found this informative.

VFD discussion
This article engendered a particularly long discussion on the Project:Votes for deletion page, which is reproduced below. -- (WT-en) Bill-on-the-Hill 11:46, 27 May 2006 (EDT)

Overlaps with Overland from Singapore to Shanghai. (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:02, 10 May 2006 (EDT) Note: I've changed my mind and am now in favor of keeping this. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:22, 18 May 2006 (EDT)


 * Keep. I think we need to work out what to do for itineraries that overlap, but I don't think that deleting the shortest segments is the answer. --(WT-en) Evan 22:18, 10 May 2006 (EDT)
 * If the shorter segment is more intensive or somehow covers matters from a different viewpoint, I would agree. For example, a longer journey might be accomplished in fewer days and pick fewer sights to see.  In the absence of an explaination like that, I'm leaning toward merge and delete. -- (WT-en) Colin
 * Isn't Project:Itineraries a better place to discuss this? I think the nature of itineraries, as we have them mapped out, makes them very likely to have overlapping and duplicate information. For example, we have itineraries that cover the same area but with different time periods. I also think that for someone who's going from Bangkok to Saigon, Overland from Singapore to Shanghai has a lot of information they don't need, and probably leaves out some information they may want. I think dupes in itineraries are OK, since mostly they should link out to destination guides for detailed information. Finally, I think that some of the non-destination-guide content like travel topics and itineraries need more in the way of growth, not pruning. Let's wait until having too many itineraries is a problem before we start hacking out duplicates. --(WT-en) Evan 19:38, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Keep. Singapore to Shanghai is a completely different itinerary. 84.9.98.130 18:40, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Could you please elaborate on this? On the face of it this new itinary is completely covered in the prior article.  Why do you think we need a separate article for this segment rather than just incorporating this content into the older article? -- (WT-en) Colin 19:11, 11 May 2006 (EDT)
 * Yeah, this is my question too. I'm OK with different itineraries that cover different routes, but having different pages for exactly the same route just seems redundant.  Would it be an acceptable compromise to chop up Singapore-Shanghai into Singapore-Bangkok, Bangkok-HCMC, HCMC-Shanghai legs? (WT-en) Jpatokal 22:23, 11 May 2006 (EDT)


 * Delete. Move some of the information into Overland from Singapore to Shanghai. Some of the more specific stuff can go in Cambodia or the cities. (WT-en) Pashley 21:04, 11 May 2006 (EDT)


 * I think the suggestion of chopping up Singapore-Shangai into Singapore-BKK, BKK-HCMC and HCMC-Shanghai and then incorporating the two itineraries we now have into those three is the best suggestion! It solves both the overlap problem and the problem of irrelevance of a singapore-shanghai itinerary for someone travelling out of Bangkok. (WT-en) Piroco 12:25, 13 May 2006 (EDT)


 * Keep. The shorter segment is in fact more intensive and matters more from a different viewpoint, so Colin's test is fulfilled, I think. &mdash; (WT-en) Ravikiran 13:45, 13 May 2006 (EDT)


 * I think not. This not only overlaps the Singapore-Shanghai intinerary, it also covers almost exactly the same ground as One month in Southeast Asia. (WT-en) Pashley 20:44, 13 May 2006 (EDT)


 * Have a look at how it's been organized now. I've followed up on Jpatokal's suggestion to create singapore-bkk, bkk-hcmc and hcmc-shanghai, that should suit everybody's needs. Overlap is unavoidable, both with city guides and with other suggested itineraries. I don't think the way around it is to delete and merge as much as possible. Let the hundred flowers blossom. (WT-en) Piroco 14:53, 14 May 2006 (EDT)


 * I have looked and do not like the "solution". As I see it, One month in Southeast Asia plus the various city and country entries cover everything that's in Bangkok-HCMC. Travelling Bangkok-HCMC is just part of wandering around SE Asia; there is no reason to have it as a separate itinerary. S'pore-Shanghai, on the other hand, is long enough to be interesting. I'm tempted to restore it to its earlier form, but will await comment and perhaps consensus. (WT-en) Pashley 10:00, 16 May 2006 (EDT)


 * Am I the only one getting a feeling this is turning into some kind of turf war? Quite frankly a bit tired of spending my time on an unproductive debate over structure, it doesn't feel very constructive to have a never ending debate about where to put stuff, and I'm not really sure it is the most important thing we should be worried about either. Pashley's arguments are nonsensical; why merge BKK-HCMC into the One month in Southeast Asia which is, at this point, only a stub? Why not rather link to a more extensive itinerary from the list of suggestions on the one month-article? Why keep singapore-shanghai, when the route covered is more accessible to more people if it's split up, but will be difficult to find if we keep it as it was? If you only want to travel one leg of it, you're not likely to look at a singapore-shanghai article if where you want to go is bangkok to siem reap. Why are long itineraries 'more interesting' than shorter ones? Well, I guess it's a view of sorts, but it certainly isn't very well founded. Sorry, I don't get it --- are we in some kind of turf war or are we still trying to make a travel site?  I need to be reminded. (WT-en) Piroco 00:09, 18 May 2006 (EDT)
 * You're stumbled onto a little gray area in Wikivoyage's policies, so what you're seeing now is people trying to figure out how we should handle not just this, but future cases as well. The correct thing to do, though, is to keep the article and continue the policy discussion on Project:Itineraries. (WT-en) Jpatokal 00:22, 18 May 2006 (EDT)
 * What gave me the feeling of a turf war, and irritated me fairly severely, was the retaliatory vfd on S'pore to Shanghai, followed by splitting it up before any consensus had been reached. Possibly parts of my response were over-reaction. Any further discussion on Project:Itineraries. (WT-en) Pashley 02:23, 21 May 2006 (EDT)


 * Keep. To make the consensus clear, I've changed my mind too. This intinerary is clearly a good contribution, and we should keep it. We do have some issues to sort out &mdash; the general problem of intinerary overlap, whether splitting S'pore to Shanghai was actually a good idea, whether some stuff currently in this itinerary should be in destination articles &mdash; but only Jpatokal and I ever advocated deleting this one, so now that we've both rethought that, there's consensus. (WT-en) Pashley 11:40, 27 May 2006 (EDT)